25800 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Oct 3, 2003 11:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Issue 12, the Buddha's Last Meal. Dear Sarah, Derek and all, I found in the Milinda Questions: 175 that Milinda discussed the last meal with Nagasena. Milinda said: Nagasena answered:< ...For that alms is full of virtue, full of advantage. The gods, O king, shouted in joy and gladness at the thought: "This is the last meal the Tathaagata will take," and communicated a divine power of nourishment to that tender pork. And that was itself in good condition, light, pleasant, full of flavour, and good for digestion. It was not because of it that any sickness fell upon the Blessed One, but it was because of the extreme weakness of his body, and because of the period of life he had to live been exhausted, that the disease arose, and grew worse and worse....So this was not, O king, the fault of the food that was presented, and you can not impute any harm to it."> op 03-10-2003 09:18 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > The verse (added later) definitely seems to say he got sick ‘from the > suukara-maddava (tender pork)’[instr case] after eating the meal provided > by Cunda whereas the prose before it just says after eating the meal...he > got sick and had the deadly pains etc. 25801 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Oct 3, 2003 11:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:the Buddha's Last Meal. the Pali, also to Rob Edison Dear Derek, Thank you for the Pali. Now in the verse we have to look at the instrumental case: bhuttassa ca suukaramaddavena..: bhuttassa: from bhutta: eaten, or: the person who has eaten: thus, for the person who has eaten. suukaramaddavena: instrumental: by means of, by way of.. the suukaramaddava. In Warder lesson 8, there are many uses of instrumental case: accompaniement, endowed with. It says: . An example: angry at , here is an instrumental. Also: manner, in this way. So, it is not as strong as paccaya, condition, used in the Co: the food was *not* the condition. Also time: at the end of which. aparena samayena: after some time. There are many uses, a wide meaning. Here is the Co: 20. : It arose fo him who had eaten, but not by the condition of what was eaten; if he had not eaten...> as is: he could not have gone afoot. When I compare texts, I am inclined to give the instrumental case a more general annotation. It is different from the ablative, not a definite cause. What do you think? I would like to know what the Saddaniti has to say, perhaps we shift to Pali list? As to diarrhoea, I do not see the Pali word blood, lohita. We cannot bother Jim, he is away, but perhaps Rob Ed? He has so much experience. I heard there is the first snow in Island. Nina. op 03-10-2003 00:34 schreef Derek Cameron op derekacameron@y...: > PTS D ii.128 > tipitaka.org DN 2.3.190 > > cundassa bhatta.m bhu~njitvaa kammaarassaati me suta.m > aabaadha.m samphusii dhiiro pabaalha.m maara.nantika.m > > bhuttassa ca suukaramaddavena > byaadhippabaalho udapaadi satthuno > (virecamaano? viriccamaano? viri~ncamaano?) bhagavaa avoca > gacchaamaha.m kusinaara.m nagaranti 25802 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Oct 3, 2003 11:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Nina & Yahoo Dear Sarah, thank you for all the trouble. I can easily repost my mails, I do not know whether you frwd them already meanwhile. OK I send them now. We are not going for a trek in Ardennes now because of heavy wheather. Nina op 03-10-2003 08:42 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > > Nina hasn't gone away yet, but she's been having problems with yahoo 25803 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Oct 3, 2003 11:13am Subject: Tiika Visuddhimagga 18. Relevant text Vis 18: 18. But in either of these cases any skill in means to cause the production of such and such things, which skill occurs at that moment and is aroused on that occasion, is what is called "skill in means", according as it is said: 'And all understanding of means thereto is "skill in means"' (Vbh. 326). So it is of three kinds as skill in improvement, in detriment, and in means. 18. sabbattha pana tesa.m tesa.m dhammaana.m upaayesu nibbattikaara.nesu ta.mkha.nappavatta.m .thaanuppattika.m kosalla.m upaayakosalla.m naama. yathaaha -- ``sabbaapi tatrupaayaa pa~n~naa upaayakosalla''nti (vibha0 771). eva.m aayaapaayaupaayakosallavasena tividhaa. Tiika text: words: accaayika: urgent bhaya (n): fear, danger tikicchaa (f): art of healing .thaana (n): place, condition, reason .thaanuppatti: instant arising .thaanaso: with reason, at once, instantly kara.niiya: ought to be done Tiika: 18. sabbatthaati sabbesu. As to the words, in every way, this means in all (these cases). tesa.m tesa.m dhammaananti sattaana.m ta.mta.mhitasukhadhammaana.m. As to the words, of such and such things, this means, of such and such beneficial and happy things for beings *. ta"nkha.nappavattanti accaayike kicce vaa bhaye vaa uppanne tassa tikicchanattha.m tasmi.myeva kha.ne pavatta.m. As to the words, (skill)occurring at that moment, this means, when a sudden need or a danger has arisen, it occurs at that very moment with the purpose of remedying it. .thaanena uppatti etassa atthiiti .thaanuppattika.m, .thaanaso eva uppajjanaka.m. There is the arising of it on that occasion and thus it is aroused on that occasion, it is arising instantly. tatrupaayaati tatra tatra kara.niiye upaayabhuutaa. As to the words, (and all understanding of) the means thereto, that is: what constitutes the means concerning such or such task to be done. ****** English: As to the words, in every way, this means in all (these cases). As to the words, of such and such things, this means, of such and such beneficial and happy things for beings *. As to the words, (skill)occurring at that moment, this means, when a sudden need or a danger has arisen, it occurs at that very moment with the purpose of remedying it. There is the arising of it on that occasion and thus it is aroused on that occasion, it is arising instantly. As to the words, (and all understanding of) the means thereto, that is: what constitutes the means concerning such or such task to be done. _________ * Thus, it is the understanding which is skill in means to cause the production of such and such happy and beneficial things for beings. ******* Nina. 25804 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Oct 3, 2003 11:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Advice on Discussion Topics Dear Htoo, very good topics, and you know, we could also use them here in dsg, what do you think? But only one by one, they are so many. Nina op 30-09-2003 16:56 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > 1.Difference between Moha and Avijja > 2.Does Akusala co-exist Kusala? > 3.Is it possible that Nama exist on their own without any Rupa? > 4.Asannasatta Rupa Brahma and where is their Citta? > 5.Do Brahma go to Apaya Bhumi directly? > 6.How do Arahats use their time before Parinibbana? > 7.Is Anicca Anatta or is Dukkha Anatta? Which one is Anatta? > 8.What is the object of Arahatta Magga Citta? > 9.Are all Tilekkhana seen at the same time? > 10.When or where is the distinction between previous life and present > life? > 11.Can animal reborn at Deva realms? > 12. Are there animals at Deva realms ( horse cart driven by Martali )? > 13.Are there 4 Rupa Jhana or 5 Rupa jhana? > 14. What is Vicara and what is the difference between Vitakka and > Vicara? > 15.What is Saddha? > 16.All Kusala Cittas are accompanied by Saddha. If so, what about non- > Buddhists giving their possession as offering to other people or > group as charity? > 17. Is Miccha-Ditthi Akusala? > 18. Are all non-Buddhists commiting Akusala because of their Miccha- > Ditthi? > 19. What is Samma-Ditthi? Is it Vitakka or anything else? > 20.Do Visuddhi Magga come one after another? > 21.Are Sotapana free from Akusala? If so, what are possible Akusala > in them and compare them with those of Puthujana? > 22.Why don't Brahmas have Tadaarmmanacitta? > 23.What are Manodvaravithicittas and Visayapavatti? > 24.Can Arahats experience Nibbana before Parinibbana? In which way? > 25.Why do Dvi-Pancavinnana have only 7 Cetasikas? > 26.Do Mana and Dosa arise together? > 25805 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Oct 3, 2003 11:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasikas As Designers Or Helpers ( 01 ) Dear Htoo and Rob M, I liked your discussion on citta and cetasikas. When citta is the object of awareness, cetasikas cannot be known at the same time, although they accompany citta. Seeing can be object of awareness. At other times it can be dosa or feeling. The way you, Htoo, explained about purity of citta is the same as we heard from A. Sujin in Bgk. < Citta is pure. It is clean. It is luminous. It is radiant. It is free of sins and free of all Akusala. This is its origionality. But as Cetasikas always accompany him, its pureness has gone and there arise different Cittas good and bad. > Thank you, with appreciation, Nina. 25806 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Oct 3, 2003 11:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Advice on Discussion Topics Dear Rob M, Yes, it is a good idea, also what Christine and Larry suggested. with appreciation, Nina. op 30-09-2003 16:43 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > > Ignorance would be a major theme of "What is the Buddhist > perspective on life (right view)?" 25807 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Oct 3, 2003 0:24pm Subject: Re: Dhamma Issue 12, the Buddha's Last Meal. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > > Dear Sarah, Derek and all, > I found in the Milinda Questions: 175 that Milinda discussed the last meal > with Nagasena. Milinda said: fruit when it turned to poison, gave rise to disease...> > Nagasena answered:< ...For that alms is full of virtue, full of advantage. > The gods, O king, shouted in joy and gladness at the thought: "This is the > last meal the Tathaagata will take," and communicated a divine power of > nourishment to that tender pork. And that was itself in good condition, > light, pleasant, full of flavour, and good for digestion. It was not because > of it that any sickness fell upon the Blessed One, but it was because of the > extreme weakness of his body, and because of the period of life he had to > live been exhausted, that the disease arose, and grew worse and worse....So > this was not, O king, the fault of the food that was presented, and you can > not impute any harm to it."> Hi Nina, This source doesn't clear up this matter nor answer the question I have raised. Nagasena, the elder monk who is the protagonist of "The Milinda Qustions", was speaking to King Milinda about something that he did not know first-hand. He wasn't present when the Buddha died and had no way of knowing its cause. He is simply going on the information from the commentaries to the suttas (which he learned being a monk), which again were composed after the fact and may not be factual. It is not beneficial to quote hearsay sources to either support or deny the factuality of other hearsay sources. The original sources themselves must be analyzed to determine the factuality of secondary sources. Metta, James 25808 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Oct 3, 2003 0:28pm Subject: [dsg] Re:the Buddha's Last Meal. the Pali, also to Rob Edison Hi Nina and all, As from the last day of September, Rob Eddison went off-line with no internet or email access for at least the next four months. Also stepped down from the mod. position on DL at that time. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom 25809 From: Derek Cameron Date: Fri Oct 3, 2003 1:05pm Subject: [dsg] Re:the Buddha's Last Meal. the Pali, also to Rob Edison Hi, Nina, > What do you think? I think what we have here is a possible linguistic ambiguity in the original Pali. > bhuttassa ca suukaramaddavena In attempting to make sense of it, I took bhuttassa as dative, meaning "for eating." But that instrumetal could mean either: And (ca) with the suukaramaddava (suukaramaddavena) for eating (bhuttassa) or it could mean: And (ca) by the suukaramaddava (suukaramaddavena) for eating (bhuttassa) As you say, the instrumental is not as strong as the ablative in implying causation. So, it could be either a coincidental accompaniment (the Buddha got ill and coincidentally just happened to have eaten suukaramaddava) or causation (the Buddha got ill by the eating of the suukaramaddava). My belief that there is ambiguity in the original language is strengthened by the fact that both the commentator and the author of the Milindapañha feel the need to clarify this point. What's also interesting is that the Milindapañha devotes a whole story to the issue, as though it were quite controversial, and important (in the author's mind) for the listener to believe that the Buddha did not die *because* of the suukaramaddava. > I heard there is the first snow in Island. A foggy 13 C here in Vancouver, and the promised afternoon "sunny periods" haven't materialized yet! Derek. 25810 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri Oct 3, 2003 1:17pm Subject: Re: particular. specific characteristics...... Sarah, Thank you for correcting me on the cause of rupa. It's easier for me to wax eloquent on these subjects if I know someone will come along later and repair the damage. :-) -------------- S: > (Rupas are conditioned by kamma, citta, temperature or nutrition, Ken. Those outside such as food or rocks are conditioned by temperature). ..... KH: >> It depends, not on how it is perceived, but on how it is conditioned (and is conditioned by either kusala kamma or akusala kamma). S: > i.e the experiencing of the object or vipaka cittas. Rupas [conditioned] by one of the 4 causes above - always an intricate set of conditions at work to include other support conditions too]. --------------- Now that you mention it, I have seen that explained before. I gather we can say that vipaka citta is conditioned by kamma; If it is conditioned by kusala kamma then it experiences a pleasant object -- akusala kamma, an unpleasant object. External sense objects (rupas), are conditioned by temperature; internal objects by kamma, citta, temperature or nutrition. That leaves only the cause of inherent pleasantness / unpleasantness to be explained. Is that what you are attributing to 'an intricate set of conditions?' Not as tidy as my version but more satisfactory :-) ---------------- S: > Btw, I could think of a very good reason to go from the Sunshine coast to the Gold coast for a holiday: quality time with Sue, your wife who never got her proper shower on the ranch and happily teaches whilst you check out the surf;-)) ------------- You are referring to the Balinese bathroom I thoughtfully incorporated into the family home. Why are women so unappreciative? Kind regards, Ken H 25811 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Oct 3, 2003 1:24pm Subject: kamanita Dear All, Could anyone refresh my memory as to the name (and sutta ref) of the person who spent the night in a potters' (?) shed with the Buddha unaware of his true identity until after receiving a Dhamma talk? Ajahn Amaro mentions him as Kamanita - but I can't find a sutta reference by that name. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 25812 From: Derek Cameron Date: Fri Oct 3, 2003 1:42pm Subject: Re: kamanita Hi, Christine, It was Pukkusati in MN 140 I think. Derek. 25813 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Oct 3, 2003 2:20pm Subject: Re: kamanita Hi Derek and all, Thanks for the ref. to MN 140. What a long sutta! Pukkusati was killed by a cow after the Dhamma talk given by the Buddha, and was reborn in the Pure Abodes. I think this happened to a number of people in the scriptures. There certainly were some very irate cows about in those days ... metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Cameron" wrote: > Hi, Christine, > > It was Pukkusati in MN 140 I think. > > Derek. 25814 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Oct 3, 2003 4:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion Hi Sarah, Who else can understand the Buddha's teaching for you except you yourself?? You are a teacher right?? As a teacher, you teach your students and help them learn. But when they understand something, they learn and understand it for themselves, they reach their own understanding. You can teach and help them in their learning process, but you can't learn and understand it for them. Your understanding is not theirs. Likewise, when I am thirsty, I would drink some water myself to quench the thirst. Although others can help me to get the water, no one else can drink the water and quench the thirst for me. Is body conditioned?? Is intestine conditioned?? Is feces conditioned?? Your comments are appreciated. Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor, 25815 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Oct 3, 2003 4:21pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Sukin, That is your view, not the right view as taught by the Buddha. Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Victor, [snip] And what is this > Right View? That all there is are the cittas, cetasikas and rupa. Aside > from this, nothing does, all being concept only! [snip] 25816 From: m. nease Date: Fri Oct 3, 2003 4:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: kamanita Hi Chris, ----- Original Message ----- From: christine_forsyth To: Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 2:20 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: kamanita > Pukkusati was > killed by a cow after the Dhamma talk given by the Buddha, and was > reborn in the Pure Abodes. I think this happened to a number of > people in the scriptures. There certainly were some very irate cows > about in those days ... Still true today--an Ozzie monk in NE Thailand (Ven. Issaro) explained to me that it's because 'they think weah TIGAHS!!!'--which he found quite hilarious. I was glad to have white rather than ochre robes... mike 25817 From: Date: Fri Oct 3, 2003 5:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Jon: "Samatha/tranquillity is the name given to a very specific kind of kusala consciousness, so if it's not wholesome then it can't properly be called samatha/tranquillity as used in the texts." Hi Jon, I look at it the other way. If it is tranquility then it must be wholesome. So a tranquil sleep is a wholesome sleep. The tranquil sleep of an arahant and the tranquil sleep of a murderer are both wholesome. The same with the tranquility that arises after washing the dishes. Maybe you could give an example of what you think is tranquility that arises in everyday life. One problem with the wholesome aspect of tranquility is that "wholesomeness" is a volitional act that produces a conventionally desirable (by merchants and attorneys) kamma result but tranquility tends to be thought of as the absence of volitional activity. Any ideas on how to get around that problem? Larry 25818 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Oct 3, 2003 5:53pm Subject: jhana/vipassana ---Dear group. A reply I posted on pali list: , > > 2. one can study all the pali, commentaries, and > subcommentaries until the end of time, but in the > final analysis, the only valid proof is the > confirmation from one's own realization experienced > directly. To this end, we have to carefully scrutinize > the canon to identify which parts are the most > authoritative and significant. For example, in the > early suttas, you would be hard pressed to find any > references to kasinas and 40 meditation objects. What > you do find is sutta passages that indicate that of > the 4 foundations of mindfulness, mindfulness of body > is the most important, and of the those, mindfulness > of breath is given special prominence. What this tells > me is that the serious cultivator should be spending a > fair amount of their effort engaged in mindfulness of > body, especially the breath. The early pali suttas > also say that if we carefully cultivate mindfulness of > breath, that it would naturally bring all 4 > foundations of mindfulness to fruition, would lead to > samatha, vipassana, single pointedness of mind and > induce jhanic absorption. What a wonderful tool! All > the study of the canon does not equal one minute of > peace, joy, tranquillity and insight that is easily > availabe to us from cultivating the breath. This can > be verified with one's own experience without even > obtaining jhanic absorption. __________ Dear , If one has the ability and inclination to develop anapanasati that is great. Still it is good to know that many conditions are needed to suceed in this: Some meditation subjects need a crosslegged posture, erect back, a very quiet place, solitude... This is all well explained in the visuddhimagga. In particular this applies to anapanasati - breath. Also we should know that anapanasati is singled out as being the most difficult of all the 40 objects.Here is a passage from the Visuddhimagga Viii 211: "Although any meditation subject, no matter what, is successful only in one who is mindful and fully aware, yet any meditation subject other than this one gets more evident as he goes on giving it his attention. But this mindfulness of breathing is difficult, difficult to develop, a field in which only the minds of Buddhas, paccekabuddhas and Buddhas sons are at home. It is no trivial matter, nor can it be cultivated by trivial persons.." (we discussed this on pali list last year) We might be concentrating on the breath with subtle lobha (attachment) not realising that true samatha comes with alobha, detachment. In many suttas the Buddha was speaking to monks who had vast accumulations of panna and other parami. It is not, I believe, that the Buddha said that all should take up anapanasati. There are other types of samatha - such as Maranasati (meditation on death)- that are suitable for all times. For example the Anguttara nikaya (Book of the Elevens ii 13 p213 Mahanama) says about Buddhanusati and Dhammanusati and several other samatha objects: "` you should develop it as you sit, as you stand, as you lie, as you apply yourself to business. You should make it grow as you dwell at home in your lodging crowded with children" In the Samyutta nikaya V (Sayings on stream entry p347 The great chapter Dhammadina ) 5oo rich merchants came to see the Buddha . They asked how they should live their lives. The Buddha suggested that they train themselves thus: "as to those discourses uttered by the Tathagatha, deep, deep in meaning, transcendental and concerned with the void (about anatta) from time to time we will spend our days learning them. That is how you must spend your days." In the satipatthana sutta the Buddha explains the four foundations of mindfulness. These can be cultivated in any position at any time. ____ : Talk about accumulations, or lack > thereof, is also baffling to me. Certainly some would > find seclusion and tranquillity easier to cultivate > than others, but if you don't accumulate now, when are > you going to accumulate? After you're dead? ____ It is relevant because this is a Buddha sasana - a very rare event. If one develops samatha bhavana that is wonderful. Indeed all of us have developed samatha and we must have succeeded in gaining jhana in countless lives. This is because of the vast time of samsara. However only very rarely has there been insight into anatta, into the lakkhana (characteristic) of elements. That is why some of us believe that we should give stress to this aspect of the Dhamma. The Buddha sasana will soon be extinguished and it will be a long time before another samma-sammbuddha arises. RobertK 25819 From: Date: Fri Oct 3, 2003 6:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Sukin etc., The main problem I see with your understanding of concept is the questionable status of compounds. If all compounds are only conventional then the khandhas are only conventional, because they always arise as compounds. If some compounds are ultimate dhammas then what is the criterion for this distinction? In the Visuddhimagga we learned that this criterion is "sabhava" meaning individual arising. The key concept here is "individual". "Individual" can't mean indivisible because it is applied to the khandhas. I think "individual" means clearly distinguishable. If so, anything that clearly arises is an ultimate dhamma. So excrement, a carriage, and a person would all qualify as ultimate dhammas because they clearly arise. What would not qualify is general ideas of excrement, carriage, person or the words "excrement" "carriage", or "person". These don't arise as external realities but only as objects of thinking (vitakka and vicara). Hence, they are concepts. As I see it there is a slight problem with the nama category. Nama cognizes an object. Concepts don't think so how can concept be nama? But one might also ask do feelings feel? A feeling is the expression of the activity of feeling. Similarly, concept is the expression of thinking. For this reason, concept is nama. Furthermore, we could say the name "carriage" is a convention but the reality of a carriage is what it is even if you have never seen one before and have no idea what it is. You could create a mental image of a carriage and ascribe infinite qualities to it, but this (concept) would always be only the shadow of the reality of a specific carriage that was made, lasts for a while, and falls apart. You might think we cannot realize anatta if compounds are ultimately real but the recognition of anatta is largely dependent on objectivity and the perception of impermanence, not the perception of indivisibility. Larry 25820 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri Oct 3, 2003 6:29pm Subject: Re: The Perfect Gift Dear Rob M, Thanks for the advice on giving blood, I hope it leads me to do it more often. For the reasons you have given, donating blood comes deceptively close to a situation where we can control the arising of dhammas. That is, to where there is no need for the right conditions for kusala action: we can 'just do it!' Kom, also, has written about dana. Like you, he described certain things we can do, confident that our motives are kusala. How could we have selfish motives for giving away something precious? I think the catch is that, most of the time, we simply don't do it. In my case, being a low-income earner, donating money is not a big option but I do have time. The local animal shelter needs volunteers to take dogs for a walk; the Meals on Wheels society needs drivers; there must be elderly neighbours who need help with shopping and lawn-mowing. I think about doing these things all the time but I don't do them. It's like the first time I tried to jump of the high diving tower -- I am frozen to the spot. The required conditions for kusala are not there. Have you been following Jon and Larry's conversation on 'concentration and samatha?' Jon wrote: "I think it's useful to consider aspects of daily life that do or could involve instances of this kind of kusala (i.e., samatha). Perhaps you wouldn't mind suggesting 1 or 2 yourself (real or hypothetical). Others may also be interested to ponder on this." Do you have any [almost foolproof] suggestions for samatha in the same way that you have for dana? Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Dear Friends, > > Blood is an anonymous gift. There is no way that the recipient could > know who the donor was. Donating blood is a pure act of giving, > without any other possible motives. > > 25821 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Oct 3, 2003 7:12pm Subject: Re: The Perfect Gift Hello Ken, I agree that an untrained beginner couldn't dive off a high tower when frozen with fear - but if you wanted to eventually do that, you could learn to dive off the side of the pool first, then the starting blocks, then the low diving board, then the next height etc. etc. Isn't it possible to play a little with the conditions, accumulate the habit of diving from lower heights for a length of time before having the courage to go from the top of the tower? If the local animal shelter needs helpers, start with a phone call and find out when. Then promise them two or three hours once a week/month (or whatever). Or pop down for a look, and have the same conversation. Things are easier when you've made a commitment. HG - Is it possible that 'the required conditions for kusala are not there' is just, well, a good excuse? :-) (You know, when Rusty REALLY doesn't want to go outside on a cold night to investigate a noise in the yard, he holds his 'broken' paw up - that's his 'the required conditions for viriya (energy) are not there' speech)!:-):-) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Dear Rob M, > > Thanks for the advice on giving blood, I hope it leads > me to do it more often. > > For the reasons you have given, donating blood comes > deceptively close to a situation where we can control > the arising of dhammas. That is, to where there is no > need for the right conditions for kusala action: we > can 'just do it!' > > Kom, also, has written about dana. Like you, he > described certain things we can do, confident that our > motives are kusala. How could we have selfish motives > for giving away something precious? > > I think the catch is that, most of the time, we simply > don't do it. In my case, being a low-income earner, > donating money is not a big option but I do have time. > The local animal shelter needs volunteers to take dogs > for a walk; the Meals on Wheels society needs drivers; > there must be elderly neighbours who need help with > shopping and lawn-mowing. I think about doing these > things all the time but I don't do them. It's like the > first time I tried to jump of the high diving tower -- I > am frozen to the spot. The required conditions for > kusala are not there. > > Have you been following Jon and Larry's conversation on > 'concentration and samatha?' Jon wrote: "I think it's > useful to consider aspects of daily life that do or could > involve instances of this kind of kusala (i.e., samatha). > Perhaps you wouldn't mind suggesting 1 or 2 yourself > (real or hypothetical). Others may also be interested to > ponder on this." > > Do you have any [almost foolproof] suggestions for > samatha in the same way that you have for dana? > > Kind regards, > Ken H 25822 From: Date: Fri Oct 3, 2003 4:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi, Larry - In a message dated 10/3/03 9:04:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Sukin etc., > > The main problem I see with your understanding of concept is the > questionable status of compounds. If all compounds are only conventional > then the khandhas are only conventional, because they always arise as > compounds. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: A khandha is definitely concept-only. It is a supposed aggregate/collection, and, ultimately, there is no such thing. The rupakhandha is nothing at all except conventionally. Rupas are phenomena that arise and cease. The so-called rupakhandha never arise or ceases, for it doesn't even exist. Nowhere is the so-called rupakhandha observed, only rupas are. There is the idea/notion/concept of rupakhandha, a well grounded concept based on actual events (or, better, there are concepts [plural] of such), but the only "collecting" done is done by the mind in forming the concept/concepts. Certainly it is okay to speak conventionally of the collection of all rupas, but if we push that too far, we have to ask where that collection is, and when it is observed, and the answer comes to be "nowhere and nowhen"! ----------------------------------------------------------. If some compounds are ultimate dhammas then what is the> > criterion for this distinction? In the Visuddhimagga we learned that > this criterion is "sabhava" meaning individual arising. > ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's an interesting translation of 'sabhava'. It is far less substantialist than the more usual "own being". ------------------------------------------------------------ The key concept> > here is "individual". "Individual" can't mean indivisible because it is > applied to the khandhas. I think "individual" means clearly > distinguishable. If so, anything that clearly arises is an ultimate > dhamma. > -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Khandhas don't arise, only dhammas do. -------------------------------------------------------------- So excrement, a carriage, and a person would all qualify as> > ultimate dhammas because they clearly arise. ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: We can speak that way (of these "things" arising), but that is mere convention, and taken *literally* and *ultimately*, it is false. It is meaningful conventional speech to say, for example, that a newborn baby has arisen, but literally, no baby is ever born anywhere. The fact of the matter is that the conventional speech "A baby is born" is an awesomely mind-boggling shorthand for an impossibly complex body of speech that comes closer to expressing what actually has occurred, and, in fact, to spell out completely what literally has occurred might well take an entire lifetime, if, in fact, it is adequately expressible at all! Ultimately, all speech misses. ----------------------------------------------------------- What would not qualify is> > general ideas of excrement, carriage, person or the words "excrement" > "carriage", or "person". These don't arise as external realities but > only as objects of thinking (vitakka and vicara). Hence, they are > concepts. > > As I see it there is a slight problem with the nama category. Nama > cognizes an object. Concepts don't think so how can concept be nama? But > one might also ask do feelings feel? A feeling is the expression of the > activity of feeling. Similarly, concept is the expression of thinking. > For this reason, concept is nama. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: To me, nama is simply mental as opposed to physical. Included in the category 'mental' is any functioning which is, or is associated with, the taking of an object. ------------------------------------------------------- > > Furthermore, we could say the name "carriage" is a convention but the > reality of a carriage is what it is even if you have never seen one > before and have no idea what it is. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: When you "see a carriage," the reality consists of many, many visual discernments, acts of sa~n~na, and acts of mental reification (acts of wordless conceptualization which mentally group together various of these visual rupas as alleged individual entities, and these into a single "carriage," named or not.) You *never* see a carriage! You only see sights, and the mind grasps an alleged carriage. ------------------------------------------------------- > > You could create a mental image of a carriage and ascribe infinite > qualities to it, but this (concept) would always be only the shadow of > the reality of a specific carriage that was made, lasts for a while, and > falls apart. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: We create such a shadow whenever we "see a carriage", even though we don't realize that. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > You might think we cannot realize anatta if compounds are ultimately > real but the recognition of anatta is largely dependent on objectivity > and the perception of impermanence, not the perception of > indivisibility. > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: To realize anatta, we must come to see that no "things" exist at all. There are no entities, no substances, no cores, and no selves. There are namic and rupic events, including, as part of the stream of events, the superimposing of mental concept-constructs on the flow of experience, but even these elementary namic and rupic events are inseparable, interdependent, and empty of own-being. Even at the so-called paramattha dhamma level we impose separation and reification! What there actually *is* is beyond the power of thought and speech to describe, but with the uprooting of the three poisons, with the realization of that bottomless absence that is nibbana, there is full realization of anatta. From our perspective "below heaven", we are engaging largely in empty talk, but we fool ourselves into thinking that we know what we are talking about. There's only one way to come to know what we are talking about - that is to take the Buddha's medicine, to take it all, to the last drop, until we are cured. But then, of course, we will also know, first hand, that what is "real" is beyond all words and concepts, something shockingly different ... and happier (to borrow a usage from Walt Whitman). -------------------------------------------------- > > Larry > > =========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 25823 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 0:07am Subject: How does one handle stressful results of kamma? Dear All, Most of us know the basics about kamma. "Beings are the owners of their kamma, heir to their kamma, born of their kamma, related through their kamma, and have their kamma as their arbitrator. Kamma is what creates distinctions among beings in terms of coarseness & refinement." MN135 Nyanaponika says that "Vipaka 'karma-result' is any karmically (morally) neutral mental phenomenon (e.g. bodily agreeable or painful feeling, sense-consciousness, etc.) which is the result of wholesome or unwholesome volitional action (karma, q.v.) through body, speech or mind, done either in this, or some previous life. Totally wrong is the belief that, according to Buddhism, everything is the result of previous action. Never, for example, is any karmically wholesome or unwholesome volitional action the result of former action, being in reality itself karma. >snip<< Karma-produced (kammaja or kamma- samutthana) corporeal things are never called kamma-vipaka as this term may be applied only to mental phenomena." Accepting this, that whatever happens to a person is the result of their actions previously taken in either this life or a past one ... Is there anything else to do, other than endure, hope equanimity arises and recollect the above verse or similar? Enduring is O.K. in the short term, or even for a few days, or weeks - but what about if life and events are not good for a long, long time? Are the reactions one experiences as a result of unhappy experiences just creating more unhappy experiences in the future? What to do? {Sorry if this is a repeat of any question previously asked - there are about 50 Useful Posts on this topic and a search of the archived posts at escribe.com on "kamma" brings up 2717 posts, i.e. about one in eight dsg posts mentions kamma. So, it's quite daunting and unless one has a lot of time, there is almost too much info to go through.] metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 25824 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 1:46am Subject: Re: The Perfect Gift Hi Christine, ----------- C: > Isn't it possible to play a little with the conditions, ----------- If that was even the slightest bit possible, then everything would be possible. If it was possible to say, "Let my intentions (cetana), be good, just this once," then it would be possible to say, "Let this consciousness (citta), live forever." But it isn't :-( -------------- C: > accumulate the habit of diving from lower heights for a length of time before having the courage to go from the top of the tower? -------------- Sure, in conventional reality, we do that sort of thing all the time. In conventional reality, control is taken as a basic fact of life. That's why the Dhamma is so hard to see. --------------- C: > If the local animal shelter needs helpers, start with a phone call and find out when. ---------------- That has been at the top of my 'to do' list for about three years. Rob M (and Kom if I remember correctly), have described certain conventional activities, such as blood donation, as readily identifiable signs of the absolute reality, dana. This is a rare thing because, ultimately, it's impossible for us to know the real motives -- the real dhammas -- involved at any one moment. My suggestion is that, even if (IF) it is possible for us uninstructed worldlings to identify a genuinely kusala course of action, that makes it is no more possible to follow it -- unless the conditions for following it are there. --------------- C: > HG - Is it possible that 'the required conditions for kusala are not there' is just, well, a good excuse? :-) --------------- Oh what a horrible thought! But yes, I suppose lazy people (of whom I am king), could use the Dhamma to get out of work. --------------- C: > (You know, when Rusty REALLY doesn't want to go outside on a cold night to investigate a noise in the yard, he holds his 'broken' paw up - that's his 'the required conditions for viriya (energy) are not there' speech)! :-):-) -------------- I have always had an affinity with animals -- Rusty sounds like my kinda guy. Kind regards, Ken H 25825 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 2:08am Subject: Re: comment on the diary --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Dear James, > > I am Janice Chung and I hope you > would still remember me! It was fascinating about the > diary you have written " Arrival and Cave Dweller" > > Here are some questions: > > Are there any Buddhists besides from you in Egypt? Are > there any Buddhist temples there? Do you go to the > temple everyday? > > So far, where have you explored in Cairo? I have been > to Cairo with my mom and cousin 2 years ago and it was > very amazing to learn about Egypt! > > That's all! > > Metta, > > Janice Hi Starkid Janice! Yes, I remember you; I hope you are doing well. I have done a little checking around and so far I haven't found any Buddhist temples here in Cairo. I don't know if I am the only Buddhist or not, but I seriously doubt that I am. Give me some more time and I may find something…I have only been here one and a half months. I have been to the pyramids and the Egyptian Museum and some other sights around Cairo. I have also been to the Red Sea where I went swimming in the sea and stayed at a private resort. Yes, Egypt is a very interesting place. It is amazing to go driving to downtown and to see these three huge pyramids behind the office buildings on the skyline; for a second you wonder if they are real. When you realize that they are real, it is mind-blowing to consider the history behind what you are seeing and where you are at. Sorry I don't have a lot of answers for you. Maybe I can have more details later. Metta, James 25826 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 2:22am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Victor, If you are saying that the terms Citta, Cetasika and the corresponding idea of Rupa are not used anywhere in the Suttas, and if I agree with you for a moment, that the Suttas is the only reliable source of Buddha's teachings, then I agree that the Buddha didn't use these words. However, as I understand, these words are used in the Abhidhamma and commentaries to denote the very same realities as expressed in the concept of Ayatanas and the Five Khandhas. And the Buddha *did* teach about these! So if you would ignore for a moment the issue about `source' of the teachings as I am presently doing, would you not then agree that the Buddha's teachings point to the reality of what these concepts, be it nama/rupa, khandhas, ayatana or dhatus or whatever you want to call them in any language, point to? But I agree with you, when you say, "That is your view, not the right view as taught by the Buddha." Because, no matter how much I repeat and contemplate and consider the Buddha's words, I am only just scratching the surface. So I do not *really* know Right View as taught by the Buddha, what I am doing is mostly parroting what others say. However, it is not as desolate as it might seem, we start from where we are, and there being no other way. Besides, is there anything better?! ;-) One great thing about the Buddha's teachings is that it appeals to all levels of intelligence (Rt. View), and each level of understanding comes with it the corresponding level of detachment which is quite freeing! Considering this, I think we need to go slowly and be aware of when there is a tendency to overreach. So Victor, when you said elsewhere, that what the Buddha taught was Dukkha, the Cause, the Ending and the Path, implying that this was all that was needed to know. Can you please put into your own words what you understand by the Four Noble Truths? While I can intellectually (and this too, very vaguely) agree that the whole of the Buddha's teachings is contained in these four truths, I don't think that it is at all simple to understand. When I consider it, it is all just `thinking'. And I am not talking just from the aspect that they are Ariyan saccha and so putthujanas like you and me, can never really grasp it. But even if I were to consider, out of the three kinds of Dukkha, the more gross and obvious one, dukkha dukkha, I can only *think* about it and do not actually insight it. It is always in retrospect even though it seems like real time. And I think it a mistake to think that such kind of observation, is `direct' understanding, or even that it *can* lead to the higher levels. Firstly there is no choosing the object of contemplation; secondly, dukkha is a characteristic of `realities'. And what are those realities? The khandhas; ayatanas; and for me, the classification that I am more comfortable with, citta, cetasika and rupa. And it is not only that it makes perfect sense to me, that one needs to understand first these realities before understanding the Tilakkhana, but because dhamma is anatta, understanding arises because of conditions just like everything else. One cannot choose to accept or deny anything. But in discussing our viewpoints we can come to know where we may be wrong, and if denying something, we risk misunderstanding that which we accept, if not outright contradiction. So let me ask you Victor, when you say Dukkha, what do you understand by it? Do you deny the existence of the five khandhas when they arise? If not, what are they? Are people and things included in the five khandhas? If so, which khandha and how? Citta is vinnana kahandha, Cetasikas are sankhara khandhas with the exception of sanna and vedana, each being a khandha of its own, and rupa is rupa khandhas. Do you agree? Got to write two more posts, so I will stop here and wait for your response. Metta, Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Sukin, > > That is your view, not the right view as taught by the Buddha. > > Peace, > Victor > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" > wrote: > > Hi Victor, > [snip] > And what is this > > Right View? That all there is are the cittas, cetasikas and rupa. > Aside > > from this, nothing does, all being concept only! > [snip] 25827 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 2:24am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Larry (and Howard), Larry, you said: The main problem I see with your understanding of concept is the questionable status of compounds. If all compounds are only conventional then the khandhas are only conventional, because they always arise as compounds. Sukin: I have always found some problem with understanding what the classification by way of Khandhas really implies. I once asked K. Sujin about it, and I think one thing she said was that to understand dhammas as khandhas required a very high level of panna. But we are talking about even the intellectual understanding here, and I am always confused when the terms, heaps, compound, groups and aggregates are used. And my understanding of pali is too little to allow the word `khandha' itself to shed any more light. But I do hear quite often on this list, that these khandhas are just those same realities as the other classifications as nama/rupa, ayatanas and dhatus. At the same time, I also hear that these different ways of classification appeals differently to different people, and so I interpret khandhas within the framework of my understanding about citta, cetasika and rupa. Therefore I am not sure if `compound' used by you is the same as what `khandhas' really imply, but at the same time, I am not inclined to view it as Howard does, that it is a `concept'. At this point I will just have to admit general ignorance. Larry: If some compounds are ultimate dhammas then what is the criterion for this distinction? In the Visuddhimagga we learned that this criterion is "sabhava" meaning individual arising. The key concept here is "individual". "Individual" can't mean indivisible because it is applied to the khandhas. I think "individual" means clearly distinguishable. Sukin: I like your conclusion that "individual" means clearly distinguishable". It reminds me vaguely of a post Jon wrote not too long back, about characteristic of dhammas being apprehended by panna, not as individual namas and rupas, but via many arising and fallings. And I think the important point to always keep in mind, especially for us Abhidhamma enthusiasts, is `what *appears* is what can be known by panna'. No need to think about number of cittas and cetasikas. Larry: If so, anything that clearly arises is an ultimate dhamma. So excrement, a carriage, and a person would all qualify as ultimate dhammas because they clearly arise. What would not qualify is general ideas of excrement, carriage, person or the words "excrement" "carriage", or "person". These don't arise as external realities but only as objects of thinking (vitakka and vicara). Hence, they are concepts. Sukin: I think as Rob M. explained in his post to Christine, the `unreality' is apprehended well before the stage of naming process. Vitakka (with vicara or not?) accompanies all the cittas except for the sense door vinnana. I will say a little more about this in my post to Howard in another thread, I wish you to refer to that too. Larry: As I see it there is a slight problem with the nama category. Nama cognizes an object. Concepts don't think so how can concept be nama? But one might also ask do feelings feel? A feeling is the expression of the activity of feeling. Similarly, concept is the expression of thinking. For this reason, concept is nama. Sukin: Feeling can be known to have certain characteristics, so do vitakka and vicara. But just as in the case of feeling, only panna of satipatthana can know the visesa lakkhana of it, so too the lakkhana of vittaka and vicara can be known. And so are you saying that to know the characteristic of vitakka and vicara is through knowing concept!? Larry: Furthermore, we could say the name "carriage" is a convention but the reality of a carriage is what it is even if you have never seen one before and have no idea what it is. Sukin: Sanna does the recognition and marking, and this works with vitakka and vicara even if one were blind and suddenly made to see. I think. Larry: You could create a mental image of a carriage and ascribe infinite qualities to it, but this (concept) would always be only the shadow of the reality of a specific carriage that was made, lasts for a while, and falls apart. Sukin: `Shadow of realities' or `shadow of a shadow' depends on the level of panna, I think. ;-) Larry: You might think we cannot realize anatta if compounds are ultimately real but the recognition of anatta is largely dependent on objectivity and the perception of impermanence, not the perception of indivisibility. Sukin: Talking at the intellectual level, I think if one does not appreciate the distinction between ultimate realities and conventional reality, impermanence too cannot be properly appreciated. As conceptual reality can only give rise to conceptual idea of impermanence. A `thing' such as a chariot, which is seen to exist up until the time that it is destroyed by various elements, can only give rise to inferential and deductive idea of impermanence. I realize that you are talking about momentary experience and what you are saying is that `chariot' arises and falls immediately, but what if this is not the case, and that the chariot you perceive to have arisen is of the same status as the one that lasts for 30, 40 years?! If so, this is not the understanding which is unique to the Buddha's teachings, but that of most other religions and philosophies, including science. The impermanence which the Buddha wished us to understand is tied to the understanding of anatta and dukkha, which is part of every momentary experience. Even this cannot come by thinking or even much developed panna of the level of satipatthana, before Stream Entry. But at least knowing `theoretically' that this is the case, is important, otherwise I believe it can lead to wrong practice and wrong view. Do you see any place for agreement Larry? Metta, Sukin. 25828 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 2:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion Hi Howard (and Sarah), Hope you don't mind my butting in. I have some thoughts but they are not so clear and convincing enough, and so I would like to know what you think of it. Howard, sometimes I get the impression that what you say about the process of `thinking' or `concept making', that this process involves an act of intelligence which even panna does not have. This is when you say that they "sum up certain experiences" or "make sense of" experiences. This seems to imply also, that this process is on the `initial level' before kilesas come in to distort the perception, the same in case of both putthujanas and arahattas. My understanding is that sanna, vitakka and vicara simply come in to play performing their function. True, that there are ultimate realities constantly hitting the senses giving this process of `concept making' to seem *more* real here, than when imagination takes place. So a putthujana and an arahatta will both agree to the conventional status of say, `Sarah is sitting in front of the computer'. However, I think rupas out there arise and fall because of their own conditions. It would be a mistake to imply that their existence depend on our perception. Similarly their `objective' status is not what it is, when we think we are making `sense of it'. The exact conditions for their arising and falling is beyond any one's ability to understand, except for the Buddha. And even here, "visible object" is just *one* of the many conditions which make up that reality out there. *All other conditions are dark*. Can you dig that?! Yet we worldlings, tend to base our knowledge of reality on just this one element! What I think is the basic difference between the putthujana and the arahatta's perception, is that for us it is informed by sanna and citta vipallasa. I think this comes into play immediately when anything is perceived. For the arahatta, there is no perversion of sanna and citta, so his concept of Sarah is not distorted as ours, I think. Does this make any sense? Metta, Sukin. > =========================== > A brief comment, bowing ever so slightly in your direction. I still > maintain that concepts are simply ideas, and ideas are mind-door objects, and > are namas. But, and this is a big 'but', concepts are not nearly so simple and > unitary as a perfunctory, unexamined observation would suggest. For example, to > say that we have an idea/concept of 'computer' is not quite so. Many > *differing*, and mostly quite vague, 'computer' ideas arise in the mind. One such idea > is a mental summing up of *certain* experiences, generally of complex streams > of experiences. and other such are summings up (and summonings up!) of yet > *other* such experiential streams. All of these embody experiences of a variety > of sorts including visual, tactile, and other types, and frequently "topped > off" by, if not a verbal expression, then at least by an impulse to same > reflecting a mental unification. Ideas and concepts are quite complex, difficult to > grasp, multi-formed, multi-layered, and elusive (and illusive!) - but they > *are* mind-door objects. > I find unacceptable the notion that penetration with wisdom of any > mind-door object is impossible. An arahant, or certainly a Buddha, would have the > wisdom to understand fully all the nuances and aspects of every arising > concept he encounters. Even we poor worldings can grasp many of the multi-layered > aspects of our concepts, observing how, for example, "the" tree concept is > built of other concepts such as bark, roots, branches (and branching), leaves, > etc, and associated notions of birds setting on branches, of bird nests etc, and > a further grasping of how, for example, the bark-concept is built of concepts 25829 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 2:35am Subject: Re: About Buddhism Hi Starkid Philip! Well, I see you have a lot more questions. Here go some answers: 1. How did you know that I should be nice to my sister and my teachers? Did anyone told you that I am being bad to them? Answer: No, no one told me you are being bad to them. I just had a feeling I should tell you that. I can't explain why. 2. Why did your luggage end up in France, when it should be in Cairo, Egypt? Answer: I went through France on my way to Cairo. They failed to put one of my cargo containers through at the France airport…so it was stuck there. When Air France in Cairo contacted Air France in France, the luggage was then sent through. This happens sometimes…it is one of the hazards of flying 3. Where are you staying now? In a friend's house or in a hotel? Answer: I am living in another apartment in Nasr City, within walking distance of the school where I teach. 4. Why do monks have to shave their heads and memorise the same words every day, and they must live in a monestary and they can't live like ordinary people? Please tell me. Answer: Philip, it isn't necessary to be a monk to follow the Buddha's teaching, but it is better to be a monk. The Buddha said in the Anguttara Nikaya 17: "There are two kinds of happiness, O monks. The happiness of the home life and the happiness of monkhood. But the happiness of monkhood is the higher of the two. The happiness of the senses and the happiness of renunciation. But the happiness of renunciation is the higher of the two…" Monks do all of those things because it brings them a higher happiness than what you and I experience in the home life. It might seem like they would be less happy, but it is actually the opposite. 5. Is Buddhism your first religion? Answer: I think you are asking: "Was Buddhism my first religion?" No, my first religion was actually Taoism…when I was 15 until 18 years old. When I was 19 I found that I needed to practice meditation to truly discover the mysteries of Taoism, so I became Buddhist. There isn't a lot of difference between the two…except for meditation. 6. Actually, is the Buddha male or female? Answer: The Buddha was male. 7. Is the Buddha a person? Answer: Yes, the Buddha was a person, a human being. 8. Is the Buddha as popular as soccer players such as David Beckham? Answer: I would say that the Buddha is more popular than David Beckham. David Beckham doesn't have his own religion with millions of devout followers. However, there is a Buddhist temple in Thailand that has a gold statue of David Beckham, so I guess you never know what the future might bring! ;-) Thanks for answering the questions. You are very welcome. Take care and be nice to your sister and teachers. Metta, James 25830 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 2:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: .. > If it is tranquility then it must be > wholesome. So a tranquil sleep is a wholesome sleep. The tranquil > sleep of an arahant and the tranquil sleep of a murderer are both > wholesome. > The same with the tranquility that arises after washing the dishes. Well it depends on whose definition of 'tranquillity' we are working with -- our own or the Buddha's ;-)). As I read the texts, the Buddha goes to some lengths to explain why conventional ideas of qualities or values such as understanding, worthiness, wealth, importance, desirability, effort, achievement, concentration and the like (and tranquillity) do not conform to the model of those qualities or values as they need to be understood for the purpose of developing the path. Besides, we each have different ideas as to what these things mean in their conventional sense (ideas that are of course coloured by our own particular ignorance and wrong view). According to the teachings, there is no real/actual tranquillity at a moment of akusala, since every akusala mind-moment is accompanied by the mental factor of restlessness. This would include of course the *apparent* tranquillity that accompanies instances of akusala such as the satisfaction of a job well done (your example of finishing washing the dishes) which as we know from our theoretical understanding of the teachings does not fall within any of the kinds of kusala enumerated in the texts and which, like it or not, must involve akusala of some kind or another. I believe it helps to have a clear understanding at a theoretical level of the kinds of kusala action as spelt out in the texts (and which therefore involve tranquillity), and how they differ from the kinds of akusala action (that are accompanied by restlessness) including the subtle attachment that may give the appearance of tranquillity. Without this the task of correctly recognising the moral quality of the present mind-state is considerably more difficult that it would otherwise be. > Maybe you could give an example of what you think is tranquility > that arises in everyday life. Examples of possible instances of wholesome mind-moments of one kind or another that may arise naturally in daily life (i.e., outside the context of any notion of 'having more kusala') could include*: - being considerate of another's convenience (e.g. refraining from disturbing) - pleasantness of manner towards others (e.g. in addressing someone, refraining from sarcasm, observing normal pleasantries and courtesies) - any action prompted by thoughts of concern for the other's welfare (for example, offering helpful information or advice, offering to assist another in doing a task) - reflecting on general dhamma issues that come up on the list, such as the topic we are now discussing (to mention just one) or, and I think this is important also, any occasion of noticing the lack of any such qualities/states and the presence of akusala instead (and, especially, how akusala is the norm for us in our daily life). For obvious reasons, the kusala that arises in our daily lives is likely to be weak and so not readily apparent as being any different from the general level of akusala that constitutes the major part of our daily mental activity. But with a proper theoretical basis of what is and what isn't kusala we have a better chance of recognising each for what it is as and when it is present. Jon PS > One problem with the wholesome aspect of tranquility is that > "wholesomeness" is a volitional act that produces a conventionally > desirable (by merchants and attorneys) kamma result but tranquility > tends to be thought of as the absence of volitional activity. Any > ideas on how to get around that problem? Again, it's a question of 'conventional perception' vs. 'the way things are' as taught by the Buddha. The significance of samatha being kusala action of the kind that is *completed through the mind-door* (as we have been discussing in recent posts in this thread) is that it is of such a nature and strength that no action through the door of body or speech is required for it to be 'complete', i.e., to have achieved the potential to bring result. Note, however, that even where action through body or speech door is required for the action to be 'completed', it is still the mental factor of 'intention' that constitutes the kamma, not the accompanying body/speech door action. PPS The nature of the kamma result of wholesome action is said to be inherently 'pleasant', not inherently 'desirable'. 25831 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 3:14am Subject: Re: How does one handle stressful results of kamma? Dear Christine, Kamma is one of most interesting Dhammas. It is like a seed. When conditions favour a plant will arise from that seed. When not, some die out. How is it created? Are there any creators? There are no outside devine creators. All wilful ( delibrate, intended ) actions have Cetana Cetasika. This Cetasika is the chief in creation of Kamma. Cetana is a mental factor. This Cetasika always arise with any Citta. But Kamma arise from Cetasika Cetana which arises at the time of arising of Javanacittas which are not of Arahats. There are endless Kamma. But at a time one Kamma dominates. As soon as Arahats' Cuticitta ( the last Citta in Samsara )arises all Kamma die out without any residual Kamma. Those non-arising Kamma become Ahosi Kamma. With Metta, Htoo Naing ------------------------------ --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear All, > > Most of us know the basics about kamma. > "Beings are the owners of their kamma, heir to their kamma, born of > their kamma, related through their kamma, and have their kamma as > their arbitrator. Kamma is what creates distinctions among beings in > terms of coarseness & refinement." MN135 > Nyanaponika says that "Vipaka 'karma-result' is any karmically > (morally) neutral mental phenomenon (e.g. bodily agreeable or painful > feeling, sense-consciousness, etc.) which is the result of wholesome > or unwholesome volitional action (karma, q.v.) through body, speech > or mind, done either in this, or some previous life. Totally wrong > is the belief that, according to Buddhism, everything is the result > of previous action. Never, for example, is any karmically wholesome > or unwholesome volitional action the result of former action, being > in reality itself karma. >snip<< Karma-produced (kammaja or kamma- > samutthana) corporeal things are never called kamma-vipaka as this > term may be applied only to mental phenomena." > > Accepting this, that whatever happens to a person is the result of > their actions previously taken in either this life or a past one ... > Is there anything else to do, other than endure, hope equanimity > arises and recollect the above verse or similar? Enduring is O.K. in > the short term, or even for a few days, or weeks - but what about if > life and events are not good for a long, long time? Are the > reactions one experiences as a result of unhappy experiences just > creating more unhappy experiences in the future? What to do? > > {Sorry if this is a repeat of any question previously asked - there > are about 50 Useful Posts on this topic and a search of the archived > posts at escribe.com on "kamma" brings up 2717 posts, i.e. about one > in eight dsg posts mentions kamma. So, it's quite daunting and > unless one has a lot of time, there is almost too much info to go > through.] > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 25832 From: Bongkojpriya Yugala Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 6:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma (Christine) Hi, Christine, May I butt in and add a bit? Yes, it usually appears that a lot of akusala vipaka happens at one time, but that is all just thinking and "stories", as Ivan (here in Bkk) likes to call them, the stories that the mind "interprets" in a mind-door process. Basically, akusala and kusala vipaka come through the 6 doorways in the form of rupa aramana through the 5 sense doors, and dhamma aramana (excuse spelling) through the mind door. While this is known to me at the pariyatti level, it is only when satipatthana arises that a fuller understanding of vipaka can arise, likewise increasing the understanding that those aramanas are not self. But until that understanding arises, I am like you: I get frustrated with akusala vipaka and ask the same question: do I just grin and bear it? This is still sakkaya ditthi (self view) because it still is, "my akusala vipaka." But, if after dosa arises over akusala vipaka, a moment of contemplation then arises that reminds "me" of the pariyatti learning, then the dosa just dissapates. This is gradually happening more and more, each one conditioning the next. At this stage, "I'm" content if such contemplation arises, even if it is not a true satipatthana moment. metta, Betty ________________________________________________________ > Subject: How does one handle stressful results of kamma? > > Dear All, > > Most of us know the basics about kamma. > "Beings are the owners of their kamma, heir to their kamma, born of > their kamma, related through their kamma, and have their kamma as > their arbitrator. Kamma is what creates distinctions among beings in > terms of coarseness & refinement." MN135 > Nyanaponika says that "Vipaka 'karma-result' is any karmically > (morally) neutral mental phenomenon (e.g. bodily agreeable or painful > feeling, sense-consciousness, etc.) which is the result of wholesome > or unwholesome volitional action (karma, q.v.) through body, speech > or mind, done either in this, or some previous life. Totally wrong > is the belief that, according to Buddhism, everything is the result > of previous action. Never, for example, is any karmically wholesome > or unwholesome volitional action the result of former action, being > in reality itself karma. >snip<< Karma-produced (kammaja or kamma- > samutthana) corporeal things are never called kamma-vipaka as this > term may be applied only to mental phenomena." > > Accepting this, that whatever happens to a person is the result of > their actions previously taken in either this life or a past one ... > Is there anything else to do, other than endure, hope equanimity > arises and recollect the above verse or similar? Enduring is O.K. in > the short term, or even for a few days, or weeks - but what about if > life and events are not good for a long, long time? Are the > reactions one experiences as a result of unhappy experiences just > creating more unhappy experiences in the future? What to do? > > {Sorry if this is a repeat of any question previously asked - there > are about 50 Useful Posts on this topic and a search of the archived > posts at escribe.com on "kamma" brings up 2717 posts, i.e. about one > in eight dsg posts mentions kamma. So, it's quite daunting and > unless one has a lot of time, there is almost too much info to go > through.] > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 25833 From: Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 2:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 10/4/03 5:29:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sukinder@k... writes: > Howard, sometimes I get the impression that what you say about the > process of `thinking' or `concept making', that this process involves an > act of intelligence which even panna does not have. This is when you > say that they "sum up certain experiences" or "make sense of" > experiences. This seems to imply also, that this process is on the `initial > level' before kilesas come in to distort the perception, the same in case > of both putthujanas and arahattas. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I don't recall using the "make sense of" phrase, but in any case: I believe that 95% of our concept forming is below the level of conscious awareness, that it is a subliminal process for the most part, and that it is infected at the root by the tendency towards reification. -------------------------------------------------- > My understanding is that sanna, vitakka and vicara simply come in to > play performing their function. True, that there are ultimate realities > constantly hitting the senses giving this process of `concept making' to > seem *more* real here, than when imagination takes place. So a > putthujana and an arahatta will both agree to the conventional status of > say, `Sarah is sitting in front of the computer'. > > However, I think rupas out there arise and fall because of their own > conditions. It would be a mistake to imply that their existence depend on > our perception. Similarly their `objective' status is not what it is, when > we think we are making `sense of it'. The exact conditions for their > arising and falling is beyond any one's ability to understand, except for > the Buddha. And even here, "visible object" is just *one* of the many > conditions which make up that reality out there. *All other conditions > are dark*. Can you dig that?! Yet we worldlings, tend to base our > knowledge of reality on just this one element! ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: As I understand it, (apparently separate) conditions of all sorts arise and cease as aspects of a reality that we as worldlings never get a true picture of, because our view is distorted and darkened by the defilements, most particularly avijja. What constitutes our world of experience is, for the most part, mind-constructed. But this world of experience of ours is not the reality. As to your phrase "the reality out there," that presupposes a view that I don't accept. Whatever "reality" is - and I see it as indescribable - it is neither "out there" nor "in here" nor anything in between. -------------------------------------------------------- > > What I think is the basic difference between the putthujana and the > arahatta's perception, is that for us it is informed by sanna and citta > vipallasa. I think this comes into play immediately when anything is > perceived. For the arahatta, there is no perversion of sanna and citta, > so his concept of Sarah is not distorted as ours, I think. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: We agree on this. -------------------------------------------------------- > > Does this make any sense? > > ========================= Sure. It all makes sense. (And a I agree with a drop of it, too! ;-) 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) 25834 From: Larry Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 8:57am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Howard, Do you think rupa is indivisible, that the experience of rupa arises as an indivisible dot of experience in a linear series, and that enlightenment opens the door to limitless sensual delight in this dot? The mahayana made a mistake in thinking the analysis of compounds into parts exposes the falacy of the whole. The analysis of compounds into parts exposes the falacy of glue. Things fall apart. The glue is concept but dhammas nevertheless come together to form larger dhammas and then dissolve. Compounds are flimsy, unreliable, dukkha. Compounds arise before enlightenment and compounds arise after enlightenment. Analysis is conceptual so of course analysis cannot be found outside the body. To analyze an external phenomenon and say it cannot be found in analysis is wrong reasoning. Analysis is a means to disillusionment but analysis isn't a substitute for nibbana. To think that by conceptualizing experience experience can be turned into nibbana is what the gods think and can be a wrong turn for the jhana practitioner. Don't become a god , Howard. Stay human; that's your best bet. Larry 25835 From: Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 5:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi, Larry - In a message dated 10/4/03 11:59:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Do you think rupa is indivisible, that the experience of rupa arises > as an indivisible dot of experience in a linear series, and that > enlightenment opens the door to limitless sensual delight in this dot? > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree with the first clause (except possibly for the connotation-loaded term 'dot'), but take no position with respect to the second clause except to indicate my total nonacceptance of nibbana as consisting in "limitless sensual delight." --------------------------------------------------- > > The mahayana made a mistake in thinking the analysis of compounds > into parts exposes the falacy of the whole. The analysis of compounds > into parts exposes the falacy of glue. Things fall apart. The glue is > concept but dhammas nevertheless come together to form larger dhammas > and then dissolve. Compounds are flimsy, unreliable, dukkha. > Compounds arise before enlightenment and compounds arise after > enlightenment. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Mahayana picked up on the *Theravadin* use of analysis into parts as a technique for grasping anatta. See the carriage metaphor in the Milindapanha. You can find it at the beginning of that work at the web site: http://web.singnet.com.sg/~rjp31831/nagasena.htm In this work, Nagasena uses the chariot as metaphor for himself, Nagasena. At one point, he says most explicitly the following: "Then, ask as I may, I can discover no chariot at all. This "chariot" is just a mere sound. But what is the real chariot? Your Majesty has told a lie, has spoken a falsehood! There is really no chariot! ..." ---------------------------------------------------- > > Analysis is conceptual so of course analysis cannot be found outside > the body. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Huh? ;-) -------------------------------------------------- To analyze an external phenomenon and say it cannot be > > found in analysis is wrong reasoning. Analysis is a means to > disillusionment but analysis isn't a substitute for nibbana. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Indeed. No substitute at all! --------------------------------------------------- To think > > that by conceptualizing experience experience can be turned into > nibbana is what the gods think and can be a wrong turn for the jhana > practitioner. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Do you infer from all that I've written that I am recommending conceptualizing experience? I am recommending seeing through our illusions, and this is *not* accomplished by further conceptualization, but by "looking" with great care and letting go! -------------------------------------------------- Don't become a god , Howard. Stay human; that's your > > best bet. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I have no godly aspirations, Larry! ;-)) ------------------------------------------------ > > Larry > ========================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 25836 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 10:22am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Sukin, I am saying the view "That all there is are the cittas, cetasikas and rupa. Aside from this, nothing does, all being concept only!" is your view, not the right view as the Buddha taught. What is right view? "And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn22.html Please also refer to Majjhima Nikaya 9 Sammaditthi Sutta The Discourse on Right View http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn009.html regarding right view. Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Victor, [snip] 25837 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 10:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:the Buddha's Last Meal. the Pali, also to Rob Edison Hi Derek, bhuttassa: bhutta means: what has been eaten , or having eaten or, the person who has eaten, bhuttar, see PED. It is not for the eating. Difficult text but we can understand with the help of different commentaries. What is Duroiselle saying about the intrumentalis? Any more details? Nina. op 03-10-2003 22:05 schreef Derek Cameron op derekacameron@y...: > > But that instrumetal could mean either: > > And (ca) > with the suukaramaddava (suukaramaddavena) > for eating (bhuttassa) > > or it could mean: > > And (ca) > by the suukaramaddava (suukaramaddavena) > for eating (bhuttassa) 25838 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 10:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi James, Yes, the sutta text itself is most important, but we need help from the ancient commentaries. We just cannot get the meaning at times. Or, after reading the Co I find there are points I overlooked when I was reading the sutta. I am glad they are still available. And better still, we should compare different commentaries. Ven. Bodhi in his transl of the Co to the "Great Discourse on Causation", in the Appendix speaks about the Abhidhamma method and the Suttanta method of the Dependent Arising, and mentions: "but the commentaries, ever aiming at maximum precision in their exegesis of sutta formulations...etc. " I did not read much Co, but from what I learnt I appreciate the reminders Buddhaghosa gives many, many times about the aggregates, elements, sense-bases, because these are realities of the present moment. He also often stresses that in the sutta the message is: being in the cycle (vatta) and not being in the cycle (vivatta). This points to the goal: to be freed from the cycle. I myself can easily overlook the message contained in each sutta: there are realities now and we take these for self. Be aware of them, do not be negligent. Otherwise we shall never, never reach the goal. Nina. op 03-10-2003 21:24 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > He is simply going on the > information from the commentaries to the suttas (which he learned > being a monk), which again were composed after the fact and may not > be factual. It is not beneficial to quote hearsay sources to either > support or deny the factuality of other hearsay sources. The > original sources themselves must be analyzed to determine the > factuality of secondary sources. 25839 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 10:26am Subject: FW: Co. Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, 15 B Co, 15 B: vuttampi ceta.m -- The Buddha spoke as follows: ``aanaapaanassatii yassa, paripu.n.naa subhaavitaa. ³The person who fully develops Mindfulness of Breathing, anupubba.m paricitaa, yathaa buddhena desitaa. Who gradually accumulates it as taught by the Buddha, soma.m loka.m pabhaaseti, abbhaa muttova candimaa''ti.. He brightens the world as the moon that is free from clouds.² (theragaa 548; pa.ti ma 1.1.60) -- ima.m mahapphalata.m sampassamaano thero saddhivihaarika.m tattha niyojeti. Since the Elder considered that Mindfulness of Breathing was of such great fruit he exhorted his co-resident to develop it. iti bhagavaa ruupakamma.t.thaana.m, thero aanaapaanassatinti Thus, the Blessed One taught the meditation subject of materiality, and the Elder taught Mindfulness of Breathing. ubhopi kamma.t.thaana.m aacikkhitvaa gataa, raahulabhaddo vihaareyeva ohiino. When both of them had explained these subjects, they went away, and Lucky Rahula was left behind in the dwelling place. bhagavaa tassa ohiinabhaava.m jaanantopi neva attanaa khaadaniiya.m bhojaniiya.m gahetvaa agamaasi, The Blessed One, even though he knew that Rahula was left behind, did not go himself with hard and soft food, na aanandattherassa hatthe pesesi, nor did he send it through the Elder Aananda, na pasenadimahaaraajaanaathapi.n.dikaadiina.m sa~n~na.m adaasi. nor did he inform King Pasenadi, Anaathapi.n.dika or others. sa~n~naamattaka~nhi labhitvaa te kaajabhatta.m abhihareyyu.m. Had they only been informed, they would have brought food with a carrying pole. yathaa ca bhagavaa, eva.m saariputtattheropi na ki~nci akaasi. Just as the Blessed One, the Elder Sariputta did not take any action either. raahulatthero niraahaaro chinnabhatto ahosi. Rahula went without food, he had to go hungry. ***** English: The Buddha spoke as follows: ³The person who fully develops Mindfulness of Breathing, Who gradually accumulates it as taught by the Buddha, He brightens the world as the moon that is free from clouds.² Since the Elder considered that Mindfulness of Breathing was of such great fruit he exhorted his co-resident to develop it. Thus, the Blessed One taught the meditation subject of matter, and the Elder taught Mindfulness of Breathing. When both of them had explained these subjects, they went away, and Lucky Rahula was left behind in the dwelling place. The Blessed One, even though he knew that Rahula was left behind, did not go himself with hard and soft food, nor did he send it through the Elder Aananda, nor did he inform King Pasenadi, Anaathapi.n.dika or others. Had they only been informed, they would have brought food with a carrying pole. Just as the Blessed One, the Elder Sariputta did not take any action either. Rahula went without food, he had to go hungry. ***** Nina. 25840 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 10:26am Subject: the four discriminations, patisambhidas Dear Sarah and Larry, just an evaluation of the transl of Tiika. For this subject I see that many passages are overlapping with Dispeller of Delusion (Co to Vibhanga, Book of Analysis) II, p. 126, ff. I can type from this work relevant passages, because not everyone has it. When I see an interesting extra detail in the Tiika (I am reading it), I can translate it. But I am not sure whether many are interested in the Tiika. It is quite a lot of work to translate it. Sarah, when you go to Myanmar, I wonder whether you or Jonothan have time to ask a Pali expert about nirutti, discr. of language. I read that this discr. . Also that a name arises together with a reality, like feeling. It must have a name. A name arises?? I think of the relevant Atthasalini passage about nama and name. Is this a specific philosophy of language in the olden times? It escapes me. You also quoted about the Magadha language. Difficult to understand. We can leave it, but I notice that it keeps coming back. It will when we soon get to the four discriminations. Larry, you also have the Path of Discrimination, see Ch XVI. Actuality is the transl of truth, and idea is the transl of dhamma. I have the Co in Thai. Nina 25841 From: sukinder Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 10:41am Subject: RE: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion Hi Howard, ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I don't recall using the "make sense of" phrase, but in any case: I believe that 95% of our concept forming is below the level of conscious awareness, that it is a subliminal process for the most part, and that it is infected at the root by the tendency towards reification. -------------------------------------------------- Sukin: Believe it or not, this is one thing I was thinking about this evening when I was out buying groceries for my wife. I thought, "Did I understand Howard's meaning of "summing up" right? And did he use the phrase "make sense of" at anytime? And did he imply in his suggestions, a factor of 'intelligence' or am I reading that into his statement?" :-) But you do say that whatever is involved otherwise, that the process is 'infected at the root by the tendency towards reification'. When I think in terms of the putthujanas, I can imagine that sanna, vitakka and vicara is conditioned by avijja, so the reification may be just what avijja would allow. But I do believe that the ariyan also conceptualizes, and this I cannot attribute to avijja. So here I am stuck. However, I can also imagine sanna, vitakka and vicara working in such a way, as for example right now, the computer that I see, that it is only a matter of moving the attention around and picking up the signs and particulars, not necessarily *needing* to create a recognizable whole, but does or doesn't do so based on many other factors, the main of which is the continually arising visible object. How does this sound to you? ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: As I understand it, (apparently separate) conditions of all sorts arise and cease as aspects of a reality that we as worldlings never get a true picture of, because our view is distorted and darkened by the defilements, most particularly avijja. What constitutes our world of experience is, for the most part, mind-constructed. But this world of experience of ours is not the reality. As to your phrase "the reality out there," that presupposes a view that I don't accept. Whatever "reality" is - and I see it as indescribable - it is neither "out there" nor "in here" nor anything in between. -------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: I understand your phenomenalist position and from one point of view, I think it is quite valid. Especially if we refer to Buddha's advice to Bahiya that "in the seen, there is only the seen etc." However, Bahiya was ripe and I don't believe he would deny the existence of 'rupa out there' if questioned about it, ie, after he reached enlightenment. Because part of what it takes to become enlightened, is the firm understanding of conditions and so in the case of seeing and visible object, the two are clearly distinguishable. But of course, in my own case, I cannot make this distinction in any way except by 'thinking' about it. I do not even have a strong basis to make direct inference, since I can only 'think' that there is seeing consciousness and infer that there must be an outside object apprehended. However, since we all have to start with 'theory', I think it is quite important to get it right. If indeed, there are objects out there, then we shouldn't deny it. It can be expected during the day some experiences would give the consciousness end a greater sense of reality, at another time, the outside objects would seem more real. Also it will be the case that we rely on different approaches at different times to make sense of experience. And when it comes to reflecting on the teachings, at some moments the rememberance about the Bahiya Sutta may be most relevant and under such circumstance it will be a mistake to wonder about rupas out there. However, there will be times when for example one must distinguish between say the importance of a 'dog' and a 'handbag', would you not have to consider then that one is just rupa conditioned by heat and the other is one conditioned by citta, kamma and ahara as well? What is the status of those objects during such reflections aside from being pannatti? It may be true that the practice (satipatthana) involves just this mind and its objects, so in a way there is no place for infering either "it is "out there" or "in here" or anything in between" as you say. But the practice involves first "pariyatti", and the correct pariyatti does not deny outside rupa. I think one needs to make a distinction between pariyatti as pariyatti and the subjective experience of the advanced panna. This latter idea may be a part of the theory, but if this implies the rejection of other 'correct' theory, then I think one risks in the long run, of encouraging doubt. And doubting the existence of rupa out there as being conditioned by various factors, is in my opinion quite unhealthy. Of course part of the theory is also to distinguish between 'thinking' and direct understanding. So one does not go around trying to prove to oneself or others, the existence of rupa outside, this would be silly. One just knows what is being experienced right now, and here in the experience, there is only the experience and nothing more. :-) But if the practice is right, then this is supposed to lead one day to understand rupa as rupa and nama as nama, both quite distinct and each condition the other by different ways. Rupa condition nama quite differently from nama conditioning rupa. Does this make sense? I just had the thought that I should save this letter and wait until morning to post it after reading through it again. But since I can always blame any mistake in reasoning on my drowsiness and consequent murkiness of mind, I will send this off and await your reply. :-) Metta, Sukin. 25842 From: Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 7:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 10/4/03 1:43:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, sukinder@k... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I don't recall using the "make sense of" phrase, but in any case: > I > believe that 95% of our concept forming is below the level of conscious > awareness, that it is a subliminal process for the most part, and that > it is infected > at the root by the tendency towards reification. > -------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > Believe it or not, this is one thing I was thinking about this evening > when I was out buying groceries for my wife. I thought, "Did I > understand Howard's meaning of "summing up" right? And did he use the > phrase "make sense of" at anytime? And did he imply in his suggestions, > a factor of 'intelligence' or am I reading that into his statement?" :-) > But you do say that whatever is involved otherwise, that the process is > 'infected at the root by the tendency towards reification'. When I think > in terms of the putthujanas, I can imagine that sanna, vitakka and > vicara is conditioned by avijja, so the reification may be just what > avijja would allow. But I do believe that the ariyan also > conceptualizes, and this I cannot attribute to avijja. So here I am > stuck. > However, I can also imagine sanna, vitakka and vicara working in such a > way, as for example right now, the computer that I see, that it is only > a matter of moving the attention around and picking up the signs and > particulars, not necessarily *needing* to create a recognizable whole, > but does or doesn't do so based on many other factors, the main of which > is the continually arising visible object. > How does this sound to you? ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Sounds pretty good to me. The Buddha said "I" and "myself" etc. He formed and used concepts, but he "didn't take a stand" on them. He was not taken in by the human communication-constructs we call "concepts". He merely used them. His luminous mind was not subject to the error of reification. ---------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > As I understand it, (apparently separate) conditions of all sorts > > arise and cease as aspects of a reality that we as worldlings never get > a true > picture of, because our view is distorted and darkened by the > defilements, most > particularly avijja. What constitutes our world of experience is, for > the most > part, mind-constructed. But this world of experience of ours is not the > reality. As to your phrase "the reality out there," that presupposes a > view that I > don't accept. Whatever "reality" is - and I see it as indescribable - it > is > neither "out there" nor "in here" nor anything in between. > -------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > I understand your phenomenalist position and from one point of view, I > think it is quite valid. Especially if we refer to Buddha's advice to > Bahiya that "in the seen, there is only the seen etc." However, Bahiya > was ripe and I don't believe he would deny the existence of 'rupa out > there' if questioned about it, ie, after he reached enlightenment. > Because part of what it takes to become enlightened, is the firm > understanding of conditions and so in the case of seeing and visible > object, the two are clearly distinguishable. > But of course, in my own case, I cannot make this distinction in any way > except by 'thinking' about it. I do not even have a strong basis to make > direct inference, since I can only 'think' that there is seeing > consciousness and infer that there must be an outside object > apprehended. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know about Bahiya, or his ripeness, or what he would say under questioning, but what the Buddha had to say seems clear to me. In the seen, let there only be the seen. -------------------------------------------------- > However, since we all have to start with 'theory', I think it is quite > important to get it right. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: We start with what the Buddha taught. But very quickly, we should drop the theorizing and get on with the practice, preferably under the guidance of those further along than we - the Buddha most of all, of course, via the sutta pitaka, the least disputable record of his teaching. -------------------------------------------------- If indeed, there are objects out there, then> > we shouldn't deny it. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: There is, in principle, no way of knowing. What we *can* know is what directly arises within the range of discernment - sights, sounds, etc, etc., and our unfortunate reification of these, a mental enslavement activity. -------------------------------------------------- It can be expected during the day some experiences> > would give the consciousness end a greater sense of reality, at another > time, the outside objects would seem more real. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: There is no contact except with namas and rupas, and the site of that contact is not properly describable as "out there" or "in here" or "in between". All three of these are concept-only based on mental proliferation. In the seen, there is just the seen. ------------------------------------------------- Also it will be the case> > that we rely on different approaches at different times to make sense of > experience. And when it comes to reflecting on the teachings, at some > moments the rememberance about the Bahiya Sutta may be most relevant and > under such circumstance it will be a mistake to wonder about rupas out > there. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I seriously think that it is best if we minimize our theorizing, especially about what is in principle unknowable. ------------------------------------------------------ However, there will be times when for example one must> > distinguish between say the importance of a 'dog' and a 'handbag', would > you not have to consider then that one is just rupa conditioned by heat > and the other is one conditioned by citta, kamma and ahara as well? ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I think that it is quite important to distinguish among these apparent "things", but the reality is that neither of them is rupa. Conventionally we think of them as "true existents that are material objects existing out there in the real world". That, of course, is the view of the worldling, a view which quite usefully causes my wife to go to remove money from her handbag (and me from my wallet) and not from the mouth [or elsewhere] of a dog - I guess I must have that "excrement" topic in the back of my mind! ;-)) ------------------------------------------------------- What> > is the status of those objects during such reflections aside from being > pannatti? > > It may be true that the practice (satipatthana) involves just this mind > and its objects, so in a way there is no place for infering either "it > is "out there" or "in here" or anything in between" as you say. But the > practice involves first "pariyatti", and the correct pariyatti does not > deny outside rupa. I think one needs to make a distinction between > pariyatti as pariyatti and the subjective experience of the advanced > panna. This latter idea may be a part of the theory, but if this implies > the rejection of other 'correct' theory, then I think one risks in the > long run, of encouraging doubt. And doubting the existence of rupa out > there as being conditioned by various factors, is in my opinion quite > unhealthy. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't really care if there is something called rupa "out there" in some "external world". What is never knowable is of no interest! What I do care about is what I actually can encounter, and the more I look, the more I see that all that is actually encountered are experiential phenomena, and these are events that are without self-existence, are coreless, tentative, fleeting, and dependent. I don't see this by theorizing, but by looking at what is actually there. As the Zen folks say: "LOOK! LOOK!" --------------------------------------------------- > Of course part of the theory is also to distinguish between 'thinking' > and direct understanding. So one does not go around trying to prove to > oneself or others, the existence of rupa outside, this would be silly. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Indeed. -------------------------------------------------- > One just knows what is being experienced right now, and here in the > experience, there is only the experience and nothing more. :-) > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Exactly. ---------------------------------------------------- But if> > the practice is right, then this is supposed to lead one day to > understand rupa as rupa and nama as nama, both quite distinct and each > condition the other by different ways. Rupa condition nama quite > differently from nama conditioning rupa. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I can't frankly recall ever having confused nama with rupa. ------------------------------------------------------ > > > Does this make sense? I just had the thought that I should save this > letter and wait until morning to post it after reading through it again. > But since I can always blame any mistake in reasoning on my drowsiness > and consequent murkiness of mind, I will send this off and await your > reply. :-) > > Metta, > Sukin. > ============================= 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) 25843 From: Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 0:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Hi Jon, I misunderstood what you were getting at. I thought you were looking for tranquility specifically but you are talking about kusala specifically and tranquility as one of the accompanying factors. As such, I agree, more or less, with what you wrote. One minor quibble: CMA p. 172, "The "Sammohavinodanii" states that the distinction between the intrinsically desirable and undesirable obtains by way of the average being (majjhima-sata): "It is distinguishable according to what is found desirable at one time and undesirable at another time by average (men such as) accountants, government officials, burgesses, land owners and merchants."" L: What is distinguishable by average men sounds like a consensus opinion rather than an intrinsic value. Also it is interesting that bhikkhus aren't included as "average men". Whatever causes a super abundance of material wealth would be considered by average men to be "intrinsically desirable" so whatever causes a super abundance of material wealth must be kusala. Also, rebirth is considered to be "intrinsically desirable" by average men these days so whatever causes rebirth must be kusala. Also, the whole theory of kamma has a giant hole in the middle of it. There are lots of causes and lots of effects but no way of connecting the two. It is impossible to know what will be the effect of a specific cause or what caused a specific effect. Not even arahants can know this. So what is kusala is really unverifiable. This seems unacceptable to me. We should understand cause and effect in this life in the usual, ordinary way. Even that is pretty difficult. Larry 25844 From: Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 0:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Sukin, Understanding compounds is easy. You put two things together and you get something else. 1 + 1 = 3, the two things plus the something else. Blue plus yellow makes green. The blue is there, the yellow is there, and also now there is green with its own specific characteristic: it makes traffic go. Larry 25845 From: Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 1:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Howard, Rupa isn't indivisible and the experience of rupa isn't indivisible. The simplest form into which experience can be conceptully analyzed is as consciousness and an object. Consciousness and an object are two, not one. But this is just concept. An actual experience is far more complex. LOOK, LOOK. Larry ps: Nagasena misled the king. If there is no carriage, there are no parts of the carriage because all those parts have parts. Similarly, if there is no person, there are no parts of a person, no namarupa. Nagasena's analysis inevitably leads to the view that experience can be turned into nibbana by analysis [unfindable, nonarising, unconditioned]. 25846 From: Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 1:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the four discriminations, patisambhidas Hi Nina, However you want to proceed is fine with me. Just give me a signal so I know when to post another passage. Also, I wonder if we could talk about patisambhida as something for ordinary people, not just arahants. It seems very applicable to the subjects we discuss: cause, effect, language, and expression. Larry 25847 From: Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 1:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion Sarah: "As you imply, wrong views don't arise with anger, but as soon as the anger has passed away, it can subsequently be the object of those self and other wrong views in following javanas rooted in attachment. These follow each other so quickly that it seems like the anger is *Me* as you say. If the anger is followed by javanas with wisdom, then there is no idea of *Me* at all - just conditioned mental factors. So, no *Me* except as object (concept-pannatti) of ditthi." Hi Sarah, On closer inspection, I think you are right. I thought there was something about the subjective aspect of javana, or at least akusala javana, that was inherently self assuming, but there actually has to be a self view (ditthi) either accompanying or closely following in order to experience "self", which is a view or belief. With that there is also usually conceit (pride, self contempt, or camaraderie). Anger can just be anger. Larry 25848 From: Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 11:31am Subject: One More Time (Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation.) Hi, Larry - In a message dated 10/4/03 4:12:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Rupa isn't indivisible and the experience of rupa isn't indivisible. The > simplest form into which experience can be conceptully analyzed is as > consciousness and an object. Consciousness and an object are two, not > one. But this is just concept. An actual experience is far more > complex. LOOK, LOOK. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Hard to say whether it is more complex, or simpler. What you wrote here spurs me to mention something: I, in fact, think of phassa as more fundamental than nama or rupa, and more fundamental than subject or object. To me, an experience has one aspect or pole of which is the knowing, and the other of which is the known, with the two mediated by a so-called sense door. And the knowing, known, and sense-door activation, while distinguishable, are inseparable. None of them exists on its own, but only as an aspect/facet of an act of cognition (phassa). Possibly this is what you meant when you said that neither rupa nor its experience is indivisible - perhaps you meant that they are not separable and do not arise alone, in which case we are in agreement, but if not, this then puts me simultaneously at odds on this issue with both you and Abhidhamma! ;-)) ========================= With metta, Howard > > Larry > > ps: Nagasena misled the king. If there is no carriage, there are no > parts of the carriage because all those parts have parts. Similarly, if > there is no person, there are no parts of a person, no namarupa. > Nagasena's analysis inevitably leads to the view that experience can be > turned into nibbana by analysis [unfindable, nonarising, unconditioned]. > > /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) 25849 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 6:01pm Subject: Re: How does one handle stressful results of kamma? Hi Betty, Htoo Naing and all, Htoo Naing: Thanks for this concise summary of kamma. Now that I know a few more Pali terms, I find it a condition to want to learn more abhidhamma. Kamma is of particular interest - it can't be ignored, and so is a bit scary really. As you say, 'there are endless kamma'. I read someone on another list saying that they didn't believe in kamma. They seemed to think this would mean they were 'out of the loop' and not subject to vipaka because they didn't believe in it. That was was a worry - it's a bit like jumping from a plane without a parachute and saying you'll be O.K. because you don't believe in gravity. I think someone (the Buddha?) said something about worse consequences flowing from wrong actions done in ignorance than wrong actions deliberately done. (hope that's not incorrect attribution). Betty: Yes, it's true in the times that I can remember what I have learned about the present moment, vipaka and 'stories' that the dosa actually dissipates quickly.It's sort of disappointing in a way :-) it's hard to keep an 'internal emotional drama' going when intellectually you remember that this is just "dosa 'n dukkha" - not my dosa, my dukkha. And particularly when anicca comes to mind -'this too shall pass' - which is good, but sometimes the upsetting drama is quite satisfying in a weird way (and addictive). I can remember finding a few posts of Sarah's a condition for dosa simply because she used the phrase 'that's just the story' about what I considered was an horrendously unfair and dastardly action by someone that was likely to ruin the rest of my life ... can't acutally remember what it was now :-) The question of whether to just grin and bear it, is a little different don't you think? For instance, say one is told of what one considers to be an unfair, inescapable, exorbitant increase in charges, should one just think 'that's vipaka' and accept - or should one try through the proper channels to bring ones' concern to a number of authorities and ask for change? Or even on a personal level, if subjected to rudeness (say in a shop), should one think 'that's vipaka', practise patience, or should one make a complaint and request for more courteous service? (I'm understanding here that any action taken is not vipaka but new kamma.) I have a sinking feeling that the answer is (something like) a person will do whatever their accumulations and current conditions cause them to do, and there is no control ... metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 25850 From: Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 6:16pm Subject: Re: One More Time (Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation.) Hi Howard, You are right, we don't agree. My view is, the reason things come together and fall apart is because their components are separable, not inseparable. I don't see the intellectual attraction of a solid unity at all, and a linear pointilism just makes no sense to me as a model of experience. Plus I think you go way too far in dismissing external reality as being completely unknowable. I think you are making the path too esoteric and "modern". The way I read it, the path is largely a matter of common sense and discipline. I do agree, however, that there is a large component of convention in common sense, and, of course, nibbana is very uncommon sense. Larry 25851 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 6:31pm Subject: Cows, Monks, and Tigers ([dsg] Re: kamanita) Hello Mike,:-) The sense of humour sounds like an aussie (and we can blame the Poms for that) - however, the accent Mike! the accent! ... Personally, I think he was a Texan. :-) Maybe his mother was Australian? ... How would a Thai cow (gaavii) - let's include Sri Lankan cows as well - who has never seen a tiger (vyaggha), or anything carnivorous except mankind, know to charge someone dressed in orange? .... according to the Abhidhamma that is? With regard to orange coloured (piitaratta) robes ... I know the cittas pass on accumulations (sa–caya) - but over a hundred generations, the fear of the colour orange (was that a movie?) ... shouldn't the robe have black stripes? and Thai cows must create havoc in an orange orchard :-) ... And did Thailand ever have a tiger? Or Sri Lanka a lion (siiha)? Does using Pali keep this on topic? metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Chris, > Pukkusati was > > killed by a cow after the Dhamma talk given by the Buddha, and was > > reborn in the Pure Abodes. I think this happened to a number of > > people in the scriptures. There certainly were some very irate cows > > about in those days ... > > Still true today--an Ozzie monk in NE Thailand (Ven. Issaro) explained to me > that it's because 'they think weah TIGAHS!!!'--which he found quite > hilarious. I was glad to have white rather than ochre robes... > > mike 25852 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 9:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mostly akusala. Dear Jonothan, Much appreciated. We forget that akusala is the norm for us in our daily life. Good reminders. Nina op 04-10-2003 11:37 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jonoabb@y...: > Examples of possible instances of wholesome mind-moments of one kind > or another that may arise naturally in daily life (i.e., outside the > context of any notion of 'having more kusala') could include*: > - being considerate of another's convenience (e.g. refraining from > disturbing) > - pleasantness of manner towards others (e.g. in addressing someone, > refraining from sarcasm, observing normal pleasantries and > courtesies) > - any action prompted by thoughts of concern for the other's welfare > (for example, offering helpful information or advice, offering to > assist another in doing a task) > - reflecting on general dhamma issues that come up on the list, such > as the topic we are now discussing (to mention just one) > > or, and I think this is important also, any occasion of noticing the > lack of any such qualities/states and the presence of akusala instead > (and, especially, how akusala is the norm for us in our daily life). > > For obvious reasons, the kusala that arises in our daily lives is > likely to be weak and so not readily apparent as being any different > from the general level of akusala that constitutes the major part of > our daily mental activity. But with a proper theoretical basis of > what is and what isn't kusala we have a better chance of recognising > each for what it is as and when it is present. 25853 From: robmoult Date: Sat Oct 4, 2003 11:38pm Subject: Re: How does one handle stressful results of kamma? Hi Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > I think someone (the Buddha?) said > something about worse consequences flowing from wrong actions done in > ignorance than wrong actions deliberately done. (hope that's not > incorrect attribution). I think you are referring to Milinda-panha, where Nagasena used a simile of a person who unknowingly grasped a red-hot iron would be burned worse than a person who grasped knowingly. Kamma is the accumulated potential of all present and past volitions which have not yet produced their results. Modern society measures quality of actions predominantly by the impact they have on our surroundings. With kamma, we focus on the effect of actions on ourselves (agents of actions). Events do not occur accidentally or randomly, events have causes, many causes and many conditions. It would be a mistake to believe that everything that happens to us exclusively through the operation of kamma. Kamma is only one of the 24 modes of conditional relations, but it is a very important condition. The 24 modes of conditioning are: - Mind as a condition for mind (6 modes - proximity, etc.) - Mind as a condition for mind/matter (5 modes) 1. Root condition (ethics - defines what is good / bad) 2. Kamma condition a. Conascent: cetana coordinating other cetasikas b. Asynchronous (temporal gap): conditioning state is past wholesome / unwholesome volition, conditioned state is resultant cittas with their cetasikas and kamma-produced rupa (both at rebirth linking and during course of existence) 3. Vipaka condition (makes vipaka cittas / cetasikas passive, not active) 4. Jhana condition 5. Path condition - Mind as a condition for matter (1 mode - postnascence) - Matter as a condition for mind (1 mode - prenascence) - Mind/matter as a condition for mind (2 modes - object, decisive support / accumulations) - Mind/matter as a condition for mind/matter (9 modes) You will note that the 24 conditions do not include matter as a condition for matter (this would be the natural laws of physics and chemistry). This is because this type of understanding was not conducive to the holy life, nor did it lead to Nibbana. Imagine a bug living on a billiard ball. Our perspective on the movement of the billiard ball is that the ball is still until it is hit by another ball; then the ball moves until it rebounds off another ball, reflects off a bumper or slows and stops (cause and effect based on natural laws of physics). But what is the bug's perspective? The motion of his world would appear to be arbitrary and unfathomable (work of a God). The Buddha made it clear that the detailed workings of kamma was one of the four inpenetrables (drive you crazy if you try to understand): 1. Scope of power of a Buddha 2. Scope of power of a jhanic state 3. Detailed workings of kamma 4. The origin of the universe IMHO, people place far to much emphasis on the workings of kamma, "This happened to me because of my kamma...". Sure, kamma plays a role, but so do accumulations (decisive support) and other natural laws (niyama). What is important is not so much understanding the causes of what happens to us, but rather ensuring that our reaction to what happens to us is kusala. Imagine that something bad happens to you. We could think of this as a wave of negative energy hitting you. The source of the wave is irrelevant (it is in the past, it no longer exists). If you react in a negative way, you are propogating and perpetuating that wave. If you react in a negative way to multiple people, you are spreading the negative wave - you are making the world a less nice place to live in. Not reacting to the negative wave is better, reacting in a positive way (a sense of humour?) is best; reacting in a positive way initiates a positive wave. Hopefully, your positive wave will impact many, many people and make this world a better place to live. Metta, Rob M :-) 25854 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Oct 5, 2003 0:34am Subject: Re: How does one handle stressful results of kamma? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hi Betty, Htoo Naing and all, > > Htoo Naing: Thanks for this concise summary of kamma. Now that I > know a few more Pali terms, I find it a condition to want to learn > more abhidhamma. Kamma is of particular interest - it can't be > ignored, and so is a bit scary really. As you say, 'there are > endless kamma'. I read someone on another list saying that they > didn't believe in kamma. They seemed to think this would mean they > were 'out of the loop' and not subject to vipaka because they didn't > believe in it. That was was a worry - it's a bit like jumping from a > plane without a parachute and saying you'll be O.K. because you > don't believe in gravity. ------------------------------------ Christine:I think someone (the Buddha?) said something about worse consequences flowing from wrong actions done in ignorance than wrong actions deliberately done. (hope that's not incorrect attribution). --------------------------------------- Htoo Naing : Actions are carried out in line with Kammogenic Cittas ( Kammapatha Javanacittas ). For bad actions there are three roots 1. Moha 2. Dosa 3. Lobha. These three roots in 12 Akusalacittas just represent chief Cetasika. But in all Akusalacittas, Moha or ignorance is included. There are 8 Lobha rooted Cittas or consciousness. Half is associated with wrong view ( Ditthi ). But all 8 are accompanied by ignorance. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 25855 From: robmoult Date: Sun Oct 5, 2003 1:27am Subject: Re: How does one handle stressful results of kamma? Hi Christine (and all); Here is a summary of a book, "Curbing Anger Spreading Love" by Bhikkhu Visuddhacara which describes ways of controling anger. Mindfulness =========== Mindfulness (sati) is the first and best guard against anger and all unwholesome states of mind. When we are watching our anger, we are not paying attention to that which "caused" the anger. Mindfulness allows us to pause to make a correct response. We must have mindfulness before practicing the other suggestions. Firm resolution in maintaining calmness ======================================= If we make a consistent and purposeful effort to maintain calmness and equanimity, we are less likely to get swept away with the emotion of anger. Consider the Buddha's fine example ================================== The Buddha did not get angry when Devadatta tried to kill him or when Cinca falsely accused the Buddha of making her pregnant. Khanti (forbearance/patience) is a parami, one of the ten qualities perfected by the Buddha. The Bodhisatta Khantivadi, "Preacher of Patience", incurred the wrath of a jealous king. The king had the Bodisatta flogged then the king had the Bodhisatta's hands, feet, ears and nose cut off. The Bodhisatta endured without anger. Consider that we must all die one day ===================================== Every moment of anger is a moment of lost opportunity for skillful thoughts. Verse 6 of the Dhammapada says: The others do not know that in this world, we all must die; Those who know, have their anger calmed thereby. Consider that we are all related ================================ It is unbecoming to harbour hatred against a person who has been related to us in a previous life. The Buddha said, "Bhikkhus, it is not easy to find a being who has not formerly been your mother, your father, your brother, your sister, your son or your daughter." Consider the harmful effects of anger on oneself ================================================ By getting angry, you are like a man who wants to hit another and picks up a burning ember and thus first burns himself. In the Kodhana Sutta (AN VII.60), the Buddha says: An angry person is ugly and sleeps poorly. Gaining a profit, he turns it into a loss, having done damage with word and deed. A person overwhelmed with anger destroys his wealth. Maddened with anger, he destroys his status. Relatives, friends and colleagues avoid him. Anger brings loss. Anger inflames the mind. He doesn't realize that his danger is born from within. An angry person doesn't know his own benefit. An angry person doesn't see the Dhamma. A man conquered by anger is in a mass of darkness. He takes pleasure in bad deeds as if they were good, but later, when his anger is gone, he suffers as if burned with fire. He is spoiled, blotted out, like fire enveloped in smoke. When anger spreads, when a man becomes angry, he has no shame, no fear of evil, is not respectful in speech. For a person overcome with anger, nothing gives light. Consider that we are the owners of our deeds ============================================ The law of kamma works for us and it works for others. Others will "pay the price" for their deeds and we will "pay the price" for our anger. When a Brahman scolded the Buddha, the Buddha replied as follows: "Do you sometimes receive visits from guests or relatives?" "Yes, I do" "When they come, do you offer them food?" "Yes, I do" "And if they refuse your offer, to whom does this food belong?" "It belongs to me." "In this case, you offered me anger, but I did not accept it. It is yours." Consider their good points ========================== All people have good points. Our anger may cause us to momentarily focus on the person's bad points, but that does not change the fact that the person has many good points as well. Focusing on the person's good points as well helps us to expand our perspective Having a more balanced view calms our anger. Freeze! ======= Whenever we are angry, we should not act or say anything. For in that frame of mind, what we do or say is likely to be unskillful. We might do or say something that we regret later. Whenever anger arises, we should freeze and be like a block of wood. Only after we have quelled the anger should we say or do something. It is the nature of anger to feed upon itself. Anger is like a fire; it constantly consumes its base of support and needs new fuel to sustain itself. A frozen mind can stop the progress of anger. Why are we angry? ================= If we take a moment and consider why we are angry, we usually discover that we get angry because we have an ego, a BIG ego. Things are not the way that WE want them and so we get angry. The current situation naturally arises because of conditions but WE want it to be different. Who is angry? ============= There is no base for anger (anatta). The so-called "I" is not the same for two consecutive moments. At the moment the wrong was done there was another thought and another mass of molecules which were regarded as "I", whereas what are regarded as "I" at the present moment are a different thought and collection of molecules, though belonging to the same process. Thus some other being did wrong to someone else and another gets angry with another. Is this not a ridiculous situation? Look into a mirror ================== Anger makes a person look ugly. The heat of anger accelerates the aging process. A person who is habitually angry will be reborn ugly in their next life. Nobody is free from blame ========================= People living in glass houses should not throw stones. When we consider our own faults, it is easier to forgive others. Perhaps it is our own faults that is making others angry at us. Forgiveness =========== Forgive others and forgive ourselves. Forgiving others is a way of taking a negative energy and converting it into a positive one. There are many examples of the Buddha forgiving others who wanted to harm Him. Often it is most difficult to forgive ourselves. Not forgiving ourselves is a form of punishing ourselves. We should consider that in the Sangha, there is no punishment there is only acknowledgement, forgiveness and learning. There is no use crying over spilt milk. Review the benefits of loving kindness (Metta) ============================================== Regular metta meditation develops a positive habit in the mind. This positive habit can become an "automatic response" as situations arise and can help to prevent anger from gaining a foothold in our mind. According to the Metta Sutta (AN XI.16), one who consistently practices metta can expect the following the benefits: - One sleeps easily, wakes easily and does not have bad dreams - One is liked by humans and animals, protected by Devas - Cannot be harmed by fire, poison or weapons - The mind is easily concentrated - One's countenance is serene (bright complexion) - One is destined for a positive rebirth (dies unconfused) Give a gift =========== If a person insults or slanders us, understand that that person is consumed with anger. We should consider the current and future suffering of that person and have compassion. Responding with anger ourselves simply perpetuates the feeling of anger. Verse 5 of the Dhammapada explains that anger is never stilled by anger, only by metta is anger stilled; this is an eternal law. Giving a gift to the person who insults or slanders us can shock that person into realizing the foolishness of anger. It may also be helpful to note that "dukkha" is sometimes translated as "stress"... Hope that this helps. Metta, Rob M :-) 25856 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Oct 5, 2003 4:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Jon, > > I misunderstood what you were getting at. I thought you were > looking for > tranquility specifically but you are talking about kusala > specifically and tranquility as one of the accompanying factors. Actually, you understood correctly ;-)) I was indeed asking about kusala of samatha, but in my post I did not limit the examples to samatha specifically (my footnote to that effect somehow got left out -- see the asterisk after 'could include' in my last post). However, I think most or all of my examples would include some aspects of samatha. Metta is one aspect of samatha. It is kusala action through the mind-door (i.e., it does not require action through body or speech door). Apart from being one of the '40 subjects of focus' given in the Visuddhi-Magga as capable of supporting high levels of concentration, metta is a mental factor that can arise in any person at any time (i.e., it is not limited to someone who is consciously developing metta, or concentration based on metta or whatever). Metta is actually the mental factor of adosa (non-aversion) that accompanies each wholesome mind-moment (kusala citta) that has another person/being as its object. At that moment of wholesome consciousness the other person's wellbeing is in mind -- not necessarily consciously, but in terms of the specific mental factors arising. There is an absence of dosa (aversion) of any kind towards the person. So whenever the object of our consciousness is another person, and the consciousness is kusala, the mental factor of metta is involved. Looking at the list of situations, which I have set out again below, I think it is not difficult to see how the kusala moments of consciousness involved in the situations at (a), (b) and (c) would all include metta of one degree or another (as well as other aspects of kusala, e.g., dana and sila). Similarly, recollection of the teachings, of virtue and of generosity are aspects of samatha. They too are kusala action through the mind-door, and can arise in any person at any time, without there having to be any deliberate directing of effort or attention to their cultivation. This aspect of samatha would no doubt be involved in the situations at items (d) and (e) in the list. On this basis, are we agreed that for many (most) people there are likely to be moments of the kusala that is samatha arising from time to time in daily life, naturally and spontaneously? Jon (From my last post) Examples of possible instances of wholesome mind-moments of one kind or another that may arise naturally in daily life (i.e., outside the context of any notion of 'having more kusala') could include*: a/ being considerate of another's convenience (e.g. refraining from disturbing) b/ pleasantness of manner towards others (e.g. in addressing someone, refraining from sarcasm, observing normal pleasantries and courtesies) c/ any action prompted by thoughts of concern for the other's welfare (for example, offering helpful information or advice, offering to assist another in doing a task) d/ reflecting on general dhamma issues that come up on the list, such as the topic we are now discussing (to mention just one) e/ or, and I think this is important also, any occasion of noticing the lack of any such qualities/states and the presence of akusala instead (and, especially, how akusala is the norm for us in our daily life). PS Thanks for the correction on 'desirable' vs. 'pleasant' sense-door object. I'll write separately on the kamma thread. 25857 From: icarofranca Date: Sun Oct 5, 2003 7:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] ICARO ´S_DHAMMA_DIARY_-_CHAPTER_ONE_! Dear Nina Nina:" How do you manage > to get at a computer? Is it allowed? I admire you that you keep up with > Dhammasangani in the midst of harsh training and the eating of mutton." --------------------------------------------------------------------- No... computers and Palm Tops aren´t allowed. Only at the weekends I manage to take a flight back to home and post to you all!!! And about clogging my stomach with mundane meat... oh well... take a look at the next chapter of my Dhamma Diary!!!!! --------------------------------------------------------------- Nina:" You > do not forget paramattha dhammas, even when there is stomach trouble. > Keep courage and good cheer, > best wishes," -------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks Nina! I had memorized all list of Paramattha Dhammas times ago: that´s not difficult at all. The Dhammasangani´s Mattika is also very easy to handle with! I am missing all of you, noble company of Dhamma Students! Military barracks are so boring sometimes... mettaya, Ícaro > Nina. > op 27-09-2003 14:22 schreef icarofranca op icarofranca@y...: > Sarah:" Logic??? No more mutton sceances??" > > > > No more clogged stomach with meat, you see... > > 25858 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Oct 5, 2003 7:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] the four discriminations, patisambhidas Dear Larry, It is fine whenever you post a new passage, because I can always add: relevant passage, so that the thread is not lost. Patisambhida is not for ordinary people, it is high understanding. We can try to grasp it intellectually to some extent. Nina. op 04-10-2003 22:23 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > However you want to proceed is fine with me. Just give me a signal so I > know when to post another passage. > > Also, I wonder if we could talk about patisambhida as something for > ordinary people, not just arahants. It seems very applicable to the > subjects we discuss: cause, effect, language, and expression. 25859 From: icarofranca Date: Sun Oct 5, 2003 8:26am Subject: ICARO´S DHAMMA DIARY CHAPTER THREE !!!! My head aches... My stomach twistes... My limbs are trembling... I am pouring off all my lunch...arghhhhhhh!!!!!!!! Oh!!! Is the Last Meal of Buddha ??? Not yet! It´s the ICARO´S DHAMMA DIARY CHAPTER THREE: The Noble truths and a tiresome, wearisome, irksome FLOCK of somniferous boys and grrrrls!!!! let´s face it: the world hasn´t any worthy thing to cling up. After a very hard military fitness session, the dry and hellish hot weather, the ill-adjusted boots (and uniform) and a bad tempered meal, the obvious result is... an afternoon at the sick bay! While I am lying down at bed, I get some time to breathe and think about the Four Noble Truths: 1. Dukkha 2. Samudaya 3. Nirodha 4. Magga The very original standpoint of Siddartha Gautama is this four main concepts: mind tricks, intrincated reasonings and deep insights are more or less shared by all other Maharishis, Gurus and Masters of all times... but Buddha was the first Muni to accept entirely the World´s total lack of worthness. And, speaking seriously as a good master could do it, Siddartha Gautama have stated also the paramount role of mind in all philosophical doctrines and religious beliefs. How did Buddha put the questions about Mind, Dhamma and external world relationship ? Mind element: mano + mental object = Dhamma Mental factors = Cetasika Simple ! Dhamma is a set of imbricated Mind Elements and factors (Cetasika) plus the mental objects. Because of mind, matter arises. Because of matter, mind arises. Sometimes both arises simultaneously. Sometimes one arises first. After a time at the sick bay, I am on my feet again. Now our squad is practising all that so typical march exercises and military cerimonials. As a buddhistic wheel of existence, Doughboys and Grrrrrrrls are marching along up and down the Air Force Base, counting down the time for the REAL bootcamp that will begin at the future days. What about the wheel of existence ? (Yes! I have got still time to make some Niyama about these questions. I will divide the W. of E. in three sections: Past, Present and Future, ordered and numbered to make understanding more easy to readers, and since all these elements are produced by Kamma process, I will try to answer the questions about how these elements are produced on. I´ve picked up this list at a uncertain source on internet, perhaps at the Mahasi Sayadaw´s some time ago) WHEEL OF EXISTENCE !!! PAST -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Ignorance (avijja) 2. Karma Accumulations (sankharas) (Karma Process (kamma-bhava)- 5 causes: 1,2,8,9,10) -------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESENT 3. Rebirth-Linking consciousness (viññana) 4. Corporeality-Mentality (Nama-Rupa) 5. Six Bases (Ayatana) 6. Impression (Phassa) 7. Feeling (Vedana) (Rebirth-Process(Upatti-bhava)- 5 results: 3-7) 8. Craving (Tanha) 9. Clinging (Upadana) 10. Process of Becoming (Bhava) (Kamma-Process (kamma-bhava)- 5 causes:1,2,8,9,10) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- FUTURE 11. Rebirth (Jati) 12. Old Age and Death (Jara-Marana) (Rebirth Process(Upatti-bhava)- 5 results: 3-7) ------------------------------ The attentive reader will perceive that Buddha had expounded Dhamma is many ways and manners. The Buddhistic Wheel of Existence has some connections with many Hinduistic ideas about the same questions, but Siddartha Gautama was the first sage to say openly that everything on this scheme has a formal and definite cause - Kamma-bhava or Upatthi-bhava - that send all this effects to other quadrants of the Wheel. Samsara is Samsara, rolling up on and on... Will the doughboys and grrrrrrrls survive at the real boot camp ? Some days before my falling down at the sick bay many other grrrrrrls had the same fate of mine because the hot and dry wheater here... hard days are coming !!!!! O noble bunch of Dhamma followers! Don´t dare to cling up at the thought of a delicious floating over caskets of red, red wine on Lotus Ponds at the breeze of springtime, forgotting to read the next chapter of ICARO´s DHAMMA DIARY!!!! ICARO´S DHAMMA DIARY, CHAPTER FOUR: "I´ve been working on the SHEEP road, working night and day..." Mettaya, Ícaro 25860 From: Larry Date: Sun Oct 5, 2003 9:06am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Hi Jon, I agree any kusala mental action (javana?) would have an element of tranquility in it and this action could arise "spontaneously" for anyone, depending on accumulations etc. Larry ps: I was wondering about different kinds of tranquility. Would all of the following be considered different kinds of tranquility: tranquility cetasikas, jhana cittas, path and fruition cittas, nirodha samapatti? What is the difference between nirodha samapatti and bhavanga cittas? When the bhavanga cittas are arising, is that tranquility? This goes back to my thinking that dreamless sleep is tranquility. I'm guessing that tranquility isn't just a minimum of sense door activity but rather there has to be a virtuous intention that conditions it. So if one went to sleep with a virtuous intention wouldn't that be tranquility? Or would it be more correct to say the intention has an element of tranquility but not the sleep (bhavanga)? Does tranquility have a particular quality, sort of soft and gentle (not corpse-like)? L. 25861 From: Larry Date: Sun Oct 5, 2003 9:44am Subject: One More Time (Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation.) Hi Howard, I have thought some more about our conversation and I think I can see what you are getting at regarding contact (phassa) being all that is known. However, I think the (hypothetical) 5 door in-put to that point of contact is a very detailed three dimentional image for all 5 doors, depending on the acuity of sense perception. [I think I would divide the body door into internal and external.] It seems like these 5-door processes are constantly building an evolving image of "reality" somewhere in the mind. I agree all this raw data is interpreted, usually very shallowly. But from childhood on we are constantly experimenting with our "world". These experiments alter our interpretations. We learn, and to a surprising extent we get most of it right, practically speaking. Although there can be some spectacular mistakes. So I guess my ontology and epistomology are pragmatic: when results follow according to intentions, we have understood reality correctly. A three dimentional visual image arises; another three dimentional image moves through it. Yes! It is a door. Larry 25862 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Oct 5, 2003 11:48am Subject: FW: [dsg] ICARO ´S_DHAMMA_DIARY_-_CHAPTER_ONE_! memorizing texts. Dear friends I am sure Icaro does not mind me forwarding this letter, you will appreciate to hear from him. Icaro wrote:< I had memorized all list of Paramattha Dhammas times ago>. Hear we see the benefit also of memorizing. Some people may think, just memorizing, well, that is not all. But, in stressful times, in times of trouble, it helps. These times are sure to come. I remember a text one of the Pali teachers gave me and which he recites everyday; Beantwoord: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Datum: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 14:18:32 -0000 Aan: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Onderwerp: Re: [dsg] ICARO ´S_DHAMMA_DIARY_-_CHAPTER_ONE_! Nina:" How do you manage > to get at a computer? Is it allowed? I admire you that you keep up with > Dhammasangani in the midst of harsh training and the eating of mutton." --------------------------------------------------------------------- No... computers and Palm Tops aren´t allowed. Only at the weekends I manage to take a flight back to home and post to you all!!! And about clogging my stomach with mundane meat... oh well... take a look at the next chapter of my Dhamma Diary!!!!! --------------------------------------------------------------- Nina:" You > do not forget paramattha dhammas, even when there is stomach trouble. > Keep courage and good cheer, > best wishes," -------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks Nina! I had memorized all list of Paramattha Dhammas times ago: that´s not difficult at all. The Dhammasangani´s Mattika is also very easy to handle with! I am missing all of you, noble company of Dhamma Students! Military barracks are so boring sometimes... mettaya, Ícaro 25863 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Oct 5, 2003 1:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ICARO´S DHAMMA DIARY CHAPTER THREE !!!! Dear Icaro, I appreciate the truth this diary contains and the very lively style. Thank you. But it is not yet the real bootcamp? It will be worse, illfitting boots, disagreeable food, bad climate, etc. Let me think of something to cheer you up. Metta is the feet of the world, without metta how could we live? We have to help each other. You wrote about the wheel of samsara. We are all in the same boat. You and your colleagues have to depend on one another especially when conditions get worse. So, this situation has something positive also: it makes you realize the benefit of metta. Nina. op 05-10-2003 17:26 schreef icarofranca op icarofranca@y...: > > My head aches... > My stomach twistes... > > > WHEEL OF EXISTENCE !!! > > PAST > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 1. Ignorance (avijja) > 2. Karma Accumulations (sankharas) > (Karma Process (kamma-bhava)- 5 causes: 1,2,8,9,10) > > 25864 From: Date: Sun Oct 5, 2003 10:44am Subject: Re: One More Time (Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation.) Hi, Larry - I'm glad you've given a bit more thought to this. The matter really isn't as simple as either of us thinks, but to me, the act of cognition (phassa), encompassing both knowing and known as aspects, is primary. I think I follow you when you write " the .. 5 door in-put to that point of contact is a very detailed three dimensional image for all 5 doors, depending on the acuity of sense perception. [I think I would divide the body door into internal and external.] It seems like these 5-door processes are constantly building an evolving image of "reality" somewhere in the mind." I agree that there is a kind of cumulative processing that builds the picture of "our world". As to the "somewhere in the mind" this occurs, I believe that this is a sankharic processing producing a multilayered structure of mental constructs formed on the basis of working over the results of repeated acts of sa~n~na. The details of the "detailed three diminsional image" you refer to are carved out by mental processing after the initial contact occurs, with that contact followed by multiple additional contacts on increasingly "sa~n~nified" and "sankharized" versions of the initial data. This is the conceptual picture I have of what goes on. But it is just theoretical guesswork. There really isn't much point in going beyond what we directly get to know. What we can get to know, depending on how refined, attentive, concentrative, and microscopic our discernment becomes, is only what we can directly observe, and, of this, what is most important, I think, is that we increasingly come to see the fleetingness of it all, the impersonality and insubstantiality of it all, and the unworthiness, uselessness, and even sorrowfulness of grasping at it. What we really need to do is to learn to *let go*. This includes letting go of pet theories, and just coming to see how the Buddha's handful of leaves is really enough. With metta, Howard In a message dated 10/5/03 12:45:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I have thought some more about our conversation and I think I can see > what you are getting at regarding contact (phassa) being all that is > known. However, I think the (hypothetical) 5 door in-put to that > point of contact is a very detailed three dimentional image for all 5 > doors, depending on the acuity of sense perception. [I think I would > divide the body door into internal and external.] It seems like these > 5-door processes are constantly building an evolving image > of "reality" somewhere in the mind. I agree all this raw data is > interpreted, usually very shallowly. But from childhood on we are > constantly experimenting with our "world". These experiments alter > our interpretations. We learn, and to a surprising extent we get most > of it right, practically speaking. Although there can be some > spectacular mistakes. So I guess my ontology and epistomology are > pragmatic: when results follow according to intentions, we have > understood reality correctly. A three dimentional visual image > arises; another three dimentional image moves through it. Yes! It is > a door. > > Larry > /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) 25865 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Oct 5, 2003 3:06pm Subject: Re: How does one handle stressful results of kamma? Hi Christine, Your question and the subsequent discussion reminded me of this poem: For each ecstatic instant We must an anguish pay In keen and quivering ratio To the ecstasy. For each beloved hour Sharp pittances of years - Bitter contested farthings - And Coffers heaped with Tears! -Emily Dickinson Metta, James 25866 From: Date: Sun Oct 5, 2003 5:23pm Subject: Re: One More Time (Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation.) Howard: "There really isn't much point in going beyond what we directly get to know. What we can get to know, depending on how refined, attentive, concentrative, and microscopic our discernment becomes, is only what we can directly observe, and, of this, what is most important, I think, is that we increasingly come to see the fleetingness of it all, the impersonality and insubstantiality of it all, and the unworthiness, uselessness, and even sorrowfulness of grasping at it. What we really need to do is to learn to *let go*. This includes letting go of pet theories, and just coming to see how the Buddha's handful of leaves is really enough." Hi Howard, I agree *but* [I'm afraid there will always be a "but"] one has inclinations. I've been reading "Recognizing Reality" by Dreyfus, which is an analysis of Dharmakirti's thought, and it has animated my mental factors. Also it is interesting to look at these five doors and try to figure out what is going on. I think having two eyes and two ears accounts for a certain amount of three dimentionality. Plus just moving the head from side to side enriches the picture immeasurably. I'm sure someone with a good nose or tongue can pick up quite a bit of detail. And the body sense, internal and external, accounts a lot for our sense of being a solid on-going concern with a definite location in space. I wonder if there are mental factors that inhibit the optimal functioning of the five doors. I know concentration plays a role in focusing attention within a field. Maybe tranquility helps in opening-up a field. Larry 25867 From: Date: Sun Oct 5, 2003 5:44pm Subject: Vism. XIV, 20 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XIV [How many kinds of understanding are there] 20. 11. As regards the tetrads, in the first tetrad, knowledge that occurs contingent upon the truth of suffering is "knowledge of suffering"; knowledge that occurs contingent upon the origin of suffering is "knowledge of the origin of suffering"; knowledge that occurs contingent upon the cessation of suffering is "knowledge of the cessation of suffering"; and knowledge that occurs contingent upon the way leading to the cessation of suffering is "knowledge of the way leading to the cessation of suffering". So it is of four kinds as knowledge of the four truths. 25868 From: Date: Sun Oct 5, 2003 3:24pm Subject: Re: One More Time (Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation.) Hi, Larry - I find myself often and sorely tempted to read the *Madhyamika and Yogacara theoretical writings, preserved mainly by the Tibetan traditions, and to delve deeply into the details there, but I do try to resist that temptation. I think it's far better to keep it simple as far as the intellect is concerned - the temptation is great but the payoff small. With metta (pure and simple! ;-), Howard * Fortunately, I don't have as much trouble resisting the "lure" of Abhidhamma! ;-) In a message dated 10/5/03 8:24:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I agree *but* [I'm afraid there will always be a "but"] one has > inclinations. I've been reading "Recognizing Reality" by Dreyfus, which > is an analysis of Dharmakirti's thought, and it has animated my mental > factors. Also it is interesting to look at these five doors and try to > figure out what is going on. I think having two eyes and two ears > accounts for a certain amount of three dimentionality. Plus just moving > the head from side to side enriches the picture immeasurably. I'm sure > someone with a good nose or tongue can pick up quite a bit of detail. > And the body sense, internal and external, accounts a lot for our sense > of being a solid on-going concern with a definite location in space. I > wonder if there are mental factors that inhibit the optimal functioning > of the five doors. I know concentration plays a role in focusing > attention within a field. Maybe tranquility helps in opening-up a field. > > Larry > /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) 25869 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Oct 5, 2003 7:27pm Subject: Re: FW: [dsg] ICARO ´S_DHAMMA_DIARY_-_CHAPTER_ONE_! memorizing texts. --- Dear Nina, Congratulations to Lodewijk on his birthday! Did you see my post?: On the question of whether each javana moment is kamma here is an interesting piece: "It is stated in the Kathavatthupakarana-atthakatha that there is a relationship between citta and kamma. If mind be distracted, no kamma can be performed. Yada cittam bhajjamanam hoti tada kammaam bhajjamanam hotiti attho." P147 The life and work of Buddhaghosa by B.C Law In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > kamma. > This is a good day to recollect because Lodewijk just turned 78 today. ---- with respect robert 25870 From: m. nease Date: Sun Oct 5, 2003 8:17pm Subject: Distraction Hi Robert, Nina and Lodewijk, Robert, I did see this earlier. How do you reckon citta can be distracted--that is, given the duration of a cittakha.na, how can a distraction occur? Can 'cittam' be used in a more conventional sense here? Not having any luck with 'bhajjamanam'. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: rjkjp1 To: Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 7:27 PM Subject: Re: FW: [dsg] ICARO ´S_DHAMMA_DIARY_-_CHAPTER_ONE_! memorizing texts. > --- Dear Nina, > Congratulations to Lodewijk on his birthday! > Did you see my post?: > On the question of whether each javana moment is kamma here is an > interesting piece: > "It is stated in the Kathavatthupakarana-atthakatha that there is a > relationship between citta and kamma. If mind be distracted, no kamma > can be performed. Yada cittam bhajjamanam hoti tada kammaam > bhajjamanam hotiti attho." > P147 The life and work of Buddhaghosa by B.C Law > > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom > wrote: > > kamma. > > This is a good day to recollect because Lodewijk just turned 78 > today. > ---- > with respect > robert 25871 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sun Oct 5, 2003 10:32pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Victor, :-)) This time it is not only a good reminder, but also a good 'lesson' for me, re. the "Sammaditthi Sutta". Thanks man!! When I stated, "That all there is are the cittas, cetasikas and rupa. Aside from this, nothing does, all being concept only!", though I was aware of not including Nibbana because I wanted to mention only the 'contitioned realities' which I thought was more immediately relevant, I should not have associated it with "Right View". Right View *includes* the knowledge of Nibbana! And this is not all, the limitation of my assertion is not just with regard to this. Dependent Origination and the Four Noble Truths must always be kept in mind also. Besides when I do state firmly about something being Right or Wrong View, do I even keep in mind the difference between Kusala and Akusala in terms of their relevance to the development of wisdom? Rarely. Hopefully I will be more careful from now. But I do suffer from the same 'dhammazheimer' disease as Christine does. :-/ I have always felt uneasy when I read about Dependent origination, and I usually avoid it. But now I won't and will be happy with whatever little I gain from reading about it. The Sammaditthi Sutta will be read over and over again, and I believe that full understanding of it will never come to me ever. However, at this point it has also shown me the importance of studying Abhidhamma. Victor, since I get the impression that you believe in viewing experiences from the standpoint of 'things' and 'beings', I would like to express the following observations. When I read about 'beings' as in human, animals, devas and brahmas, I understand them to be manifestations of different conditions. A couple of months ago, there were conditions to reflect briefly on Kaamavaccara bhumi the one we are in. I reflected on the fact that all the time it is just one sense door or the other that aramana is being apprehended. And all the while there are sounds, sights, smells, tangible object and tastes almost as if, waiting to be experienced. And then there are concepts which are objects of the mind door, and which is no other than memories and expectations of these very experiences through the five doorways. I then compared this to the rupavaccara and the arupavaccara and concluded that, 'those' bhumis are totally different. The conditions being so. Even when it is both kaamavaccara, the difference as in Deva and human is quite vast. For example the devas can perceive fine matter through all the senses that we can't, and the fine food for us will be very gross for them. And now we can bring this kind of understanding to our own experience and the difference not only between ours and other's experiences, but also different experiences at different times. What is there but a complexity of conditions?!! So when you say for example, such things as it is "up to *us*, that this or that will be", I think it better to say that "it is up to conditions"! The idea that *we* do things is an obstacle to understanding the reality of that which *is*. Same applies to viewing conventional birth, old age and death. When I read about these, they remind me of conditions. And these conditions can be understood only when considering this momentary experience, not as *I* experiencing, but as impersonal dhammas performing their own functions. There cannot be insight of the Buddhadhamma kind when the object is a conventional reality. This will happen only if the conventional reality conditions mindfulness of the presently arising dhamma. Does this make any sense? Once again I thank you Victor for the Sammaditthi Sutta. I really am grateful. Best wishes, Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Sukin, > > I am saying the view "That all there is are the cittas, cetasikas > and rupa. Aside from this, nothing does, all being concept only!" is > your view, not the right view as the Buddha taught. > > What is right view? > > > "And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge > with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to > the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of > practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right > view." > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn22.html > > Please also refer to > Majjhima Nikaya 9 > Sammaditthi Sutta > The Discourse on Right View > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn009.html > regarding right view. > > Peace, > Victor > 25872 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Oct 6, 2003 0:28am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Larry, > Understanding compounds is easy. You put two things together and you get > something else. 1 + 1 = 3, the two things plus the something else. Blue > plus yellow makes green. The blue is there, the yellow is there, and > also now there is green with its own specific characteristic: it makes > traffic go. But how is this when it applies to khandhas? Sukin. 25873 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Oct 6, 2003 0:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion Hi Howard, I'll go only to some parts of your posts. > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > We start with what the Buddha taught. But very quickly, we should drop > the theorizing and get on with the practice, preferably under the guidance of > those further along than we - the Buddha most of all, of course, via the > sutta pitaka, the least disputable record of his teaching. > -------------------------------------------------- I know that you know that we see this quite differently, and I don't expect to budge you and inch to my direction. But allow me to express myself anyway. ;-) Obviously you agree that all dhammas are anatta, and so there is no one to "drop the theorizing and get on with the practice". However what I think you may not appreciate as I do, is that pariyatti is very much *part* of the practice. Theorizing and analysis or even papanaca are conditioned too. And though they may not be useful especially when compared to the moment of satipatthana, no amount of wishing them away will do the work. Even when we say that direct 'experience' is more important that 'theory', if indeed the experience does not take place, it simply means that 'conditions are not ripe yet'! And very likely one of the conditions that which need more nurture, is more pariyatti and reflection. It is not so much the question of prematurity, that we are careful not to attempt applying our 'knowledge' of the Tipitaka to practical matters. But rather, *understanding* that sati and panna are conditioned realities, and amongst other things, that they are different from 'lobha', the desire to catch realities and 'ignorance'. That pariyatti and only this, which can condition patipatti, and not desire. And how and when this happens, it is all up to conditions. This leads me to be wary of personal experience, unless it confirms with the intellectual understanding of the theory. I also keep in mind the the word Sekha as applied to the Ariyans below the arahatta. Only they can be said truly to be "learning from experience". The rest of us, without referring to the Buddha's teachings, are groping in the dark and only making wild guesses. And being who we are today, with so much ignorance and wanting, I think we will end up interpreting even the Buddha's teachings in a way best suited to us. So not only is the correct and most authoritative teachings should be relied upon, but also the 'wise friend' who will be able to correct our misinterpretation. Some find the commentaries as contaminating of the original purity of the Teachings if not out right distortion. However, I have found through constant reference made here and elsewhere, that they have helped in increasing my appreciation of the Buddha's direct words to a very large extent. > If indeed, there are objects out there, then> > > we shouldn't deny it. > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > There is, in principle, no way of knowing. What we *can* know is what > directly arises within the range of discernment - sights, sounds, etc, etc., > and our unfortunate reification of these, a mental enslavement activity. > -------------------------------------------------- But the Buddha did teach about Rupa and about them arising and falling due to conditions of the sort different from nama, and who knows how and when this knowledge will condition insight in the future?! Also as I mentioned above, I am cautious about subjective experience. Being generally 'ignorant' or at least having a large latent tendency of it, I would be careful to base my knowledge of the Truth on them. But yes, in theory, all that can be known is what is experienced through the doorways. And if indeed there is no insight into reality, then one should not insist on theoretical knowledge as*proof* of the situation, beyond the fact that the Buddha said so. However, if one knows theory as just that, then it should be fine. To reject it on the other hand, would be a bigger blunder, I think. > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't really care if there is something called rupa "out there" in > some "external world". What is never knowable is of no interest! What I do care > about is what I actually can encounter, and the more I look, the more I see > that all that is actually encountered are experiential phenomena, and these are > events that are without self-existence, are coreless, tentative, fleeting, > and dependent. I don't see this by theorizing, but by looking at what is > actually there. As the Zen folks say: "LOOK! LOOK!" > --------------------------------------------------- Are you sure that all this is direct experience, are you sure it is not just `thinking'? Will end it here. Metta, Sukin. 25874 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Oct 6, 2003 1:46am Subject: Re: How does one handle stressful results of kamma? Thanks for this gift James - I like it very much. It seems life is like that, the happiness outweighed by the sorrow. metta, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > Your question and the subsequent discussion reminded me of this poem: > > For each ecstatic instant > We must an anguish pay > In keen and quivering ratio > To the ecstasy. > > For each beloved hour > Sharp pittances of years - > Bitter contested farthings - > And Coffers heaped with Tears! > > -Emily Dickinson > > Metta, James 25875 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Oct 6, 2003 2:59am Subject: Re: How does one handle stressful results of kamma? Hello RobM, Thanks for your last couple of posts. I've printed them off and have them in my work diary to read again when I get a few spare moments. Only four days until I go on Leave, and so much to do. I had hoped to reply, but may not get a chance for a while. Please know that I enjoy your posts tremendously and learn a lot from them. Thanks for the summary of the 'Curbing Anger, Spreading love' book. Much appreciated. metta and peace, Christine ---The Trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Christine (and all); > > Here is a summary of a book, "Curbing Anger Spreading Love" by > Bhikkhu Visuddhacara which describes ways of controling anger. > > Mindfulness > =========== > Mindfulness (sati) is the first and best guard against anger and all > unwholesome states of mind. When we are watching our anger, we are > not paying attention to that which "caused" the anger. Mindfulness > allows us to pause to make a correct response. We must have > mindfulness before practicing the other suggestions. > > Firm resolution in maintaining calmness > ======================================= > If we make a consistent and purposeful effort to maintain calmness > and equanimity, we are less likely to get swept away with the > emotion of anger. > > Consider the Buddha's fine example > ================================== > The Buddha did not get angry when Devadatta tried to kill him or > when Cinca falsely accused the Buddha of making her pregnant. Khanti > (forbearance/patience) is a parami, one of the ten qualities > perfected by the Buddha. The Bodhisatta Khantivadi, "Preacher of > Patience", incurred the wrath of a jealous king. The king had the > Bodisatta flogged then the king had the Bodhisatta's hands, feet, > ears and nose cut off. The Bodhisatta endured without anger. > > Consider that we must all die one day > ===================================== > Every moment of anger is a moment of lost opportunity for skillful > thoughts. Verse 6 of the Dhammapada says: > The others do not know that in this world, we all must die; > Those who know, have their anger calmed thereby. > > Consider that we are all related > ================================ > It is unbecoming to harbour hatred against a person who has been > related to us in a previous life. The Buddha said, "Bhikkhus, it is > not easy to find a being who has not formerly been your mother, your > father, your brother, your sister, your son or your daughter." > > Consider the harmful effects of anger on oneself > ================================================ > By getting angry, you are like a man who wants to hit another and > picks up a burning ember and thus first burns himself. > > In the Kodhana Sutta (AN VII.60), the Buddha says: > An angry person is ugly and sleeps poorly. Gaining a profit, he > turns it into a loss, having done damage with word and deed. A > person overwhelmed with anger destroys his wealth. Maddened with > anger, he destroys his status. Relatives, friends and colleagues > avoid him. Anger brings loss. Anger inflames the mind. He doesn't > realize that his danger is born from within. An angry person doesn't > know his own benefit. An angry person doesn't see the Dhamma. A man > conquered by anger is in a mass of darkness. He takes pleasure in > bad deeds as if they were good, but later, when his anger is gone, > he suffers as if burned with fire. He is spoiled, blotted out, like > fire enveloped in smoke. When anger spreads, when a man becomes > angry, he has no shame, no fear of evil, is not respectful in > speech. For a person overcome with anger, nothing gives light. > > Consider that we are the owners of our deeds > ============================================ > The law of kamma works for us and it works for others. Others > will "pay the price" for their deeds and we will "pay the price" for > our anger. When a Brahman scolded the Buddha, the Buddha replied as > follows: "Do you sometimes receive visits from guests or > relatives?" "Yes, I do" "When they come, do you offer them > food?" "Yes, I do" "And if they refuse your offer, to whom does this > food belong?" "It belongs to me." "In this case, you offered me > anger, but I did not accept it. It is yours." > > Consider their good points > ========================== > All people have good points. Our anger may cause us to momentarily > focus on the person's bad points, but that does not change the fact > that the person has many good points as well. Focusing on the > person's good points as well helps us to expand our perspective > Having a more balanced view calms our anger. > > Freeze! > ======= > Whenever we are angry, we should not act or say anything. For in > that frame of mind, what we do or say is likely to be unskillful. We > might do or say something that we regret later. Whenever anger > arises, we should freeze and be like a block of wood. Only after we > have quelled the anger should we say or do something. It is the > nature of anger to feed upon itself. Anger is like a fire; it > constantly consumes its base of support and needs new fuel to > sustain itself. A frozen mind can stop the progress of anger. > > Why are we angry? > ================= > If we take a moment and consider why we are angry, we usually > discover that we get angry because we have an ego, a BIG ego. Things > are not the way that WE want them and so we get angry. The current > situation naturally arises because of conditions but WE want it to > be different. > > Who is angry? > ============= > There is no base for anger (anatta). The so-called "I" is not the > same for two consecutive moments. At the moment the wrong was done > there was another thought and another mass of molecules which were > regarded as "I", whereas what are regarded as "I" at the present > moment are a different thought and collection of molecules, though > belonging to the same process. Thus some other being did wrong to > someone else and another gets angry with another. Is this not a > ridiculous situation? > > Look into a mirror > ================== > Anger makes a person look ugly. The heat of anger accelerates the > aging process. A person who is habitually angry will be reborn ugly > in their next life. > > Nobody is free from blame > ========================= > People living in glass houses should not throw stones. When we > consider our own faults, it is easier to forgive others. Perhaps it > is our own faults that is making others angry at us. > > Forgiveness > =========== > Forgive others and forgive ourselves. Forgiving others is a way of > taking a negative energy and converting it into a positive one. > There are many examples of the Buddha forgiving others who wanted to > harm Him. Often it is most difficult to forgive ourselves. Not > forgiving ourselves is a form of punishing ourselves. We should > consider that in the Sangha, there is no punishment there is only > acknowledgement, forgiveness and learning. There is no use crying > over spilt milk. > > Review the benefits of loving kindness (Metta) > ============================================== > Regular metta meditation develops a positive habit in the mind. This > positive habit can become an "automatic response" as situations > arise and can help to prevent anger from gaining a foothold in our > mind. > > According to the Metta Sutta (AN XI.16), one who consistently > practices metta can expect the following the benefits: > - One sleeps easily, wakes easily and does not have bad dreams > - One is liked by humans and animals, protected by Devas > - Cannot be harmed by fire, poison or weapons > - The mind is easily concentrated > - One's countenance is serene (bright complexion) > - One is destined for a positive rebirth (dies unconfused) > > Give a gift > =========== > If a person insults or slanders us, understand that that person is > consumed with anger. We should consider the current and future > suffering of that person and have compassion. Responding with anger > ourselves simply perpetuates the feeling of anger. Verse 5 of the > Dhammapada explains that anger is never stilled by anger, only by > metta is anger stilled; this is an eternal law. Giving a gift to the > person who insults or slanders us can shock that person into > realizing the foolishness of anger. > > It may also be helpful to note that "dukkha" is sometimes translated > as "stress"... > > Hope that this helps. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 25876 From: abhidhammika Date: Mon Oct 6, 2003 5:47am Subject: Re: Distraction : To Mike and Robert K Dear Mike, Robert K, Nina, and all How are you? While we are waiting for Robert's reply, I would like to say something about distraction. Yes, it seems that a mental moment being to short may not have the time to be distracted. But, the mind being distracted merely means the mind accompanied with distraction, namely one of the unhealthy minds (akusalacittaani), - in particular the moha-rooted mind with distraction as the dominant cetasika. Therefore, when a distracted mind vanishes, both the mind and distraction also vanish together in same mental moment. By the way, Robert, could you please check the spelling "bhajjamanam" or the page number in the Kathaavatthu A.t.thakathaa. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: Hi Robert, Nina and Lodewijk, Robert, I did see this earlier. How do you reckon citta can be distracted--that is, given the duration of a cittakha.na, how can a distraction occur? Can 'cittam' be used in a more conventional sense here? Not having any luck with 'bhajjamanam'. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: rjkjp1 To: Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 7:27 PM Subject: Re: FW: [dsg] ICARO ´S_DHAMMA_DIARY_-_CHAPTER_ONE_! memorizing texts. 25877 From: Date: Mon Oct 6, 2003 2:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 10/6/03 3:30:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sukinder@k... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I'll go only to some parts of your posts. > > >--------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > We start with what the Buddha taught. But very quickly, we > should drop > >the theorizing and get on with the practice, preferably under the > guidance of > >those further along than we - the Buddha most of all, of course, via > the > >sutta pitaka, the least disputable record of his teaching. > >-------------------------------------------------- > > I know that you know that we see this quite differently, and I don't > expect to budge you and inch to my direction. But allow me to express > myself anyway. ;-) > > Obviously you agree that all dhammas are anatta, and so there is no > one to "drop the theorizing and get on with the practice". However what > I think you may not appreciate as I do, is that pariyatti is very much > *part* of the practice. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, a part. The Buddha was fairly clear in the suttas as to what the practice is. He did not continually say read and read, and think and think. He said to guard the senses, to restrain the senses, to be mindful (and to be mindful, and to be mindful!), to cultivate the jhanas, and, most specifically, paraphrasing, to avoid evil, to do good, and to purify the mind. And the Buddha also taught that these things *can* be done, and that he would not tell us to do them if they could not be done. He did *not* preach a gospel of no-control. ------------------------------------------------------ Theorizing and analysis or even papanaca are > > conditioned too. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: So what? This is not news. What is your conclusion, that there is nothing to be done? That there is no option to follow the Buddha's instructions, because the die is cast, conditions are in place, and what will happen will happen? Buddhism is called the "middle path" and the "path of purification", but not the "impossible path" or the "path of hopelessness"! ---------------------------------------------------- And though they may not be useful especially when > > compared to the moment of satipatthana, no amount of wishing them > away will do the work. Even when we say that direct 'experience' is > more important that 'theory', if indeed the experience does not take > place, it simply means that 'conditions are not ripe yet'! And very likely > one of the conditions that which need more nurture, is more pariyatti > and reflection. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I honestly think it is nonsense to say that (especially excessive/compulsive) theorizing and analyzing are inevitable. The notion of "no control" is way overblown, way exaggerated, by several folks here. Many things cannot be directly controlled (i.e., influenced), but those things can be *indirectly* controlled. Whatever arises arises due to conditions. While we often have no direct control over a phenomenon, we can indirectly control it by influencing some of the conditions for it. A mundane, conventional example: Sure, wishing for a cup of coffee won't give us a "java jolt"! ;-) But brewing some coffee, and pouring some into a cup, and putting our hand on the handle, and bring the cup to our lips, and taking a sip, and swallowing it *will*! In order not to get involved in a convoluted, speculative line of thought about something we don't and can't have verification of, we can, for example, first of all, by means of a developed habit of keen mindfulness and guarding the senses, particularly guarding the mind door, turn the mind to something else, or engage in a physical activity that requires our full attention. Can we avoid anger? Yes, at least much of the time, if we can calm the mind, and yes, if we don't persist with a line of thought that leads to anger. Can we control what we see when we open our eyes? Well, that depends on whether we've left the light on or not, and on whether we've stayed in our room or gone outside, etc, etc. If we are unmindful most of the time, we have little control over anything. But if we pursue a cultivation of calm, concentration, and, above all, mindfulness, then the more successful we are in this, the greater is the control. Yes, there is no "I" to exercise control! I'm no disputing that. There is no agent to do anything, including reading and studying and thinking and concocting, but there *is* the doing of these things, and there can also be the diminishing of these things! ----------------------------------------------------- > It is not so much the question of prematurity, that we are careful not to > attempt applying our 'knowledge' of the Tipitaka to practical matters. But > rather, *understanding* that sati and panna are conditioned > realities, and amongst other things, that they are different from 'lobha', > the desire to catch realities and 'ignorance'. That pariyatti and only this, > > which can condition patipatti, and not desire. And how and when this > happens, it is all up to conditions. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: This notion that pariyatti *is* the practice is peculiar to the followers of Khun Sujin, it seems to me. This is *not* what the Buddha taught during his 45 years. The statement that it is "pariyatti and only this, which can condition patipatti, and not desire. And how and when this happens, it is all up to conditions" is a perfect blueprint for hopelessness and despair. Moreover, it is *not* what the Buddha taught. He did not teach that study *is* the practice. Oh, and BTW, while wishing won't make it so, were there not the desire to gain freedom, a desire growing out of the recognition of the imperfection of our current state of dukkha, if there were no quest, there would be no finding! I am very grateful that the desire for peace and freedom is there in me, and is strong, because one who doesn't even desire to leave his prison, or who does desire it, but believes there is nothing s/he can do about it, is truly consigned to imprisonment. --------------------------------------------------------- > This leads me to be wary of personal experience, unless it confirms > with the intellectual understanding of the theory. I also keep in mind the > the word Sekha as applied to the Ariyans below the arahatta. Only they > can be said truly to be "learning from experience". The rest of us, > without referring to the Buddha's teachings, are groping in the dark and > only making wild guesses. > And being who we are today, with so much ignorance and wanting, I > think we will end up interpreting even the Buddha's teachings in a way > best suited to us. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: And I think that interpreting the Dhamma as a teaching of utter lack of control is a way least suited to us, a way suited only to continued imprisonment. -------------------------------------------------------- So not only is the correct and most authoritative > > teachings should be relied upon, but also the 'wise friend' who will be > able to correct our misinterpretation. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: The least disputable teachings are to be found in the sutta pitaka. And, BTW, how do you choose who is the "wise friend"? Don't you have to do that yourself? Is it simply conditioned? Well, of course it is. But does that mean it is random? That there is no choice to be made? ----------------------------------------------------- > Some find the commentaries as contaminating of the original purity of > the Teachings if not out right distortion. However, I have found through > constant reference made here and elsewhere, that they have helped in > increasing my appreciation of the Buddha's direct words to a very large > extent. > > > If indeed, there are objects out there, then> > >>we shouldn't deny it. > >> > >-------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > There is, in principle, no way of knowing. What we *can* know > is what > >directly arises within the range of discernment - sights, sounds, etc, > etc., > >and our unfortunate reification of these, a mental enslavement activity. > >-------------------------------------------------- > > But the Buddha did teach about Rupa and about them arising and falling > due to conditions of the sort different from nama, and who knows how > and when this knowledge will condition insight in the future?! > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Again, you propose reading (especially Abhidhamma) and then just waiting, because "WHO KNOWS [emphasis mine] how and when this knowledge will condition insight in the future?! " Frankly, I don't even understand why you bother recommending reading. After all, we have no control over that, right? Either we will or we won't, subject to conditions! ----------------------------------------------------------- > Also as I mentioned above, I am cautious about subjective experience. > Being generally 'ignorant' or at least having a large latent tendency of it, > > I would be careful to base my knowledge of the Truth on them. > > But yes, in theory, all that can be known is what is experienced through > the doorways. And if indeed there is no insight into reality, then one > should not insist on theoretical knowledge as*proof* of the situation, > beyond the fact that the Buddha said so. However, if one knows theory > as just that, then it should be fine. To reject it on the other hand, would > be a bigger blunder, I think. > > >-------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > I don't really care if there is something called rupa "out there" in > >some "external world". What is never knowable is of no interest! > What I do care > >about is what I actually can encounter, and the more I look, the more > I see > >that all that is actually encountered are experiential phenomena, and > these are > >events that are without self-existence, are coreless, tentative, > fleeting, > >and dependent. I don't see this by theorizing, but by looking at what is > >actually there. As the Zen folks say: "LOOK! LOOK!" > >--------------------------------------------------- > > Are you sure that all this is direct experience, are you sure it is not > just `thinking'? > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm sure of very little. But I have "seen" a bit, and that has caused me to gain trust in what the Buddha is reported in the suttas to have taught. ----------------------------------------------------- > > Will end it here. > > Metta, > ============================= 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) 25878 From: m. nease Date: Mon Oct 6, 2003 7:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Distraction : To Mike and Robert K Hi Suan, Thanks, this does make sense--does this mean that kamma cannot occur ("be performed") with mohamuulacitta? How does this mohamuulacitta differ from the moha arising with all akusalacittani? Does this refer only to pa.tisandhicitta, or...? Still interested in the paali for 'distraction' if anyone knows. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: abhidhammika To: Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 5:47 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Distraction : To Mike and Robert K Dear Mike, Robert K, Nina, and all How are you? While we are waiting for Robert's reply, I would like to say something about distraction. Yes, it seems that a mental moment being to short may not have the time to be distracted. But, the mind being distracted merely means the mind accompanied with distraction, namely one of the unhealthy minds (akusalacittaani), - in particular the moha-rooted mind with distraction as the dominant cetasika. Therefore, when a distracted mind vanishes, both the mind and distraction also vanish together in same mental moment. By the way, Robert, could you please check the spelling "bhajjamanam" or the page number in the Kathaavatthu A.t.thakathaa. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: Hi Robert, Nina and Lodewijk, Robert, I did see this earlier. How do you reckon citta can be distracted--that is, given the duration of a cittakha.na, how can a distraction occur? Can 'cittam' be used in a more conventional sense here? Not having any luck with 'bhajjamanam'. mike 25879 From: m. nease Date: Mon Oct 6, 2003 7:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Sukin, This is excellent--thanks! mike ----- Original Message ----- From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula To: Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2003 10:32 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. > Hi Victor, > > :-)) > This time it is not only a good reminder, but also a good 'lesson' for me, > re. the "Sammaditthi Sutta". Thanks man!! > > When I stated, > "That all there is are the cittas, cetasikas and rupa. Aside from this, > nothing does, all being concept only!", > > though I was aware of not including Nibbana because I wanted to > mention only the 'contitioned realities' which I thought was more > immediately relevant, I should not have associated it with "Right View". > > Right View *includes* the knowledge of Nibbana! > And this is not all, the limitation of my assertion is not just with regard > to this. Dependent Origination and the Four Noble Truths must always > be kept in mind also. Besides when I do state firmly about something > being Right or Wrong View, do I even keep in mind the difference > between Kusala and Akusala in terms of their relevance to the > development of wisdom? Rarely. Hopefully I will be more careful from > now. But I do suffer from the same 'dhammazheimer' disease as > Christine does. :-/ > > I have always felt uneasy when I read about Dependent origination, and > I usually avoid it. But now I won't and will be happy with whatever little I > gain from reading about it. The Sammaditthi Sutta will be read over and > over again, and I believe that full understanding of it will never come to > me ever. However, at this point it has also shown me the importance of > studying Abhidhamma. > > Victor, since I get the impression that you believe in viewing > experiences from the standpoint of 'things' and 'beings', I would like to > express the following observations. > > When I read about 'beings' as in human, animals, devas and brahmas, I > understand them to be manifestations of different conditions. A couple > of months ago, there were conditions to reflect briefly on Kaamavaccara > bhumi the one we are in. I reflected on the fact that all the time it is just > one sense door or the other that aramana is being apprehended. And > all the while there are sounds, sights, smells, tangible object and tastes > almost as if, waiting to be experienced. And then there are concepts > which are objects of the mind door, and which is no other than > memories and expectations of these very experiences through the five > doorways. > I then compared this to the rupavaccara and the arupavaccara and > concluded that, 'those' bhumis are totally different. The conditions being > so. Even when it is both kaamavaccara, the difference as in Deva and > human is quite vast. For example the devas can perceive fine matter > through all the senses that we can't, and the fine food for us will be > very gross for them. > > And now we can bring this kind of understanding to our own experience > and the difference not only between ours and other's experiences, but > also different experiences at different times. What is there but a > complexity of conditions?!! So when you say for example, such things as > it is "up to *us*, that this or that will be", I think it better to say that "it > is up to conditions"! > The idea that *we* do things is an obstacle to understanding the reality > of that which *is*. > Same applies to viewing conventional birth, old age and death. When I > read about these, they remind me of conditions. And these conditions > can be understood only when considering this momentary experience, > not as *I* experiencing, but as impersonal dhammas performing their > own functions. There cannot be insight of the Buddhadhamma kind > when the object is a conventional reality. This will happen only if the > conventional reality conditions mindfulness of the presently arising > dhamma. > > Does this make any sense? > > Once again I thank you Victor for the Sammaditthi Sutta. I really am > grateful. > > Best wishes, > Sukin. 25880 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Oct 6, 2003 10:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma with distracted mind Dear Robert, Lodewijk thanks you for the good wishes. op 06-10-2003 04:27 schreef rjkjp1 op rjkjp1@y...: > Congratulations to Lodewijk on his birthday! > "It is stated in the Kathavatthupakarana-atthakatha that there is a > relationship between citta and kamma. If mind be distracted, no kamma > can be performed. Yada cittam bhajjamanam hoti tada kammaam > bhajjamanam hotiti attho." > P147 The life and work of Buddhaghosa by B.C Law N: Like Mike, I also stumbled on bhajjamanam, must be a misprint. But this must be the meaning: the type of moha-muulacitta that is accompanied by uddhacca cannot produce as result rebirth, but it can produce result in the course of life. We discussed this in K.K. The reason is that when lobha-muulacitta motivates kamma, there are many moha-muulacittas accompanied by uddhacca in between, and these can also produce result. This is for Mike: when there is a moment with uddhacca, reslessness or distraction, there is not one moment but seven, and in following processes again and again. Nina. 25881 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Oct 6, 2003 10:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] stories, stories. Dear Christine, this was answered already. Remember the Perfections? It was under Patience (Ch 7) with a lot of commentary about Pukkusati and the potter's workshop. I love that story, one of my favorites. You said that when involved in difficult situations you cannot swallow the saying: just stories. I discussed this with Lodewijk, and he has the same feelings. We know it is true, but we are not always ready for it, do not want to hear it. But it helps to know that even when involved in stories this is conditioned. We should not try not to be involved in it, or force ourselves in any way. It is all natural. Nina. op 03-10-2003 22:24 schreef christine_forsyth op cforsyth@v...: > Could anyone refresh my memory as to the name (and sutta ref) of the > person who spent the night in a potters' (?) shed with the Buddha > unaware of his true identity until after receiving a Dhamma talk? 25882 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Oct 6, 2003 10:30am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Sukin, No problem, and you are welcome. Even if you stated "That all there is are the cittas, cetasikas, rupa, and Nibbana. Aside from this, nothing does, all being concept only!", that view is still not the right view as the Buddha taught. Why not? If you compare the view above with what the Buddha taught right view is and what Sariputta explained in Sammaditthi Sutta, you would see that right view is not a view on what exists and what does not exist, what are real, what are not real. In addition, the Buddha's teaching is not about what a being is or what a thing is. Inquiry and assertion along the line of what exists, and what does not exist, what are real, what are not real, what a being is, or what a thing is belong to the domain of metaphysics. It is good to know that you will read Sammaditthi Sutta over and over again. I would not assume that you will never understand it. Regarding your observations, I would say that: Try to first understand what the Buddha's teaching is about. Then try to examine your observations and see if they in accord and/or relevant to the Buddha's teaching. Your comments are appreciated. Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > :-)) 25883 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Oct 6, 2003 0:29pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Distraction : To Mike and Robert K Hi Mike, According to Buddhadatta: distracted (adj.) asamaahita; a––avihita. distraction (m.) sambhama; vikkhepa. (f.) anava.t.thiti. distractive (adj.) cittakobhaka; vikkhipaka. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" > > Still interested in the paali for 'distraction' if anyone knows. > > mike 25884 From: Date: Mon Oct 6, 2003 4:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Sukin, I wrote: "Understanding compounds is easy. You put two things together and you get something else. 1 + 1 = 3, the two things plus the something else. Blue plus yellow makes green. The blue is there, the yellow is there, and also now there is green with its own specific characteristic: it makes traffic go." Sukin: "But how is this when it applies to khandhas?" Larry: Put 5 khandhas together and you get a person. Five people together is a committee. Five committees is a government. All these are real by the definition of distinctly arising (sabhava), correct? Larry 25885 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Oct 6, 2003 6:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma with distracted mind --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Robert, > Lodewijk thanks you for the good wishes. > op 06-10-2003 04:27 schreef rjkjp1 op rjkjp1@y...: > > > Congratulations to Lodewijk on his birthday! > > > "It is stated in the Kathavatthupakarana-atthakatha that there is a > > relationship between citta and kamma. If mind be distracted, no kamma > > can be performed. Yada cittam bhajjamanam hoti tada kammaam > > bhajjamanam hotiti attho." > > P147 The life and work of Buddhaghosa by B.C Law > N: Like Mike, I also stumbled on bhajjamanam, must be a misprint. Dear Nina, Mike and Suan, The quote says If mind be distracted, no kamma can be performed. Yada cittam blajjamanam hoti tada kammaam bhajjamanam hotiti attho." I changed the first blajjamanam to bhajjamanam to match the second one assuming the first had a spelling mistake The third a has a line over it and the final m a dot. robertk 25886 From: Date: Mon Oct 6, 2003 8:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism. XIV, 20 "So it is of four kinds as knowledge of the four truths." Hi all, Here are a few lines from the "Buddhist Dictionary" http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/bud-dict/dic_idx.htm sacca-ñána: 'knowledge of the truth' (s. prec.), may be of 2 kinds: (1) knowledge consisting in understanding (anubodha-ñána) and (2) knowledge consisting in penetration (pativedha-ñána), i.e. realization. Cf. pariyatti. "Amongst these, (1) 'knowledge consisting in understanding' is mundane (lokiya, q.v.), and its arising with regard to the extinction of suffering, and to the path, is due to hearsay etc. (therefore not due to one's realization of the supermundane path; s. ariya-puggala) (2) 'Knowledge consisting in penetration', however, is supermundane (lokuttara), with the extinction of suffering (= nibbána) as object, it penetrates with its functions the 4 truths (in one and the same moment), as it is said (S. LVI, 30): whosoever, o monks, understands suffering, he also understands the origin of suffering, the extinction of suffering, and the path leading to the extinction of suffering' " (Vis.M. XVI, 84). See visuddhi (end of article). "Of the mundane kinds of knowledge, however, the knowledge of suffering by which (various) prejudices are overcome, dispels the personality-belief (sakkáya-dilthi, s. ditthi). The knowledge of the origin of suffering dispels the annihilation-view (uccheda-ditthi, s. ditthi); the knowledge of extinction of suffering, the eternity-view (sassata-ditthi, s. ditthi); the knowledge of the path, the view of inefficacy of action (akiriya-ditthi, s. ditthi)" (Vis.M. XVI, 85). Ditthi (snipped): Eternity-belief (sassata-ditthi) is the belief in the existence of a persisting ego-entity, soul or personality, existing independently of those physical and mental processes that constitute life and continuing even after death. Annihilation-belief (uccheda-ditthi), on the other hand, is the belief in the existence of an ego-entity or personality as being more or less identical with those physical and mental processes, and which therefore, at the dissolution at death, will come to be annihilated. - For the 20 kinds of personality-belief, see sakkáya-ditthi. Now, the Buddha neither teaches a personality which will continue after death, nor does he teach a personality which will be annihilated at death, but he shows us that 'personality', 'ego', 'individual', 'man', etc., are nothing but mere conventional designations (vohára-vacana) and that in the ultimate sense (s. paramattha-sacca) there is only this self-consuming process of physical and mental phenomena which continually arise and again disappear immediately. - For further details, s. anattá, khandha, paticcasamuppáda. Larry: Apparently mundane knowledge that desire causes suffering dispels the belief in a self that dies, and mundane knowledge of nibbana dispels belief in an eternal soul. I'm guessing this means: 1. Seeing the continuity of desire and suffering we can see the continuity of the khandhas (the objects of desire). Further, "self" could not be an object of desire because desire implies not having and if there were a self there could be no not having of it. 2. The correct conceptual understanding of nibbana is that nibbana is a mere cessation. How do you see it? Larry 25887 From: bodhi dhamma Date: Mon Oct 6, 2003 11:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How does one handle stressful results of kamma? htootintnaing wrote: . There are endless Kamma. But at a time one Kamma dominates. As soon as Arahats' Cuticitta ( the last Citta in Samsara )arises all Kamma die out without any residual Kamma. Those non-arising Kamma become Ahosi Kamma. With Metta, Htoo Naing Dear Htoo Naing your message dated 4.10.2003 refers.(reply to Christine) Sorry to intercept the tread this way as I have problem to trim the long passages. With regard to you last paragraph, is it correct to say that when an arahant's cuticitta arises, his passed unmanifested kamma (e.g. says killing human being a few lives earlier ) will die out without any residue and become ahosi kamma ? I hope you can help to clear my doubt.Alternatively, can a serious kamma remains unmanifested until the last moment of parinibbana, in case of an arahant? Thanks, with metta, P C Yap 25888 From: Sarah Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 0:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma with distracted mind Dear RobertK, Nina , Mike, Suan, Chris & All, --- rjkjp1 wrote: > > Dear Nina, Mike and Suan, > The quote says If mind be distracted, no kamma > can be performed. Yada cittam blajjamanam hoti tada kammaam > bhajjamanam hotiti attho." > I changed the first blajjamanam to bhajjamanam to match the second > one assuming the first had a spelling mistake > The third a has a line over it and the final m a dot. ..... I think in the context which BC Law quotes, it might be referring to the correlation between kamma (i.e. cetana) and citta. If there is no citta, there is no kamma. So I take ‘distracted’ not to be referring to uddhacca (restlessness) but perhaps to ‘doesn’t arise’. If anyone can give an exact reference for the Pali it would help, but I think the passage may refer to ‘On Action and Accumulation’, Kathaavatthuppakarana-A.t.thakathaa, ch XV, X1. This is on the controverted point that “kamma is one thing, its accumulation is another”. The Andhakas and Sammitiyas declared that the accumulating of kamma ‘goes on automatically, independently of moral action, of mental action.’ [Mike, lots of good stuff on accumulations in this chapter. From the Kathaavathu: ***** Theravaadin: Are you then prepared to admit that each mental phase - mental reaction, feeling, perception, volition........also the ten corruptions (kilesas) - is a different thing from its accumulation? Of course not. Then neither can you affirm your proposition. Again, do you imply that karmic accumulation is coexistent with karma? You deny? But think! You assent. Then [a fortiori] meritorious (or good) karma is coexistent with good karmic accumulation? No? Nay, you must admit it is. then [it follows that] karma, [being inseperably] conjoined with feeling, is both coexistent with its accumulation, and also inseperably conjoined with corresponding feeling. Similarly for demeritorious (or bad) karma. Again, you admit of course that karma is coexistent with consciousness and has a mental object, but you do not admit as much of its accumulation. *That is to say, you agree that karma, being coexistent with consciousness is broken off [as mental process] when consciousness is broken off*. But by your view of the different nature of karmic accumulation, you hold that when consciousness stops, karmic accumulation does not [necessarily] stop. So that we may get a cessation of karma as conscious process and a continuation of karmic accumulation as product!” *I think Rob’s quote may refer to the line about ‘broken off’ here, (on the other-hand, without the exact reference I could be barking up the wrong tree entirely!!). The commentary to this line says [i.e possibly the phrase Law refers to??}: “ “When consciousness is broken off” means that, when consciousness is broken off, karma is broken off. Or, it is an accusative case in the locative sense. It means consciousness being broken off. This is the reading.....” In the main discussion, the Theravadin continues to show the illogical nature of the controverted point. I hope someone can track the Pali and confirm whether this is the correct passage. Interesting reading, nonetheless! Metta, Sarah ====== 25889 From: Sarah Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 0:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:the Buddha's Last Meal. the Pali, also to Rob Edison Hi Derek, Nina & James, I think Derek's comments are probably spot on here - esp. the part about the 'ambiguity in the original language': --- Derek Cameron wrote: > As you say, the instrumental is not as strong as the ablative in > implying causation. > > So, it could be either a coincidental accompaniment (the Buddha got > ill and coincidentally just happened to have eaten suukaramaddava) or > causation (the Buddha got ill by the eating of the suukaramaddava). > > My belief that there is ambiguity in the original language is > strengthened by the fact that both the commentator and the author of > the Milindapañha feel the need to clarify this point. > > What's also interesting is that the Milindapañha devotes a whole > story to the issue, as though it were quite controversial, and > important (in the author's mind) for the listener to believe that the > Buddha did not die *because* of the suukaramaddava. ..... I also thought Nina's explanation of the possible instrumental use was very good. To give a simple English example, we might say something like: *Having arrived at the party, (by way of) a taxi, he fell ill.* In other words, the taxi describes the arrival rather than the cause of falling ill. As noted, in the prose section before the verse in the sutta, it just something like 'having eaten the meal, he became very sick'. In the verse, we are reminded of what the meal was. James, I know this isn't satisfactory to you and probably sounds like another brain-washed explanation, but I think we just have to accept that the wording may be ambiguous and select what interpretation we wish (or until the Dhamma Congress reports back with more info;-)). I'm also reminded of some old English riddles I used to hear as a child, which also depend on the punctuation. Here's one: charles 1 walked and talked half an hour after his head was chopped off How?* Metta, Sarah ... .... ... .... *Charles 1 walked and talked. Half an hour after, his head was chopped off ================================= 25890 From: Sarah Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 1:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mantras --- phamdluan2000 wrote: > > KKT: I'm intrigued by this phrase > > << Without understanding rupas, I doubt > it's possible to really understand namas >> > > Could you elaborate, Sarah? ..... Very good and difficult question. Let’s take seeing consciousness and its accompanying mental factors. These are namas which experience a rupa, visible object. If there is an idea that ‘seeing’ sees computers and people or anything other than visible objects, then I doubt that it’s possible to understand the characteristic of ‘seeing’. The first stage of insight is clearly understanding the characteristics and distinction between namas AND rupas. It is only by understanding these different dhammas that the characteristic of anatta OF these same dhammas, leading to detachment from them, can be known at any level. I think you agreed that *ANATTA* lies at the heart of the Buddha’s teachings. In other words, if it seems that namas can and should be known, but rupas are unnecessary, it indicates (to me) a *selection* with possibly an idea of self or lack of real understanding of dhammas. ... > But don't hurry up, take your time. ..... I took you at your word;-) I’ll be glad to hear your further comments, KKT. Metta, Sarah ====== 25891 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 1:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion Hi Howard, I will be commenting after every few sentence, please do not see this as being critical, but rather because I think that one misunderstanding leads to another, and that we should make things as clear as possible. > > Obviously you agree that all dhammas are anatta, and so there is no > > one to "drop the theorizing and get on with the practice". However what > > I think you may not appreciate as I do, is that pariyatti is very much > > *part* of the practice. > > > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, a part. The Buddha was fairly clear in the suttas as to what the > practice is. He did not continually say read and read, and think and think. --------------------------------------------------------------- I wouldn't recommend this either! Reading is *not* the point at all, but understanding the `meaning' of the words. And this is not dependent on *more* words as such, but the panna, ability to extract meaning from the words. And though this may lead to seeking more `words', it is the `understanding' that is the object. So I wouldn't advice anyone to read, nor to think (since thinking may also only be repetition of words and not accompany any understanding). When a person sees any value in reading, listening or discussing, as a way to develop pariyatti, his object is *understanding* and not the words. However he does know that without the `word' there cannot be any understanding of the kind which then conditions patipatti. Besides, I cannot even make myself understand anything, so how can I expect another to come to any understanding simply by asking him to read? I don't want to be doing the same mistake as the meditation teachers of today do, when they say such things as, " Just Sit!" and/or "Do this, do that." as though the activity matters more than the understanding of this very moment. But yes, if indeed someone sees the value of listening, ie. in relation to understanding, then more listening will be better chance of giving rise to this understanding. And I say this as a way of describing conditions and not a recommendation for a practice. Also if you would consider, the Buddhist path is about the development of "understanding". And how is this understanding developed if not starting from the intellectual level. ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > He said to guard the senses, to restrain the senses, to be mindful (and to be > mindful, and to be mindful!), to cultivate the jhanas, and, most specifically, > paraphrasing, to avoid evil, to do good, and to purify the mind. And the Buddha > also taught that these things *can* be done, and that he would not tell us to > do them if they could not be done. > ------------------------------------------------------ Of course he said these things and of course they can be done. But by whom? By Self? Isn't it all a matter of right conditions coming together and dhammas performing their functions? And one of the conditions is the understanding the listener has when he hears those words? Could a staunch Christian or Moslem come to see any sense in those words the same way as you? Would it produce the same result? Isn't there a danger of `wrong practice' if understood wrongly and which leads to a stronger sakayaditthi instead of a higher appreciation of anatta? -------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > He did *not* preach a gospel of no-control. ----------------------------------------------- Nor did he teach about control. There was no question about control or no control, only the understanding that *all dhammas are conditioned*, and there is no self standing apart anywhere to dictate the flow, not in the past, not in the future, and certainly not now in the present. I think you understand this, what I think you believe in, is that certain activities such as, guarding the senses and formal sitting, is part of the "present" conditions crucial to development. And I don't deny present conditions, just that I don't see those as being contained in `conventional' activities such as meditation or even the `willful' guarding of the senses. And this does not mean a helpless reliance on pre-determined conditions, but just being aware of what really *are* the conditions at this moment and not being fooled by the conventional activity. And this itself is a present condition by various ways. However it falls away immediately, and if indeed it is accompanied by pleasant feelings or some minor insight, there is no need to wonder about it, less to believe that one can reproduce a similar state of mind. There is never a "need" to do anything, not even to understand. This need conditions wrong practice imho. The only positive condition which ensures the further development of understanding is sati and panna. And panna is accompanied by detachment, not wanting more. ------------------------------------------------------- > Theorizing and analysis or even papanaca are > > > conditioned too. > > > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > So what? This is not news. What is your conclusion, that there is > nothing to be done? That there is no option to follow the Buddha's instructions, > because the die is cast, conditions are in place, and what will happen will > happen? Buddhism is called the "middle path" and the "path of purification", but > not the "impossible path" or the "path of hopelessness"! Indeed, what will happen will happen? The problem is that we do not appreciate this deep enough. On the one hand there are those who believe in the importance of `self' taking charge of the situation and so they resist the idea of no control. They end up getting into all sorts of frustrating situations, because indeed it is *not up to them*! On the other hand, some think it is *all* pre-determined and do not take into account present conditions. So they leave it all to destiny. But they too end up troubled, precisely because they are not aware of their present akusala reactions and realize that this too is a condition. Both do not know about causes and conditions, and aware or not, both are motivated by results. One driven towards it, the other with hope, awaits it. But the wise man concentrates on the cause, and knowing the present moment, he is not driven to `create' conditions, nor does he have time to wonder about result in light of the ever rising and falling away of conditions. The Middle Way is when there is mindfulness of a reality arising at the moment, and not thinking about past or future. > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I honestly think it is nonsense to say that (especially > excessive/compulsive) theorizing and analyzing are inevitable. -------------------------------------- I didn't mean to imply inevitability nor necessity just that if it does it is because of conditions. And that seeing the undesirability of it does not mean that one can control it. But I do think, that reflection and contemplation of what has been heard indeed helps. --------------------------------------------- Howard: The notion of "no control" is > way overblown, way exaggerated, by several folks here. Many things cannot be > directly controlled (i.e., influenced), but those things can be *indirectly* > controlled. Whatever arises arises due to conditions. While we often have no > direct control over a phenomenon, we can indirectly control it by influencing > some of the conditions for it. A mundane, conventional example: Sure, wishing > for a cup of coffee won't give us a "java jolt"! ;-) But brewing some coffee, > and pouring some into a cup, and putting our hand on the handle, and bring the > cup to our lips, and taking a sip, and swallowing it *will*! ------------------------------------- This may only be an example you make and you don't take seriously the comparison. But if you do, ie. you apply the line of reasoning to your understanding of dhamma, here are some thoughts of mine. Conventional realities give an impression of continuity; this is why we can always come `back' to them with little or no chance of being proven wrong. The way we manipulate reality (material) is like a 3 year old child being given a paper and pencil and taught to draw. She does not need to know what it is called, but can be trained in no time to draw a perfect circle. A mathematician ;-), on the other hand also draws a circle, however his understanding of "circles" is entirely different from that of the 3 year old. Yet they can both with equal efficiency, draw perfect circles. In the same way, the scientist manipulates matter to create and invent things. He does not have to know `hardness' as an element to create a `lens'. And he does not have to understand `thinking' to be able to manipulate the idea of lens in his mind and come up with the invention of `microscope'. This is the way all things were invented, including the computers we are both using, nothing mysterious and fascinating. But the whole world thinks otherwise and is impressed. Likewise, in our day to day life, we do not `know' what is going on, yet we end up functioning quite well. However if this seeming sense of control is taken to apply also to `ultimate realities', then I think it is a dangerous idea. Even if you think that it is only indirectly. Because ultimate realities arise from no where and go no where after they fall, and before we know it, billions of such dhammas have come and gone. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: > In order not to get involved in a convoluted, speculative line of > thought about something we don't and can't have verification of, we can, for > example, first of all, by means of a developed habit of keen mindfulness and > guarding the senses, particularly guarding the mind door, turn the mind to something > else, or engage in a physical activity that requires our full attention. Can > we avoid anger? Yes, at least much of the time, if we can calm the mind, and > yes, if we don't persist with a line of thought that leads to anger. Can we > control what we see when we open our eyes? Well, that depends on whether we've > left the light on or not, and on whether we've stayed in our room or gone > outside, etc, etc. If we are unmindful most of the time, we have little control over > anything. But if we pursue a cultivation of calm, concentration, and, above > all, mindfulness, then the more successful we are in this, the greater is the > control. Yes, there is no "I" to exercise control! I'm no disputing that. There > is no agent to do anything, including reading and studying and thinking and > concocting, but there *is* the doing of these things, and there can also be the > diminishing of these things! > ----------------------------------------------------- I hadn't read this part when I started to compose my reply. But I think what I have written so far applies to this part also. Only add this, what is `cultivation of calm', `concentration' and `mindfulness'? Are you referring to activities of body or of mind? If of mind, are you talking about specific cetasikas or something else? > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > This notion that pariyatti *is* the practice is peculiar to the > followers of Khun Sujin, it seems to me. This is *not* what the Buddha taught during > his 45 years. The statement that it is "pariyatti and only this, which can > condition patipatti, and not desire. And how and when this happens, it is all up > to conditions" is a perfect blueprint for hopelessness and despair. ---------------------------------------------------------- A few weeks ago when Robert K. was here, at one point he expressed his calm acceptance of the fact that it will take innumerable lives to reach the goal. At that time, though I could imagine what the basis of this attitude was, I myself did not feel so good about feeling so lost. However, just yesterday, I came upon what I think was a similar feeling. There was calm acceptance without a need to justify and explain as I often otherwise did. And I remembered Robert, and thought that this must have been what he felt. But even before this, I never felt hopeless nor despair. It is what the outsider would feel, I think especially those who are attached to results. ---------------------------------- Howard: > Moreover, it is *not* what the Buddha taught. He did not teach that study *is* the > practice. Oh, and BTW, while wishing won't make it so, were there not the desire > to gain freedom, a desire growing out of the recognition of the imperfection of > our current state of dukkha, if there were no quest, there would be no > finding! I am very grateful that the desire for peace and freedom is there in me, > and is strong, because one who doesn't even desire to leave his prison, or who > does desire it, but believes there is nothing s/he can do about it, is truly > consigned to imprisonment. > --------------------------------------------------------- Yes, but any development, any subsequent understanding depend on altogether different conditions. From a certain perspective, as of late, I have come to feel that progress along the path is in direct proportion to the variety of situations in which sati and panna can be conditioned to arise. Decisive Support-condition? I think that the more a person's kusala and akusala can be condition for sati to arise at any time, this I think is a sign of going the right direction and truly understanding the practice. So if on the other hand, if a person finds that certain situations are more conducive than others, then I feel inclined to conclude that something is wrong. With respect to this, it seems therefore, that it is not `intention' which determines, but the developed `habit' of being aware without choosing time and place. -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The least disputable teachings are to be found in the sutta pitaka. > And, BTW, how do you choose who is the "wise friend"? Don't you have to do that > yourself? Is it simply conditioned? Well, of course it is. But does that mean > it is random? That there is no choice to be made? > ----------------------------------------------------- Someone once remarked about how one determines `who' is a wise friend. I said that there is no way of knowing, that like `birds of a feather flock together', we will just come upon the `wise' friend most suitable to us. K. Sujin on the other hand once commented that instead of seeking a `wise friend' out there, why don't we think about being one ourselves? And I think this is the best advice regarding this issue. ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Again, you propose reading (especially Abhidhamma) and then just > waiting, because "WHO KNOWS [emphasis mine] how and when this knowledge will > condition insight in the future?! " Frankly, I don't even understand why you bother > recommending reading. After all, we have no control over that, right? Either > we will or we won't, subject to conditions! > ----------------------------------------------------------- Yes, no control over that. Either we will or won't, subject to conditions. And whether there will subsequently be any understanding, even this is subject to conditions. This post is very long, after this however; I hope I can at least avoid repeating the same old points which have not got either of us anywhere closer to the other's position. :-( Best, Sukin. 25892 From: Sarah Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 2:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion Hi TG, I’ve taken my time on quite a few responses - apologies. --- TGrand458@a... wrote: > TG: On this very critical and subtle point, you have either misquoted > Nyanatiloka's Dictionary, or you have a different version than I have. > In my > version, Nyanatiloka translates sakkaya-ditthi as "Personality-belief." > He proceeds > to explain that this "belief" comes about by associating 'the 5 > aggregates as > 'self' in one of the 4 ways... .... OK, I was going by memory when I mentioned ‘personality-view’, as I would have considered ‘personality view’ or ‘self-view’ as synonyms for ‘personality-belief’. [....] > This clearly represents (to me) the gross 'belief-in-self' and not the > more > subtle 'self-views' or 'sense-of-self' that arises as part of the normal > > perceptual processes. ..... I agree with you that (asmi) maana (conceit or what you refer to as ‘sense-of-self’ I think) is not the same as sakkaya-ditthi (personality-belief) or any kind of wrong view. I’m not sure I would categorise all sakkaya-ditthi and other ditthi as ‘gross’ however. I am quite sure that at the higher stages of insight any lingering sakkaya-ditthi and other ditthi are extremely subtle. Even now, amongst grosser forms, I am sure there are many subtle variants that we have little idea about. Quite possibly, too, that many so called conceits (or ‘sense-of-self’ cittas), may with more wisdom turn out to be one form of ditthi or other. They follow each other so very closely, I find. Anyway, I agree with your point. Only sati and panna will know precisely what the reality is, I think. (I think there may have been some confusion because by ‘self-view’ you are referring to mana and I’m referring to sakkaya-ditthi. Let me know if this isn’t right). .... >The above 20 types of "personality-belief" would > be those > found in people grasping after 'theories of self' such as most other > religions > and philosophies do. The reason that I (and presumably you) are not > streamwinners is because we are still 'subject to those beliefs.' We > have not 100% > eradicated the possibility that they can arise in the future. .... I wrote a post to Victor not so long ago which quoted suttas to show that all wrong views are rooted in sakkaya-ditthi in some form. Recently RobK and others were discussing silabbata-paramasa and how quickly it can slip in even when we’re following a supposedly wholesome course of action. This can be whilst ‘undertaking’ precepts, donating blood (RobM & Ken H - sorry, but so many different cittas involved in any act of dana), or even reading Dhamma! I think the same applies for other ditthi including sakkaya-ditthi, even when it’s not possible to exactly pin-point or pigeon-hole the offender. I appreciate your posts and challenging comments, TG. Look forward to more. Metta, Sarah ====== 25893 From: Sarah Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 2:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion Hi Howard, I thought you made some very good points in our discussion and hope you find a slight bowing in your direction in my comments too;-): --- upasaka@a... wrote: > A brief comment, bowing ever so slightly in your direction. I > still > maintain that concepts are simply ideas, and ideas are mind-door > objects, and > are namas. ..... We all agree that ideas/concepts are mind-door objects. Are you quite sure that in other posts you haven’t explained to others that concepts are not namas???;-) .... [...] Ideas and concepts are quite complex, > difficult to > grasp, multi-formed, multi-layered, and elusive (and illusive!) - but > they > *are* mind-door objects. .... Yes. However complex, they are by definition merely conceptualisations. The aim of the teachings is not to understand the multi-layered concepts, papanca, stories, imaginations and so on, but to directly know namas and rupas, namas as being defined as consisting of cittas and cetasikas (and nibbana) only. By directly knowing these ‘truths’, we begin to see the futility of that insight can ever arise merely from ‘working out’ the concepts or ideas;-) .... > I find unacceptable the notion that penetration with wisdom of > any > mind-door object is impossible. .... Me too;-) Namas and rupas can be known with penetrative wisdom as mind-door objects. Indeed, namas can only be known as mind-door objects as they never arise as sense-door objects. Concepts can be the object of panna (wisdom), for example in the development of samatha or of jhanas. But, only namas and rupas can be the object of vipassana panna. Hope this clarifies. It’s the same in the suttas as I read them. .... An arahant, or certainly a Buddha, would > have the > wisdom to understand fully all the nuances and aspects of every arising > concept he encounters. Even we poor worldings can grasp many of the > multi-layered > aspects of our concepts, observing how, for example, "the" tree concept > is > built of other concepts such as bark, roots, branches (and branching), > leaves, > etc, and associated notions of birds setting on branches, of bird nests > etc, and > a further grasping of how, for example, the bark-concept is built of > concepts > such as dark color, rough texture, and hardness, etc, etc. .... We ‘poor worldlings’ understand these concepts, but by thinking wisely about them. In other words, as conventional truths (sammuti sacca). It’s hard for me to imagine that an arahant would think about ‘bark-concept’, but certainly there is still thinking about concepts, for example when Sariputta swept the temple or checked the water urn was full. In the case of arahants, no ignorance or unwholesome cittas and full comprehension of the truths, but still penetrative insight has to be of namas and rupas. When it comes to the patisambhidas (discriminations), the Buddha’s knowledge, such as of past and future lives, it’s very, very difficult to comprehend. In the Vism it talks about the impossibility of understanding the Buddha’s knowledge. When I ask these qus I usually forget the answers because it’s so much beyond my comprehension even intellectually. .... >All this even > *we* > can see, from our very limited and circumscribed perspectives. When we > look > and apparently "see" a tree, a concept of tree is arising (or several > such arise > in a sequence) at the mind-door; it arises (or they arise) as mental > reification growing out of a mental proliferation upon sa~n~nic > recognitions, > recognitions which already sum up a variety of visual clues, and make > "matchings" via > memory. What is going on is mental function, the creation of mental > constructs, and these are knowable by wisdom as to their precise nature, > and in full > detail, though not to us at our stage with our current limitations .... When you say ‘What is going on is mental function, the creation of mental constructs’, I would agree if you are referring to cittas accompanied by sanna, vitakka, phassa and so on. The tree, the bird on the tree, the pretty leaves, the bark and so on are the ‘stories’ (tell me if it’s on your list too;-)). No one ever became enlightened by understanding the stories, in spite of what scientists, philosophers or other religions might say. Hence the Buddha’s teachings which show that only namas and rupas arise and fall away - no things, no people, no concepts in truth. Metta, Sarah p.s Have you had a chance to visit the monastery we discussed? ====== 25894 From: Sarah Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 2:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > On closer inspection, I think you are right. .... That could be a first from you, Larry;-) .... >I thought there was > something about the subjective aspect of javana, or at least akusala > javana, that was inherently self assuming, but there actually has to be > a self view (ditthi) either accompanying or closely following in order > to experience "self", which is a view or belief. With that there is also > usually conceit (pride, self contempt, or camaraderie). .... Yes, as I said to TG, I think self view can slip in very easily.... Just one point, I think the conceits (and your other interesting definitions of the 3 kinds), arise at different moments to self and other wrong views. They have different objects, but are all unwholesome and often follow each other closely as you suggest. .... >Anger can just > be anger. ..... ;-( Unfortunately.... Metta, Sarah ===== 25895 From: Sarah Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 3:04am Subject: Re: Cows, Monks, and Tigers ([dsg] Re: kamanita) Hi Christine (& Mike), --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hello Mike,:-) > > The sense of humour sounds like an aussie (and we can blame the Poms > for that) - however, the accent Mike! the accent! ... Personally, I > think he was a Texan. :-) Maybe his mother was Australian? ... [...] > Does using Pali keep this on > topic? .... A classic, Chris. I've been waiting for Mike's response;-) I note it's taken you little time to become the group's Pali expert on animals.....we all know now where to come for answers to knotty questions concerning animal issues in the texts;-) Metta, Sarah ====== 25896 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 3:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion Hi Sarah and all, Sarah, what teaching are you talking about?? I would be interested to see some references regarding the teachings. Peace, Victor > The aim of the teachings is not to understand the multi-layered concepts, > papanca, stories, imaginations and so on, but to directly know namas and > rupas, namas as being defined as consisting of cittas and cetasikas (and > nibbana) only. By directly knowing these `truths', we begin to see the > futility of that insight can ever arise merely from `working out' the > concepts or ideas;-) 25897 From: Sarah Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 3:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How does one handle stressful results of kamma? Hi Betty (& Christine), I thought you gave some really good points and reminders. It’s always great when you butt in (not that this was any kind of ‘butting in’). .... Betty: >May I butt in and add a bit? Yes, it usually appears that a lot of akusala vipaka happens at one time, but that is all just thinking and "stories", as Ivan (here in Bkk) likes to call them, the stories that the mind "interprets" in a mind-door process. Basically, akusala and kusala vipaka come through the 6 doorways in the form of rupa aramana through the 5 sense doors, and dhamma aramana (excuse spelling) through the mind door.< .... Yes, my first response was to wonder if we could refer to ‘stressful results of kamma’ at all. I’ve known for sometime that ‘stories’ are on C’s ‘pet-peeves’ list, but you and Ivan weren’t to know;-) Like both of you, I find that clinging to ‘proliferations’, especially the ‘my akusala vipaka’ one comes very easily;-( I think Chris made a great point when she said that even when it’s an ‘upsetting drama’ it is ‘quite satisfying in a weird way (and addictive)’. Isn’t it true, that in ignorance we cling to all these dramas (OK, good new word, Chris;-)) such as the ‘horrendously unfair and dastardly action by someone that was likely to ruin the rest of my life’ that is soon forgotten when the next drama materialises;-) I reflected on all this when I sprained my knee a couple of days ago, just as my arm has almost recovered;-(. For a couple of days I was unable to sit at the computer and here I am now in an awkward position with one leg propped up against the door as I write. When I go out, I hobble around on a stick, desperately hoping that I have a quick recovery before our trip next week and just occasionally reflectig that there’s really very little obvious akusala vipaka that I’m aware of. I have very little pain now, as long as I’m careful, a great excuse to drop all yoga, tai chi and any exertions or chores I don’t feel like doing. Wherever I go, I’m having doors opened for me and smiles and metta even from strangers. Really, the only problems are the ‘poor me’ dramas and clinging to the ‘drama’ of the ‘way of life I was enjoying last week’. As Nina, said, even these kinds of thinking are conditioned. Whatever is experienced and whatever the reactions, there really is no other ‘solution’ than the developing of satipatthana to know the present realities. As Chris said: “I have a sinking feeling that the answer is (something like) a person will do whatever their accumulations and current conditions cause them to do, and there is no control ...” It should be with joy and lightness of heart that one reflects like this;-) Instead of being like a prison, I think it is like the escape from prison to give up the idea of self and control. Betty, I’ll just repeat your other sincere, honest and wise comments (imho of course;-)) at the end (partly because I notice your post didn’t come to my in box so others may have missed it too). Hope to hear more of them (& Ivan too) and look forward to seeing you both very, very soon (hopefully without my stick!). Metta, Sarah ===== Betty: >While this is known to me at the pariyatti level, it is only when satipatthana arises that a fuller understanding of vipaka can arise, likewise increasing the understanding that those aramanas are not self. But until that understanding arises, I am like you: I get frustrated with akusala vipaka and ask the same question: do I just grin and bear it? This is still sakkaya ditthi (self view) because it still is, "my akusala vipaka." But, if after dosa arises over akusala vipaka, a moment of contemplation then arises that reminds "me" of the pariyatti learning, then the dosa just dissapates. This is gradually happening more and more, each one conditioning the next. At this stage, "I'm" content if such contemplation arises, even if it is not a true satipatthana moment.< 25898 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 3:59am Subject: Re: Personality view vs. Delusion Hi Sarah, What reality are you talking about? What do sati and panna know about the reality? Do you know what they know? If you don't know what they know, how are you going to know what they know? You think that only sati and panna will know precisely what the reality is. Are you sure about that? Where did you get the idea that only sati and panna will know precisely what the reality is? Peace, Victor > Anyway, I agree with your point. Only sati and panna will know precisely > what the reality is, I think. (I think there may have been some 25899 From: Sarah Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 4:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion Hi Victor, I’d love to refer you to Book 1 of the Points of Controversy, Katthavatthu (Abhidhamma text), ‘Of the Existence of a Personal Entity’. I think you’d enjoy the style of controversial discussion. So many of the points discussed are ones that come up on DSG too. ***** --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah, V: > > Who else can understand the Buddha's teaching for you except you > yourself?? > > You are a teacher right?? .... Conventionally speaking only. Here is one short extract. soul is used as a translation for ‘puggala’. the translator gives a note to say that ‘individual, person, or ego would serve equally well in the more psychological considerations’. [181] >Theravadin: Ought it to be said that a soul (puggala) of wrong views is derived from wrong views? Puggalavadin: Yes. T: Ought it to be said that when the wrong views cease to exist, the sould having wrong views ceases to exist? P: nay, that cannot truly be said.... T: Ought it, again, to be said that when any other parts of the Wrong Eightfold Path cease to exist, the soul, said by you to be derived from that part, ceases to exist? P: Nay, that cannot truly be said.... T: Similarly, ought it to be said that a soul of right views, or right aspiration, right speech...... is derived from the corresponding part [of the Eightfold Path]? P: Yes. T: Ought it, again, to be said that when the given part ceases, the soul so derived ceases? P: Nay, that cannot truly be said.... [183] T: Is the concept of soul derived from material qualities and feeling? P: Yes. T: Then could the concept of a double soul be derived from the pair of aggregates? P: Nay, that cannot truly be said... T: or could the concept of a double soul be derived from material quality coupled with any of the other three aggregates... or the concept of five souls be derived from all five aggregates? P: Nay, that cannot truly be said... T: Is the concept of soul derived from the organs of sight (eye) and hearing (ear)? P: Yes. T: then could the concept ‘two souls’ be derived from the two organs? (and so on....to include all the twelve ayatanas)......< ***** V:>As a teacher, you teach your students and > help them learn. But when they understand something, they learn and > understand it for themselves, they reach their own understanding. > You can teach and help them in their learning process, but you can't > learn and understand it for them. Your understanding is not > theirs. Likewise, when I am thirsty, I would drink some water > myself to quench the thirst. Although others can help me to get the > water, no one else can drink the water and quench the thirst for me. ..... All agreed as long as its with the proviso that there’s no ‘puggala’, no teacher, no students, no me, no you;-) I'm not suggesting the debate above reflects your understanding, Victor, but that the responses reflect what I consider to be right view;-) Metta, Sarah ===== 25900 From: Sarah Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 4:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion Hi Victor, --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah and all, > > Sarah, what teaching are you talking about?? I would be interested > to see some references regarding the teachings. ..... By 'teachings' I was referring to the entire Suttanta, Vinaya, Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries. Hope this clarifies (but I doubt it;-)). Metta, Sarah ===== 25901 From: Sarah Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 4:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Personality view vs. Delusion Hi Victor again;-), You're a fast reader and typist... --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > What reality are you talking about? .... All namas and rupas as we discussed in the Satipatthana Sutta thread. Also see Nyantiloka's dictionary under 'pramattha'. .... What do sati and panna know > about the reality? .... Sati (as in the development of satipatthana) as the characteristic of being aware of the reality. Panna of knowing the characteristic. do you remember all the threads on sati-sampojanna (sati and panna) in the S.sutta commentary discussions? .... >Do you know what they know? If you don't know > what they know, how are you going to know what they know? You think > that only sati and panna will know precisely what the reality is. > Are you sure about that? Where did you get the idea that only sati > and panna will know precisely what the reality is? .... No me or you to know. When they begin to arise (intellectually in the beginning as Betty said), they start to perform their functions. Gradually as they develop, more confidence develops and there is less doubt about their functions or the nature of realities. We read about sati and panna and the realities (i.e khandhas, dhatus, ayatanas, namas and rupas....) throughout the teachings. Do you have any references which suggest realities (paramattha dhammas) are other than these and/or any text to suggest that panna and sati are not involved in the 'penetration' of their characteristics? There will probably be some delays before further responses - I probably will need a day or two away from the computer now for my arm and leg;-( Metta, Sarah ====== 25902 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 4:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion Hi Sarah, Sarah, whom am I addressing this message to?? What is the right view as the Buddha taught?? What is the view that you consider to be the right view?? Is the view that you consider to be the right view the right view as the Buddha taught?? Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor, [snip] 25903 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 4:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion Hi Sarah, What are the teachings about? Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor, > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah and all, > > > > Sarah, what teaching are you talking about?? I would be interested > > to see some references regarding the teachings. > ..... > By 'teachings' I was referring to the entire Suttanta, Vinaya, Abhidhamma > and ancient commentaries. > > Hope this clarifies (but I doubt it;-)). > > Metta, > > Sarah 25904 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 4:47am Subject: [dsg] Re: Personality view vs. Delusion Hi Sarah, Who directly knows?? Sati and panna?? "A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations -- who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and is released through right knowledge -- directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has comprehended it, I tell you. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn001.html How do you know reality is nama and rupa? Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor again;-), [snip] > > What reality are you talking about? > .... > All namas and rupas as we discussed in the Satipatthana Sutta thread. Also [snip] 25905 From: bodhi2500 Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 5:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma with distracted mind Hi All The closest passage i could find in the Kathavatthu Atthakatha to>> "Yada cittam blajjamanam hoti tada kammaam bhajjamanam hotiti attho." is "Citta.m bhijjamaananti yadaa citta.m bhijjamaana.m hoti, tadaa kamma.m bhijjatiiti attho." Its from the com. to this Kathavatthu XV,XI passage as Sarah pointed out. Again, you admit of course that karma is coexistent with consciousness and has a mental object, but you do not admit as much of its accumulation. *That is to say, you agree that karma, being coexistent with consciousness is broken off [as mental process] when consciousness is broken off*. But by your view of the different nature of karmic accumulation, you hold that when consciousness stops, karmic accumulation does not [necessarily] stop. So that we may get a cessation of karma as conscious process and a continuation of karmic accumulation as product! Kamma.m cittena sahajaata.m, kamma.m saaramma.nanti? Aamantaa. Kammuupacayo cittena sahajaato, kammuupacayo saaramma.noti? Na heva.m vattabbe 'pe' kammuupacayo cittena sahajaato, kammuupacayo anaaramma.noti? Aamantaa. Kamma.m cittena sahajaata.m, kamma.m anaaramma.nanti? Na heva.m vattabbe 'pe'. Kamma.m cittena sahajaata.m, citta.m bhijjamaana.m kamma.m bhijjatiiti? Aamantaa. Kammuupacayo cittena sahajaato, citta.m bhijjamaana.m kammuupacayo bhijjatiiti? Na heva.m vattabbe 'pe'. Kammuupacayo cittena sahajaato, citta.m bhijjamaana.m kammuupacayo na bhijjatiiti? Aamantaa. Kamma.m cittena sahajaata.m, citta.m bhijjamaana.m kamma.mna bhijjatiiti? Na heva.m vattabbe 'pe'. Com.> "When consciousness is broken off" means that, when consciousness is broken off, karma is broken off. Or, it is an accusative case in the locative sense. It means consciousness being broken off. This is the reading. He assents, because kamma is conjoined with consciousness, and breaks of with it. He denies, because kammic accumulation is automatic and hence does not break off." Citta.m bhijjamaananti yadaa citta.m bhijjamaana.m hoti, tadaa kamma.m bhijjatiiti attho. Bhummatthe vaa paccatta.m, citte bhijjamaaneti attho. Ayameva vaa paa.tho. Tattha yasmaa sampayutto bhijjati, vippayutto na bhijjati,tasmaa pa.tijaanaati ceva pa.tikkhipati ca. Steve ps Sarah, yes i did attend the cooran weekend and it was wonderful catching up with everyone,talking Dhamma, looking at Mars etc.. and as always looking forward to the next one. Once again thanks to Andrew. 25906 From: Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 4:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion Hi, Sarah - Just a few replies to a few points, and some significant snipping: In a message dated 10/7/03 5:51:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > I thought you made some very good points in our discussion and hope you > find a slight bowing in your direction in my comments too;-): > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > > A brief comment, bowing ever so slightly in your direction. I > >still > >maintain that concepts are simply ideas, and ideas are mind-door > >objects, and > >are namas. > ..... > We all agree that ideas/concepts are mind-door objects. Are you quite sure > that in other posts you haven’t explained to others that concepts are not > namas???;-) > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: To the best of my knowledge, I've only written of concepts (i.e. ideas) as namas. When I may say something to the effect that such-and-such is "concept-only," my meaning is that the alleged such-and-such doesn't truly exist, but that all there is is the concept of it (applied to a particular sequence of mentally unconstructed, directly observed phenomena). As I think about this issue a bit further, a thought occurs to me: Concepts/ideas are mental objects which are mind-constructed. They are actually constructed by mental activity and actually observed via the mind door, and they are not rupas, and so I count them as namas. If, however, a nama must, itself, take an actual object, then many ideas/concepts fail that test. But I'm not at all sure that is a good test. Feelings do not take objects, though they are *associated* with objects. In fact, very often a feeling is arises from the cognizing of an object which is a concept (idea)! Also, nibbana is classified as a nama, and it takes no object. So I'm not persuaded that the object-taking test is a valid one for what constitutes namas - it is sufficient, but not necessary. ------------------------------------------------ > .... > [...] > Ideas and concepts are quite complex, > >difficult to > >grasp, multi-formed, multi-layered, and elusive (and illusive!) - but > >they > >*are* mind-door objects. > .... > Yes. However complex, they are by definition merely conceptualisations. > The aim of the teachings is not to understand the multi-layered concepts, > papanca, stories, imaginations and so on, but to directly know namas and > rupas, namas as being defined as consisting of cittas and cetasikas (and > nibbana) only. By directly knowing these ‘truths’, we begin to see the > futility of that insight can ever arise merely from ‘working out’ the > concepts or ideas;-) > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Grasping stories is exactly how we begin to understand the Dhamma. Thank goodness we can grasp and analyze stories! Mundane understanding is an important support (among several) for wisdom. (Note to Sukin: I don't deny that! ;-) ----------------------------------------------------- > .... > > I find unacceptable the notion that penetration with wisdom of > >any > >mind-door object is impossible. > .... > Me too;-) Namas and rupas can be known with penetrative wisdom as > mind-door objects. Indeed, namas can only be known as mind-door objects as > they never arise as sense-door objects. Concepts can be the object of > panna (wisdom), for example in the development of samatha or of jhanas. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Unless I'm mistaken, I do believe I have read you to say in the past that pa~n~na cannot take concepts as objects. --------------------------------------------------- > But, only namas and rupas can be the object of vipassana panna. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Then there would no way to know with transformative wisdom that concepts have no actual references! As I see it, vipassana pa~n~na can "penetrate" concepts to see how they are fabricated, to see the paramattha dhammas from which they are fabricated, and to see their illusive nature, their being empty of the actual reference they *seem* to have. ---------------------------------------------------- Hope this> > clarifies. It’s the same in the suttas as I read them. > .... > > Metta, > > Sarah > > p.s Have you had a chance to visit the monastery we discussed? > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, unfortunately not yet. My mother-in-law, who was in rehab following major open-heart surgery, hasn't been doing so well. A little over a week ago, at our insistance, she went back into the hospital. Thank goodness we were on top of her situation and didn't listen to the people at the rehab center. She really does need to be back in the hospital. In fact, just yesterday she was moved into the critical care unit to be monitored for receiving a certain type of I.V. heart medication. So, it looks like that monastery visit will have to wait a bit longer. Thank you for asking, Sarah! ================================== 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) 25907 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 10:41am Subject: Tiika, Vis. 20 Tiika, Vis. 20 Relevant text Visuddhimagga: Vis. 20 (11). As regards the tetrads, in the first tetrad, knowledge that occurs contingent upon the truth of suffering is "knowledge of suffering"; knowledge that occurs contingent upon the origin of suffering is "knowledge of the origin of suffering"; knowledge that occurs contingent upon the cessation of suffering is "knowledge of the cessation of suffering"; and knowledge that occurs contingent upon the way leading to the cessation of suffering is "knowledge of the way leading to the cessation of suffering". So it is of four kinds as knowledge of the four truths. 20. catukkesu pa.thamacatukke dukkhasacca.m aarabbha pavatta.m ~naa.na.m dukkhe ~naa.na.m. dukkhasamudaya.m aarabbha pavatta.m ~naa.na.m dukkhasamudaye~naa.na.m. dukkhanirodha.m aarabbha pavatta.m ~naa.na.m dukkhanirodhe~naa.na.m. dukkhanirodhagaamini.m pa.tipada.m aarabbha pavatta.m ~naa.na.m dukkhanirodhagaaminiyaa pa.tipadaaya ~naa.nanti eva.m catuusu saccesu~naa.navasena catubbidhaa ******* Tiika 20: words: aarabbha: beginning, referring to paccavekkha.na: contemplation, reflection vidhamati: destroy sesa: remaining itara: other pa.ticchaadeti: cover, conceal. pa.ticchaadaka: concealing, hiding dvaya: twofold paakata: wellknown, generally known 20. dukkhasacca.m aarabbhaati dukkhasacca.m aaramma.na.m katvaa, As to the words, with reference to the truth of dukkha, this means, when understanding makes the truth of dukkha its object, tappa.ticchaadakasammohavidha.msanavasena ca pavatta.m ~naa.na.m dukkhe~naa.na.m. and it occurs because of the elimination of delusion that is concealing it *, that is understanding concerning dukkha. dukkhasamudaya.m aarabbhaati etthaapi eseva nayo. As to the words, with reference to the arising of dukkha, this is also according to that method. tathaa sesapadadvayepi. And likewise with regard to the remaining two words. paccavekkha.na~naa.na.m hi catusacca.m aarabbha pavatta~naa.na.m naama, Understanding contingent upon the four truths is called knowledge of contemplation, tatiya.m pana magga~naa.na.m, but it is well known that the understanding contingent upon the third truth is path-knowledge, itarasaccaani vipassanaa~naa.nanti paaka.tameva. whereas that contingent upon the other truths is insight knowledge. ****** English: As to the words, with reference to the truth of dukkha, this means, when understanding makes the truth of dukkha its object, and it occurs because of the elimination of delusion that is concealing it *, that is understanding concerning dukkha. As to the words, with reference to the arising of dukkha, this is also according to that method. And likewise with regard to the remaining two words. Understanding contingent upon the four truths is called knowledge of contemplation, but it is well known that the understanding contingent upon the third truth is path-knowledge **, whereas that contingent upon the other truths is insight knowledge. ________ * Delusion conceals the truth of dukkha. ** This is supermundane understanding, lokuttara pa~n~naa. ******* Nina. 25908 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 10:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism. XIV, 20, the four Truths. Dear Larry, I found the dict rather complicated, especially as to which truth eliminates what. I compared with Vis. XVI, 84. This gives alterantives to each explanation which makes it clearer. op 07-10-2003 05:17 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > "So it is of four kinds as knowledge of the four truths." > Here are a few lines from the "Buddhist Dictionary" > http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/bud-dict/dic_idx.htm > > "Of the mundane kinds of knowledge, however, the knowledge of suffering > by which (various) prejudices are overcome, dispels the > personality-belief (sakkáya-dilthi, s. ditthi). N: Vis states: When we speak of dukkha we have to think of impermanence, it arises and falls away immediately. We experience an unpleasant object, and think of important me who has to receive such vipaka. But, as I heard on tape this morning: See, what we learn here we have to apply now, otherwise we only understand the theory. L quotes:The knowledge of the > origin of suffering dispels the annihilation-view (uccheda-ditthi, s. > ditthi); N: Vis states: When we do not understand that lobha is the cause of dukkha, and we do not understand that there are conditions for being born again and again (arising is dukkha), we may have annihilation belief, not seeing condiitons for rebirth, or other kinds of belief like belief in a creator. L quotes: the knowledge of extinction of suffering, the eternity-view > (sassata-ditthi, s. ditthi); N: Vis states: Thus one believes in eternal life, in a kind of heaven. L quotes:the knowledge of the path, the view of > inefficacy of action (akiriya-ditthi, s. ditthi)" (Vis.M. XVI, 85). N: Vis states: Thus, one does not know the middle way. One takes for the Path what is not the Path. This we have to consider now, in daily life. We are bound to have wrong ideas as to the practice, only the sotapanna has eradicated these. Is there some clinging to doing particular things which can cause the arising of insight? We have to know the right cause of the right effect: developing insight stage by stage, beginning by distinguishing what nama is, different from rupa, and what rupa is. By being aware of one characteristic at a time (only one!) as it appears through one of the six doors. As Sukin stresses: the theory has to be right so that the practice can be right. > > Larry: Apparently mundane knowledge that desire causes suffering dispels > the belief in a self that dies, and mundane knowledge of nibbana dispels > belief in an eternal soul. I'm guessing this means: > 1. Seeing the continuity of desire and suffering we can see the > continuity of the khandhas (the objects of desire). Further, "self" > could not be an object of desire because desire implies not having and > if there were a self there could be no not having of it. N: The wrong view of self goes together with desire, it is citta rooted in attachment and accompanied by wrong view. L: 2. The correct conceptual understanding of nibbana is that nibbana is a > mere cessation. N: Not clear enough. In how far is there conceptual understanding of nibbana, hard to know. We can have some understanding of what nibbana is not. Let us go back to Vis: we can have intellectual understanding that nibbana is not an eternal heaven. Nina. 25909 From: Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 8:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion Hi Sarah I believe personality-view or belief, or however we want to phrase it comes in three basic "strengths." 1) The most subtle is associated with the sense of "mine." 2) The next level is the idea/sense of "I." 3) The last (most gross) is the belief/view of a "self" or "myself." I believe the streamwinner has only eradicated the last of these levels. The streamwinner still has the idea or sense of "I" and "mine" which is why attachment, conceit, ignorance, restlessness, and desire for future "being" still persists. Other than the more gross belief/view/theory of self, they still see things with 'self-view' (as I understand it.) Appreciate your response as well. :) TG 25910 From: Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 4:50pm Subject: Vism. XIV, 21 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XIV [How many kinds of understanding are there?] 21. 12. In the second tetrad, the four kinds of knowledge classed as that concerned with meaning, etc., are called the "four discriminations". For this is sad: 'Knowledge about meaning is the discrimination of meaning (attha-pa.tisambhidaa). Knowledge about law is the discrimination of law (dhamma-pa.tisambhidaa). Knowledge about enunciation of language dealing with meaning and law is the discrimination of language (nirutti-pa.tisambhidaa). Knowledge about kinds of knowledge is discrimination of perspicuity (pa.tibhaana-pa.tisambhidaa)' (Vbh. 293). 25911 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 5:46pm Subject: [dsg] Re:the Buddha's Last Meal. the Pali, also to Rob Edison --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Derek, Nina & James, > James, I know this isn't satisfactory to you and probably sounds like > another brain-washed explanation, but I think we just have to accept that > the wording may be ambiguous and select what interpretation we wish (or > until the Dhamma Congress reports back with more info;-)). > > I'm also reminded of some old English riddles I used to hear as a child, > which also depend on the punctuation. Here's one: > > charles 1 walked and talked half an hour after his head was chopped off > How?* > > Metta, > > Sarah > Hi Sarah, LOL! No, this explanation doesn't sound like a brainwashed explanation (when you start to get into that no-control, meditation is dangerous/unnecessary kick that you sound brainwashed), this just sounds like a simple case of selective attention. Granting that the one line in Pali is ambiguous (which I will have to take Derek's word for that) the other details of the incident combined with that one ambiguous line makes the whole incident far from ambiguous. That is just common sense. The commentaries come up with this fantastic story that isn't suggested by the text at all, that isn't ambiguous either. I guess each person needs to decide for him/herself which answer is the most plausible. I believe it is more plausible that the Buddha got sick from that meal and died; those are definitely what the facts point to. Since you refer to old English riddles, I will refer to an old English philosopher: William of Occam, the medieval philosopher, set forth the logical principal of `Occam's Razor,' which states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. Metta, James 25912 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 9:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion Dear Sarah, as you say, so hard to detect. We can also cling to "me" just with lobha, no wrong view or conceit. If there is an opportunity in Myanmar, may be a point for discussion? It will always come back to us. Nina. op 07-10-2003 11:13 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > I am > quite sure that at the higher stages of insight any lingering > sakkaya-ditthi and other ditthi are extremely subtle. Even now, amongst > grosser forms, I am sure there are many subtle variants that we have > little idea about. Quite possibly, too, that many so called conceits (or > sense-of-self’ cittas), may with more wisdom turn out to be one form of > ditthi or other. They follow each other so very closely, I find. 25913 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 10:04pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Larry, Larry: Put 5 khandhas together and you get a person. Five people together is a committee. Five committees is a government. All these are real by the definition of distinctly arising (sabhava), correct? Sukin: But the khandhas rise and fall, so at which point does it constitute a person? Metta, Sukin. 25914 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Oct 7, 2003 10:06pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Victor, > No problem, and you are welcome. :-) > Even if you stated "That all there is are the cittas, cetasikas, > rupa, and Nibbana. Aside from this, nothing does, all being concept > only!", that view is still not the right view as the Buddha taught. > Why not? If you compare the view above with what the Buddha taught > right view is and what Sariputta explained in Sammaditthi Sutta, you > would see that right view is not a view on what exists and what does > not exist, what are real, what are not real. In addition, the > Buddha's teaching is not about what a being is or what a thing is. > Inquiry and assertion along the line of what exists, and what does > not exist, what are real, what are not real, what a being is, or > what a thing is belong to the domain of metaphysics. I was aware of this point which you often make and which I think is a good reminder. And this is partly why I referred also to the 4NT and dependent origination. Also I had other things in mind with regard to the limitation of my understanding, none of which was a question of existence / non existence. While I agree that question about existence and non-existence should not be our concern, I do not think that this is a problem with anyone here on dsg. Any question about what is real and what is not, is usually in response to views which hold that `conventional reality' can be the object of insight. And behind all this is not so much `knowledge of existents' as such, but the teaching of Satipatthana and what *are* the objects of sati of this level. Also the discussions often center on the difference between samatha and vipassana, and since these two have different objects, one being `concept' and other being `a reality', the difference need to be stressed. And of course the very basic difference between your approach and that of some of us, `Suttanta vs. Abhidhamma, puts you in a position of viewing our approach as being reliance on `lists of existents'. But this is not so. The lists of Abhidhamma is not about `charting out experiences', but serve as reminders when and if conditions allow, for them to condition a deeper appreciation of the reality of the moment. But of course imho, studying the Abhidhamma has positive influence in other ways as well. Even when it is all `theory', the reasoning in terms of causal relations being grounded on the way things are and not on abstracts as in the study of logic, can have a powerful influence on one's understanding of experiences. (But don't ask me exactly how. ;-)) Also, I am speculating, that all of us not being enlightened yet have still quite a bit of `doubt' accumulated. And this mental factor can often cause us to quiver around whether something is real or not. So under such circumstance I think it is good to be reminded about cittas, cetasikas and rupa. > It is good to know that you will read Sammaditthi Sutta over and > over again. I would not assume that you will never understand it. I do believe that I have an infinite tendency to ignorance and doubt, so I look at the empty portion the glass. ;-) But of course, there is no need to `assume' one way or the other. > Regarding your observations, I would say that: > > Try to first understand what the Buddha's teaching is about. Then > try to examine your observations and see if they in accord and/or > relevant to the Buddha's teaching. I think this is what I am already doing. But I think what you are saying, is that the Suttas is where I should place my attention, and to keep away from the Abhidhamma. Right?! :-) Metta, Sukin. 25915 From: june_tg Date: Wed Oct 8, 2003 3:08am Subject: buddhist publication society Hi, Hows everyone doing? Has anyone here ever ordered directly from the Buddhist Publication Society? It's quite strange, am I being too impatient, or is it normal to usually take more than 1 week to reply? I really don't want to complain, but I wonder what's going with my order. I don't want to keep writing, because I don't want to be pushy, but I don't know what I'm supposed to do. And it's quite a large order, about 300 US$. Does anyone here know what I'm talking about? Thanks. June 25916 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Oct 8, 2003 5:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] buddhist publication society June Last time I dealt with BPS (some time ago now), I found that emails did not elicit a response but a faxed order did. I don't know if the same still applies. On a subsequent occasion I ordered through Pariyatti, who have a large BPS catalogue. They were quite efficient in dealing with my order. Email worked fine. My own experience, anyway. Jon http://www.pariyatti.com/ --- june_tg wrote: > Hi, > > Hows everyone doing? Has anyone here ever ordered directly from the > Buddhist Publication Society? It's quite strange, am I being too > impatient, or is it normal to usually take more than 1 week to > reply? > I really don't want to complain, but I wonder what's going with my > order. I don't want to keep writing, because I don't want to be > pushy, > but I don't know what I'm supposed to do. And it's quite a large > order, about 300 US$. > > Does anyone here know what I'm talking about? > > Thanks. > June 25917 From: Dan D. Date: Wed Oct 8, 2003 6:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard] > Also, nibbana is classified as a nama... Are you sure? 25918 From: Date: Wed Oct 8, 2003 3:51am Subject: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) Hi, Dan - In a message dated 10/8/03 9:26:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dhd5@c... writes: > >Also, nibbana is classified as a nama... > > Are you sure? > ============================ No, I'm not. I've read from folks on this list that nibbana is so classified in Abhidhamma, and I have seen what I consider to be mental contortions gone through to attempt to justify this categorization. Nothing of this sort occurs in the suttas, of course, where it merely says that nibbana is the end of suffering or absence of defilements or things of that sort. When it was said on DSG (a while back) that nibbana is a nama, I took that as a basis for identifying nibbana with so-called unmanifestive discernment (an objectless consciousness). But, frankly, I think that nibbana is an absence pure and simple - specifically the absence of dukkha, the absence of defilements - and the only sense in which it should be construed as a nama is that it is not a rupa, which leaves just the category of nama under the assumption that everything must be nama or rupa. I would be just as happy to say that nibbana is neither nama nor rupa, because it is not the presence of something at all, but an absence. All that "exist" (or, better, all that appear) are namas and rupas, infected by the three poisons in all but the arahant, and the absence of these defilements, which is also the absence of dukkha, is what nibbana is, and with such an absence, the "world" of apparently separate, self-sufficient "things", including namas and rupas as usually perceived, is gone (or radically transformed) as I see the matter. Of course I have no positive inkling of what the suchness is that is the direct experience of an arahant. The view from nibbana, the view "above the clouds", is not available to us. 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) 25919 From: abhidhammika Date: Wed Oct 8, 2003 8:51am Subject: The Verse On The Buddha's Last Meal: To Nina and Sarah Dear Nina, Sarah, Christine, Mike Niece, Robert K, Derek and all, How are you? Nina asked: "I would like to know what the Saddaniti has to say, ....?" The following is my quick translation of the verse on the Buddha's last meal. "Cundassa bhattam bhuñjitvaa, kammaarassaati me sutam; aabaadham samphusii dhiiro, pabaa.lham maara.nantikam. Bhuttassa ca suukaramaddavena, byaadhippabaa.lho udapaadi satthuno; virecamaano bhagavaa avoca, gacchaamaham kusinaaram nagaranti. "It was heard by me that the Buddha experienced fatally severe sickness, After eating Cunda's food, of the son of goldsmith. And when having eaten his lunch with tender pork cuisine, Severe disorder occurred to the Teacher of the Universe. The Mighty One, losing diarrhoeaic blood, said, "Let's go to the City of Kusinaara". Section 190, Mahaaparinibbana Suttam, Mahaavaggo, Diighanikaayo GRAMMAR RULES for the expression " Bhuttassa ca suukaramaddavena" Buttassa - Cha.t.thii vibhatti meaning genitive case. The equally correct syntax in place of "buttassa" is "butte" - Sattamii vibhatti meaning locative case. Both genitive case and locative case are used to express the sense of the action of one verb while or when the action of another verb is taking place or has taken place as in the above verse. Please see the following rules in Saddaniiti Suttamaalaa. Suttam 633: Anaadaramhi ca. Anaadaramhi ca gamyamaane bhaavavataa li`ngamhaa cha.t.thiivibhatti hoti sattamii ca. Aphorism 633: And, in the case of the verb showing disrespect. "When the case of the verb showing disrespect is to be known, the sixth case comes after the bare noun having the verb that gets disrespected or the seventh case does similarly." One of the examples given is from Section 2169, Vessantara Jaataka, Jaataka Pali, Volume 2. "Aako.tayanto te neti Siviraajassa pekkhato" "While the Sivi King (Vessantaro) watching, the Brahmin beating the two children lead them away." In the above example, the verb to lead is the verb showing disrespect while the verb to watch is the verb getting disrespect. We can reconstruct the expression "Siviraajassa pekkhato" as "Siviraajassa pekkhassa". When we get the term "pekkhassa", that can easily remind us of the expression "buttassa". Finally we get the expression "Buddhassa buttassa". In the verse on the Buddha's last meal, the verb to eat is the verb getting disrespect while the verb to occur is the verb to show disrespect. Thus, we finally get the following alternative translation. "Despite having lunch with tender pork cuisine, Severe disorder occurred to the Teacher of the Universe." This alternative translation is exactly and literally in line with the Pali grammar rule. In my opinion, the commentator commented on that phrase in light of the Pali grammar rule. In short, the tender pork cuisine was the food that kept the Buddha going, rather than something that ruined him. When we reconstruct the expression "Buddhassa buttassa" as the expression "Buddhe butte" using the seventh case, we get a neutral general while/when syntax under the rule 644: Kaalebhaavesu ca. We can use the same translations as above for examples. When we know how the writer of the verse had carefully chosen the right syntax to convey the correct sense of the event, we get the lines of the verse right. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: I would like to know what the Saddaniti has to say, perhaps we shift to Pali list? 25920 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Oct 8, 2003 9:57am Subject: Re: The Verse On The Buddha's Last Meal: To Nina and Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > > "It was heard by me that > the Buddha experienced fatally severe sickness, > After eating Cunda's food, of the son of goldsmith. > And when having eaten his lunch with tender pork cuisine, > Severe disorder occurred to the Teacher of the Universe. > The Mighty One, losing diarrhoeaic blood, said, > "Let's go to the City of Kusinaara". Hi Suan, I think this first translation is probably the more spot on; that second one required a lot of semantic juggling in my estimation (I am not ashamed to admit that I could barely follow you...I bet I am not alone either). I think it is interesting that the suttas describe the meal as 'tender pork cuisine'; hmmmm...I wonder why it was so tender? A good guess would be that it was probably undercooked. Here is an entry from encyclopedia.com that parallels the symptoms of the Lord Buddha after he ate this meal of tender (undercooked?) meat: In 1982 a particularly toxic strain of E. coli, E. coli 0157:H7, was identified; it produces a toxin that damages cells that line the intestines. Usually transmitted via raw or undercooked ground meat (thought to become contaminated during slaughter or processing), the strain can potentially contaminate any food and can also be spread by infected persons. Symptoms, which begin 1 to 8 days after infection and last for about a week, include bloody diarrhea, abdominal pain, vomiting, and in some cases, fever. The most serious complication is a hemolytic-uremic syndrome that can lead to kidney failure and death, especially in children. There is no treatment other than supportive care. Practical preventive measures include thorough cooking of meat and careful hygiene around infected individuals. http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/Escheri_E.ColiFoodPoisoning.a sp Metta, James 25921 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Oct 8, 2003 10:12am Subject: FW: Co. Mahaaraahulovaadasutta 16 B Co. Mahaaraahulovaadasutta 16 B Commentary 16 B ***** Relevant Sutta passage: Atha kho aayasmaa Raahulo saayanhasamaya.m pa.tisallaanaa vu.t.thito.... Then, at evening time, the venerable Rahula got up from solitude Commentary text: tassa panaayasmato -- ``bhagavaa ma.m vihaare ohiina.m jaanantopi However, the following thoughts did not occur to the venerable Rahula: ³Although the Blessed One knows that I am left behind in the monastery, attanaa laddhapi.n.dapaata.m naapi saya.m gahetvaa aagato, he has not, after he has personally received alsmfood, taken it and come himself, na a~n~nassa hatthe pahi.ni, na manussaana.m sa~n~na.m adaasi, nor did he send me food through someone else, nor did he inform others about it, upajjhaayopi me ohiinabhaava.m jaananto tatheva na ki~nci akaasii''ti cittampi na uppanna.m. nor indeed did my preceptor do anything at all, although he knows that I am left behind.² kuto tappaccayaa omaana.m vaa atimaana.m vaa janessati. Why should he because of that arouse self-disrespect or pride? bhagavataa pana aacikkhitakamma.t.thaanameva purebhattampi pacchaabhattampi -- Rahula contemplated the meditation subject that was explained to him by the Blessed One before and after his meal thus: ``itipi ruupa.m anicca.m, itipi dukkha.m, itipi asubha.m, itipi anattaa''ti ³Materiality truly is impermanent, it truly is unsatisfactory, it truly is foul, it truly is non-self². aggi.m abhimatthento viya nirantara.m manasikatvaa saayanhasamaye cintesi -- After he had contemplated this continuously, just as someone who tries to kindle a fire, the following thoughts occurred to him towards evening: ``aha.m upajjhaayena aanaapaanassati.m bhaavehiiti vutto, ³Since my preceptor has told me to develop mindfulness of breathing, tassa vacana.m karissaami. aacariyupajjhaayaana~nhi vacana.m akaronto dubbaco naama hoti. I shall be obedient. Someone who does not obey his teacher and his preceptor, is called obstinate. `dubbaco raahulo, upajjhaayassapi vacana.m na karotii'ti ca garahuppattito kakkha.lataraa pii.laa naama natthii''ti Nothing is more oppressive and hard than the occurrence of the reproach, ŒRahula is obstinate, he does not obey his preceptor.¹ ² bhaavanaavidhaana.m pucchitukaamo bhagavato santika.m agamaasi. He visited the Blessed One because he was eager to ask about the method of mental development. ta.m dassetu.m atha kho aayasmaa raahulotiaadi vutta.m. In order to explain this, Ananda said the words, ³then, (at evening time,) the venerable Rahula (got up from solitude) etc.² ****** English: However, the following thoughts did not occur to the venerable Rahula: ³Although the Blessed One knows that I am left behind in the monastery, he has not, after he has personally received alsmfood, taken it and come himself, nor did he send me food through someone else, nor did he inform others about it, nor indeed did my preceptor do anything at all, although he knows that I am left behind.² Why should he because of that arouse self-disrespect or pride? Rahula contemplated the meditation subject that was explained to him by the Blessed One before and after his meal thus: ³Materiality truly is impermanent, it truly is unsatisfactory, it truly is foul, it truly is non-self². After he had contemplated this continuously, just as someone who tries to kindle ³ Since my preceptor has told me to develop mindfulness of breathing, I shall be obedient. Someone who does not obey his teacher and his preceptor, is called obstinate. Nothing is more oppressive and hard than the occurrence of the reproach, ŒRahula is obstinate, he does not obey his preceptor.¹ ² He visited the Blessed One because he was eager to ask about the method of mental development. In order to explain this, Ananda said the words, ³then, (at evening time,) the venerable Rahula (got up from solitude) etc.² ******* Nina. 25922 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Oct 8, 2003 10:12am Subject: Dhamma Issue 13, Devas reborn with an ahetuka kusala vipaakacitta. no 1. Chapter 13. (No 1) Devas reborn with an ahetuka kusala vipåkacitta. Introduction [1]. Human birth is the result of kusala kamma performed by kåmåvacara cittas, cittas of the sense-sphere. Kusala kamma has different degrees and therefore the result has also different degrees. Some people are born with a rebirth-consciousness, patisandhi-citta, that is ahetuka kusala vipåka, not accompanied by beautiful roots. Others are born with a patisandhi-citta that is sahetuka kusala vipåka, accompanied by two beautiful roots, by alobha (non-attachment) and adosa (non-aversion), or by three beautiful roots, by alobha, adosa and paññå. When the patisandhi-citta is ahetuka kusala vipåkacitta, the kamma which produced it is weaker than the kamma which produces a patisandhi-citta that is sahetuka kusala vipåka. Human beings who are born with a patisandhi-citta that is ahetuka kusala vipåka are handicapped from the first moment of life. Eyesense or earsense do not develop or they have other defects. There are two types of ahetuka vipåkacitta that can perform the function of patisandhi, namely: santírana akusala vipåkacitta and santírana kusala vipåkacitta. Santírana-citta is ahetuka vipåka. When it arises in a sense-door process of cittas experiencing an object through one of the five senses, it performs the function of investigating the object. However, it can also perform the function of patisandhi and in that case it does not arise in a sense-door process and it does not investigate an object. The same citta can perform more than one function, but at different moments and at different occasions. There are three kinds of santíraùa-citta: 1. Santírana-citta which is akusala vipåka, accompanied by indifferent feeling (upekkhå) 2. Santírana-citta which is kusala vipåka, accompanied by indifferent feeling (upekkhå) 3. Santírana-citta which is kusala vipåka, accompanied by pleasant feeling (somanassa). The santírana-citta which is akusala vipåka, accompanied by indifferent feeling, can perform the function of patisandhi in a woeful plane: the animal world, the world of ghosts (petas), the world of demons (asuras) and the hell planes. This means, that the this type of patìsandhi-citta is the same type of citta as the akusala vipåkacitta which performs the function of investigating, santírana, in a sense-door process. The santírana-citta which is kusala vipåka, accompanied by indifferent feeling, can, apart from the function of investigating in a sense-door process, also perform the function of patisandhi in the human plane and in heavenly planes. The santírana-citta which is kusala vipåka, accompanied by pleasant feeling, cannot perform the function of patisandhi. This Issue deals with the question whether devas who are born with a rebirth-consciousness which is santírana-citta kusala vipåka are, just as in the case of humans, handicapped from the first moment of life, or whether they are not handicapped. ******* Issue of Analysis: Can devas who are reborn with a patisandhi-citta that is kusala vipåka santírana-citta accompanied by upekkhå be handicapped from birth? Can they be blind, deaf or can they have other handicaps? Conclusion regarding the analysis of this issue: As far as available sources explain, it is not stated whether devas who are born with such vipåkacitta are handicapped from birth or not. The sources which support this conclusion: 1. The Commentary to the ³Dhammasangani², the ³Expositor² (II, Book I, Part X, Ch I, 265). 2. The Commentary to the ³Dialogues of the Buddha¹, the ³Sumangalavilåsiní², Commentary to the ³Mahånidånasutta²(D II, no 15). 3. Visuddhimagga, Ch XIV, 111 4. Abhidhammattha Sangaha, a Manual of Abhidhamma, Ch 5. The explanation of the reason for this conclusion: 1. The ³Expositor², the Commentary to the ³Dhammasangani² (II, Book I, Part X, Ch I, 265) states: ³And the second mind-consciousness element (mano-viññåna dhåtu) becomes a result on five occasions [2]. How? At the time when the blind, the deaf, the foolish, the mad, a hermaphrodite, or a neutre takes conception in the world of men, such consciousness takes effect as conception...² This text explains about the rebirth with santírana-citta which is ahetuka kusala vipåka, accompanied by indifferent feeling, of those who are handicapped, who are blind, deaf, foolish, mad, a hermaphrodite, or an eunuch. It deals with birth only in the human plane, and it does not speak about the deva planes. 2. We read in the ³Sumangalavilåsiní ², Commentary to the Dialogues of the Buddha, Mahå-nidåna sutta, an explanation of the following words of the Mahå-nidåna sutta (translated by Ven. Bodhi): ³Beings who are diverse in body and diverse in perception, such as human beings, some gods, and some beings in the lower realms.² The Commentary states: ³ ¹Some gods¹ (ekkacce ca): the gods of the six sense-sphere heavens [3]. For these may have bodies that are blue, yellow, etc., and their perception may be triple-rooted or double rooted, though not rootless. ³Some beings in lower realms²: such beings as the female spirits (yakkhiní) Uttaramåtå, Piyankaramåtå, Phussamittå, Dhammaguttå [4], etc., and other spirits who live in places outside the four planes of misery. For their bodies are of diverse colours, shapes, and sizes, and like humans their perception may be double-rooted, triple-rooted or rootless. But unlike the gods they are not powerful; they are powerless like low-class humans. They have trouble finding food and clothing and live oppressed by pain. Some are afflicted during the dark fortnight and happy during the bright fortnight. Therefore, they have fallen from the height of happiness, they are called ³beings in the lower realms² [5] . Those among them who are triple-rooted can achieve comprehension of the Dhamma.² We then read that the yakkhiní Piyaòkara¹s mother who had heard the Elder Anuruddha reciting Dhamma became a sotåpanna. Footnotes: 1. I wrote this Introduction. 2. Mind-consciousness-element, mano-viññåna dhåtu, includes all cittas except the sense-cognitions and the cittas which are mind-element, mano-dhåtu. Mind-element comprises the five-door adverting-consciousness and the two types of receiving-consciousness which are kusala vipåka and akusala vipåka. ³The second mind-consciousness-element², named by the Expositor, is the santírana-citta which is ahetuka kusala vipåkacitta, accompanied by indifferent feeling. This becomes a result on five occasions: as rebirth-consciousness, as life-continuum, as investigating-consciousness, as dying-consciousness and as registration (tadårammana). 3. There are six classes of devas belonging to the sensuous sphere. The lowest class is the class of the ŒFour Great Kings², catumahåråjika devas. Of these again the earth-bound or terrestial devas, bhummadevatå, are the lowest in rank. The commentary uses the word saññå, perception, which can be accompanied by two roots or three roots. That means: they are born with a rebirth-consciousness accompanied by two roots or three roots. The bhavanga-citta, life-continuum and dying-consciousness are of the same type of citta. 4. The Visuddhimagga XII, 39, explains that these female spirits could fly through the air. 5. Footnote by Ven. Bodhi: Ordinarily the ³beings in the lower realms², vinipåtika, are identified with the denizens of the four planes of misery. But here the term is used to refer to other classes of beings outside the planes of misery.² The plane of Petas, ghosts, and the plane of Asuras, demons, are unhappy planes, but in some cases the words peta and asura are used for devas of the lowest class. A peta with a heavenly mansion or palace, vimåna, is a vemånika peta. This peta is a deva of the lowest class of the ³Four Great Kings². (Translated from Thai) Nina. (will be continued) ****** 25923 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Oct 8, 2003 10:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Verse On The Buddha's Last Meal: To Nina and Sarah Dear Suan, Most interesting. I am delighted you gave us the Saddaniti. You use the expression disrespect, a verb showing disrespect, and this I do not understand yet. Could you please give a further explanation? With many thanks, Nina. op 08-10-2003 17:51 schreef abhidhammika op suanluzaw@b...: > > In short, the tender pork cuisine was the food that kept the Buddha > going, rather than something that ruined him. > > When we reconstruct the expression "Buddhassa buttassa" as the > expression "Buddhe butte" using the seventh case, we get a neutral > general while/when syntax under the rule 644: Kaalebhaavesu ca. We > can use the same translations as above for examples. > > When we know how the writer of the verse had carefully chosen the > right syntax to convey the correct sense of the event, we get the > lines of the verse right. 25924 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Oct 8, 2003 1:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Larry Sorry for the delay in getting back. . --- Larry wrote: > Hi Jon, > > I agree any kusala mental action (javana?) would have an element of > tranquility in it and this action could arise "spontaneously" for > anyone, depending on accumulations etc. Yes, and not only could it arise spontaneously for anyone, it can (and no doubt does) occur spontaneously for each of us, to a greater or lesser degree, in our daily lives. Would you also agree with this? Jon > ps: I was wondering about different kinds of tranquility. Would all > of the following be considered different kinds of tranquility: ...tranquility cetasikas, Passaddhi cetasika is a cetasika that accompanies every kusala citta. In this sense, tranquillity is as aspect of all forms of kusala. ...jhana cittas, Jhaana cittas are the outcome of the development of samatha (samatha bhavana) to a very high degree of concentration. Samatha bhavana is often translated as 'tranquillity meditation'. Jhaana cittas are kusala cittas. ...path and fruition cittas, Path citta (magga citta) is the outcome of the development of insight (vipassana bhavana) to a very high degree. It is a supramundane kusala citta. Fruition citta (phala citta) follows immediately after path citta and is the result of that immediately preceding magga citta. As a vipaka citta, it is not said to have the quality of tranquillity (vipaka cittas are accompanied by the 7 'universal' cetasikas only). > When the bhavanga cittas are arising, is that > tranquility? This goes back to my thinking that dreamless sleep is > tranquility. I'm guessing that tranquility isn't just a minimum of > sense door activity but rather there has to be a virtuous intention > that conditions it. So if one went to sleep with a virtuous > intention > wouldn't that be tranquility? Or would it be more correct to say > the intention has an element of tranquility but not the sleep > (bhavanga)? Bhavanga cittas are vipaka cittas. They are the result of deeds (kamma) performed in a previous life. They do not take on the quality of, and are quite unaffected by, the preceding kusala or akusala cittas. > Does tranquility have a particular quality, sort of soft and gentle > (not corpse-like)? Free from akusala and the restlesness that accompanies avery moment of akusala. Definitely not corpse-like (whatever that is) ;-). Good questions, Larry. 25925 From: Date: Wed Oct 8, 2003 3:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Hi Jon, I agree kusala citta could arise for anyone depending on conditions. You are certainly taking a long time to develop this argument. Larry 25926 From: Date: Wed Oct 8, 2003 3:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Sukin: "But the khandhas rise and fall, so at which point does it constitute a person?" Hi Sukin, At birth. Some might say before then. Larry 25927 From: Date: Wed Oct 8, 2003 4:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism. XIV, 21 Hi all, Below is the definition of "patisambhida" in the PTS Dict. I was wondering what "resolving" means in "resolving continuous breaking up". How do you get "resolving" from "pati"? It seems that this is rather esoteric knowledge; so I'm wondering if "analysis" or "discrimination" is really suitable as a translation since anyone can analyze or discriminate. Larry Patisambhida (p. 400) (f.) [pati+san+bhid; the BSk. pratisanvid is a new formation resting on confusion between bhid & vid, favoured by use & meaning of latter root in P. patisanvidita. In BSk. we find pratisanvid in same application as in P., viz. as fourfold artha° dharma° nirukti° pratibhana° (?). MVastu III.321] lit. "resolving continuous breaking up," i. e. analysis, analytic insight, discriminating knowledge. See full discussion & expln of term at Kvu trsln 377--382. Always referred to as "the four branches of logical analysis" (catasso or catupatisambhida), viz. attha° analysis of meanings "in extension"; dhamma° of reasons, conditions, or causal relations; nirutti° of [meanings "in intension" as given in] definitions patibhana° or intellect to which things knowable by the foregoing processes are presented (after Kvu trsln). In detail at A II.160; III.113. 120; Ps I.88, 119; II.150, 157, 185, 193; Vbh 293--305; VbhA 386 sq. (cp. Vism 440 sq.), 391 sq. -- See further A I.22; IV.31; Nd2 386 under patibhanavant; Ps I.84. 132, 134; II.32, 56, 116, 189; Miln 22 (attha--dh°nirutti--patibhana--paramippatta), 359; VvA 2; DhA IV.70 (catusu p--° asu cheka). p°--patta one who has attained mastership in analysis A I.24; III.120; Ps II.202. -- Often included in the attainment of Arahant [p. 401] ship, in formula "saha patisambhidahi arahattan papunati," viz. Miln 18; DhA II.58, 78, 93. 25928 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Oct 8, 2003 6:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Jon, > > I agree kusala citta could arise for anyone depending on > conditions. But I'm wondering whether you agree that there are moments of samatha occurring in your daily life, such as the examples I have instanced earlier. > You are certainly taking a long time to develop this argument. And you are taking a long time to give a direct answer on this particular point ;-)). Jon 25929 From: Date: Wed Oct 8, 2003 6:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Jon: "I'm wondering whether you agree that there are moments of samatha occurring in your daily life, such as the examples I have instanced earlier." Hi Jon, Yes. Larry 25930 From: Date: Wed Oct 8, 2003 7:12pm Subject: patisambhida Hi all, Here is a proposal for a translation: According to the PTS Dictionary "patisambhida" literally means "resolving continuous breaking up". The "breaking up" comes from "bhid" and usually refers to breaking into parts, hence "analysis". Suppose we say "resolving" means "complete", "perfect", "fully skilled". In other words, "consummate". This gives us a translation of "consummate analysis" for "patisambhida" and distinguishes it from ordinary analysis such as "pabheda". Larry 25931 From: june_tg Date: Wed Oct 8, 2003 8:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] buddhist publication society Dear Jon. Thanks. Everything's okay now. It seems they dont like to reply by email but their service is quite fast otherwise. I waited 2 weeks for an email reply when they've already sent out the stuff. I just received my order yesterday. Whew. I guess that's what happens when your imagination gets carried away. Thanks for your reply. June 25932 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Oct 8, 2003 9:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Verse On The Buddha's Last Meal: To Nina and Sarah Hi James, We look here at the sutta, but it is in Pali. It has grammar, and there are grammatical rules. The best way to get the real meaning is to be very careful and very precise. That is why I find Suan's analysis excellent. There is nothing in the sutta about undercooked meat, or the meat being poisonous. Nina. op 08-10-2003 18:57 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" > wrote: > >> >> "It was heard by me that >> the Buddha experienced fatally severe sickness, >> 25933 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Oct 8, 2003 10:01pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Verse On The Buddha's Last Meal: To Nina and Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Hi James, > We look here at the sutta, but it is in Pali. It has grammar, and there are > grammatical rules. The best way to get the real meaning is to be very > careful and very precise. That is why I find Suan's analysis excellent. > There is nothing in the sutta about undercooked meat, or the meat being > poisonous. > Nina. Hi Nina, First, how can you find Suan's analysis excellent when you, as well as I, have no idea what he is talking about with this grammatical rule of `verbs showing disrespect'? I read your other post where you ask him to explain that for you (Post: 25923) so you obviously don't understand. Now, you don't even completely understand what he is saying and yet you are already convinced that it is `excellent'? That is not being very intellectually rigorous in my eyes; as well as demonstrating a bias toward Pali in any form. Second, you write, "There is nothing in the sutta about undercooked meat, or the meat being poisonous." Okay, there is also nothing in the sutta about the meat being infused with nutrients from devas and yet you are propagating that we all should believe that. I believe my explanation is much more logically sound than yours. Metta, James 25934 From: Sarah Date: Wed Oct 8, 2003 11:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma with distracted mind Hi Steve, Thank you very much for coming to the rescue here. I think it must be right as I had no idea of the Pali for the passage in the translation and it's close to that quoted (with obvious errors). PED: bhijjati [pass ob bhindati] to be broken, to be destroyed. Much appreciated, Metta, Sarah p.s Glad you enjoyed the Cooran weekend - I'm sure everyone is very glad to have your contributions as we are here;-) ============================================= --- bodhi2500 wrote: > Hi All > > The closest passage i could find in the Kathavatthu Atthakatha to>> > "Yada cittam blajjamanam hoti tada kammaam bhajjamanam hotiti attho." > is > "Citta.m bhijjamaananti yadaa citta.m bhijjamaana.m hoti, tadaa > kamma.m bhijjatiiti attho." > > Its from the com. to this Kathavatthu XV,XI passage as Sarah pointed > out. 25935 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 0:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Jon: "I'm wondering whether you agree that there are moments of > samatha > occurring in your daily life, such as the examples I have instanced > earlier." > > Hi Jon, > > Yes. As I said before, I think this is important to recognise. First, it shows that samatha does not depend on 'being concentrated', and secondly it means there is a basis in one's daily life as it already is for samatha to be further developed. Any problem with this? Jon 25936 From: abhidhammika Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 0:09am Subject: The Verse On The Buddha's Last Lunch: With Typo Corrections :To Nina and Sarah Dear Dhamma friends My post "The Verse On The Last Meal" has some spelling mistakes. So I reposted the post with spelling corrections. Sorry about any inconvenience! Suan -------- Dear Nina, Sarah, Christine, Mike Niece, Robert K, Derek and all, How are you? Nina asked: "I would like to know what the Saddaniti has to say, ....?" The following is my quick translation of the verse on the Buddha's last meal. "Cundassa bhattam bhuñjitvaa, kammaarassaati me sutam; aabaadham samphusii dhiiro, pabaa.lham maara.nantikam. Bhuttassa ca suukaramaddavena, byaadhippabaa.lho udapaadi satthuno; virecamaano bhagavaa avoca, gacchaamaham kusinaaram nagaranti. "It was heard by me that the Buddha experienced fatally severe sickness, After eating Cunda's food, of the son of goldsmith. And when having eaten his lunch with tender pork cuisine, Severe disorder occurred to the Teacher of the Universe. The Mighty One, losing diarrhoeaic blood, said, "Let's go to the City of Kusinaara". Section 190, Mahaaparinibbana Suttam, Mahaavaggo, Diighanikaayo GRAMMAR RULES for the expression " Bhuttassa ca suukaramaddavena" Bhuttassa- Cha.t.thii vibhatti meaning genitive case. The equally correct syntax in place of "bhuttassa" is "bhutte" - Sattamii vibhatti meaning locative case. Both genitive case and locative case are used to express the sense of the action of one verb while or when the action of another verb is taking place or has taken place as in the above verse. Please see the following rules in Saddaniiti Suttamaalaa. Suttam 633: Anaadaramhi ca. Anaadaramhi ca gamyamaane bhaavavataa li`ngamhaa cha.t.thiivibhatti hoti sattamii ca. Aphorism 633: And, in the case of the verb showing disrespect. "When the case of the verb showing disrespect is to be known, the sixth case comes after the bare noun having the verb that gets disrespected or the seventh case does similarly." One of the examples given is from Section 2169, Vessantara Jaataka, Jaataka Pali, Volume 2. "Aako.tayanto te neti Siviraajassa pekkhato" "While the Sivi King (Vessantaro) watching, the Brahmin beating the two children lead them away." In the above example, the verb to lead is the verb showing disrespect while the verb to watch is the verb getting disrespect. We can reconstruct the expression "Siviraajassa pekkhato" as "Siviraajassa pekkhassa". When we get the term "pekkhassa", that can easily remind us of the expression "bhuttassa". Finally we get the expression "Buddhassa bhuttassa". In the verse on the Buddha's last meal, the verb to eat is the verb getting disrespect while the verb to occur is the verb to show disrespect. Thus, we finally get the following alternative translation. "Despite having lunch with tender pork cuisine, Severe disorder occurred to the Teacher of the Universe." This alternative translation is exactly and literally in line with the Pali grammar rule. In my opinion, the commentator commented on that phrase in light of the Pali grammar rule. In short, the tender pork cuisine was the food that kept the Buddha going, rather than something that ruined him. When we reconstruct the expression "Buddhassa bhuttassa" as the expression "Buddhe bhutte" using the seventh case, we get a neutral general while/when syntax under the rule 644: Kaalebhaavesu ca. We can use the same translations as above for examples. When we know how the writer of the verse had carefully chosen the right syntax to convey the correct sense of the event, we do not find the lines of the verse to be ambiguous. We get the lines of the verse right. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom > wrote: > > I would like to know what the Saddaniti has to say, > perhaps we shift to Pali list? 25937 From: Sarah Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 0:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Sukin, I had meant to respond a little to your earlier message to me and Nina: --- Sukinderpal Singh Narula wrote: > Sarah, though I do not have the accumulations to book study, I think > that it is very useful and I hope that the regular reading of posts on > dsg, > will condition some effort in the future, to take a more serious > approach > to the Texts. Of course at this stage, the best thing for me is > listening to > K. Sujin. She makes everything so clear, using daily life as example to > express what I would otherwise not be able to directly understand if I > were to read the original texts alone. But even this I do relatively > little, > especially when I compare to many people in Thailand, who make the > effort to get up very early to listen to her radio programs. .... Oh, no need to compare again;-) Sukin, I agree with all your comments here and elsewhere. I think you do consider very deeply and it is the considering, reflecting and understanding that counts. No need to count how many texts one has read (or not read) or how many radio programs one has listened to;-) .... > I think there are many, many conditions involved in deciding how at any > given moment there will be any understanding, be it of the intellectual > or practice level. This is one reason why I think, that any real > appreciation of the Buddha's teachings *must* be a natural and daily > life, without any thought of time, place and idea of formal practice > coming in the way to distort the perception. .... Yes, agreed of course (but then, James would say we’re in the same brain-washed club here;-)). We can plan to read a text or follow any other activity, but conditions may dictate otherwise, like when I sprained my leg at the weekend. .... > Only wrong thinking and wrong view I believe will lead one to the idea > that there are certain modes of behavior more conducive to > understanding. Only *thinking* can get in the way of understanding the > present moment. And the beauty about the Buddha's teachings is that > even this 'thinking' is conditioned and can be known!! When, where, > how are just concepts, behind which is the process of 'thinking'. Better > to know this than to be taken by the ideas themselves. > However, not all thinking is useless. There are some wholesome > reflections and not all thinking point to 'wrong practice'. Some are > kusala, as in metta, dana, karuna etc. The kind of thinking which I find > particularly harmful, is one that leads one to believe in the idea of > better, time, place and even mental make up for the development of > panna. What many may not realize is that all this instead of leading to > more detachment and appreciation of Anatta, may lead to a greater > attachment to self and wrong view. ..... You’re making a lot of good points, Sukin. They all point to knowing the present reality. Nothing else to be known. Hope you can keep talking to Victor and others while some of us are travelling next week (for about 2 wks) - I mean we wouldn’t want him to fall asleep or start questioning whether there are any ‘real people’ around;-) Metta, Sarah ====== 25938 From: robmoult Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 0:53am Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 22-23 for comment What does exist? Slide Contents ============== Ultimate Realities (Paramattha): - Consciousness (Citta) - Mental Factors (Cetasikas) - Physical Phenomena (Rupa) - Nibbana Concept of Self - Matter (Rupa) -> Rupa - Feeling (Vedana) -> Cetasika - Perception (Sañña) -> Cetasika - Mental Formations (Sankhara) -> 50 Cetasikas - Consciousness (Viññana) -> Citta Matter, Feeling, Perception, Mental Formations and Consciousness are the 5 Aggregates Speaker Notes ============= If "people" do not exist, what does exist? What are the component parts? According to the Abhidhamma, there are four types of things that exist: - Consciousness (Citta in Pali) - Mental Factors (Cetasikas in Pali) - Physical Phenomena (Rupa in Pali) - Nibbana The first three of these ultimate realities are called "conditioned realities"; this means that they arise because of other conditions and only last for an instant before falling away. In the Suttas, the Buddha often spoke of a being consisting of the "five aggregates" (pañca-khandha in Pali). This chart shows how the five aggregates fit into the first three types of ultimate realities. 25939 From: Sarah Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 0:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga. Tiika 17 Dear Nina (& Larry), --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah and Larry, > just an evaluation of the transl of Tiika. For this subject I see that > many > passages are overlapping with Dispeller of Delusion (Co to Vibhanga, > Book of > Analysis) II, p. 126, ff. I can type from this work relevant passages, > because not everyone has it. When I see an interesting extra detail in > the > Tiika (I am reading it), I can translate it. But I am not sure whether > many > are interested in the Tiika. It is quite a lot of work to translate it. .... I think as James wrote in another message, a lot of what we read in the Tiika and details seems incomprehensible and so it’s easy to skim over it, put it aside or just delete. For myself (& Jon), however, we find it invaluable. Perhaps now, much of it is over our heads or we may just consider a little intellecutually, but we never know when it may be a condition for deeper reflection or when a ‘Larry’ may come along with a probing question which helps us to consider more carefully. To give an example. I had read and not understood before about ‘skill in improvement, detriment, and means’ (Vism,X1V,8). I had read before about ‘detriment’ as the ‘diminution of good and the arousing of harm’, but until you added the Tiika lines about the various kinds of kosalla (skill), I had never really considered the importance of understanding the ‘skill in detriment’ in daily life. To quote from the Tiika (yr translation, leaving out the Pali): “As to the words, skill in these, mean: skill in detriment concerning the characteristic of the diminution of benefit and the arousing of harm, that what is profitable, skill in detriment. ‘These dhammas etc.’ is said, in order to show that this is also according to the text. Herein this is called, means: understanding concerning the non-arising and cessation of profitable dhammas and the arising and maintenance of unprofitable dhammas,this is called skill in detriment.” **** We may think that all we need to understand is the development of wholesome states and that anytime we’re ‘taking a break’ there is no cause for concern. However, I think it’s very helpful to understand how ‘detrimental’ states develop whenever wholesome states are not developing. As we read before in Rahula’s case, even he, without the Buddha’s assistance, was destined to develop more ‘detriment’. A little more: “He thinks thus: Proficiency concerning the arousing of detriment may be called skill in detriment, and therefore it is just the understanding of it. Why? It is truly understanding when one knows: ‘When I pay attention in this way knowing that unarisen profitable dhammas do not arise, and that arisen profitable dhammas dwindle away, and that unarisen unprofitable dhammas arise, and arisen unprofitable dhammas increase. When he understands this, unarisen unprofitable dhammas do not arise, and those which have arisen cease,” ***** In other words, if there isn’t the understanding of the way ‘unprofitable dhammas’ accumulate in daily life, there is no way that they will diminish. “Thus also skill in detriment is truly understanding.” .... I’m sure for other people, different passages may have more significance. Some may not have significance for any of us for a good long while, but they can always be referred back to. (Btw, I was writing to B.Bodhi about the Chinese version of CMA, but mentioned we were discussing this Tiika and asked at the same time if he knew of any other English transl of it. I also took the opportunity to encourage him to add as many commentary notes to the AN translation as possible and mentioned again how often we quote his other comy translations in our discussions). ***** > Sarah, when you go to Myanmar, I wonder whether you or Jonothan have > time to > ask a Pali expert about nirutti, discr. of language. .... I’ll try to raise it . If you could write a paragraph (as you did last time) with the points, it’s easier to read it out as ‘Nina’s qu’ and then supplement with other related qus perhaps. My appreciation to you and Larry for all your assistance on the Vism threads. Metta, Sarah ===== 25940 From: Sarah Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 1:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.EngPali.XIV, 16, 17, 18 Hi Jon, Larry, (Victor, Howard), --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) ch. XIV > > [How many kinds of understanding are there?] > [katividhaa pa~n~naati dhammasabhaavapa.] > > 16. 9. In the third triad, it is increase that is called > "improvement". That is twofold as the elimination of harm and the > arousing of good. Skill in improvement is skill in these, according > as it is said: 'Herein, what is skill in improvement? When a man > brings these things to mind both unarisen unprofitable things do not > arise and arisen unprofitable things are abandoned in him; or when he > brings these things to mind [440] both unarisen profitable things > arise and arisen profitable things advance to growth, increase, > development, and perfection in him. .... We read about how ‘a man brings these things to mind’, but clearly such terms are being used conventionally. The text continues to clarify that it is pa~n~naa and associated states being referred to as developing such skill: >Whatever here is understanding, > act of understanding ... [for words elided see Dhs. 16] ... > non-delusion, investigation of states, right view, is called skill in > improvement' (Vbh. 325-26). > >yaa tattha pa~n~naa pajaananaa ... pe0 > ... amoho dhammavicayo sammaadi.t.thi, ida.m vuccati aayakosalla''nti > (vibha0 771). ***** Larry, in the other extract (X1V, 19) which refers to ‘apprehending one’s own aggregates’ and ‘that initiated by apprehending another’s aggregates or external materiality’, in truth of course, there is no ‘me’ and ‘other’. But, as we’re not enlightened it seems this way and so we use these terms. Always, what is ‘apprehended’ are the namas and rupas appearing. These may be on account of ‘another’s aggregates’ or ‘external materiality’as I understand these passages. For example, we see someone upset and think about it and have compassion accordingly. We can never experience the other’s cittas, but there can be understanding of the thinking and compassion (we) experienced, conditioned by what is seen and heard. There can also be understanding of ‘the seen’ and ‘heard’;-) Likewise with ‘internal’ and ‘external’ materiality. Hardness experienced by touch is simply hardness whether it is the hardness of one’s body or the rock. We can refer to it as ‘internal’ or ‘external’ materiality [inanimate matter] touched conventionally and it makes sense (to me) to talk about it being ‘initiated by apprehending’ ‘the internal and external’. Not an easy topic and I expect to hear from Howard;-) Metta, Sarah ====== 25941 From: Sarah Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 1:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Verse On The Buddha's Last Lunch: With Typo Corrections :To Nina and Sarah Hi Suan, Very useful and interesting. I appreciate the details and your contribution very much. I'd also like to thank the tough questions which encouraged this detailed analysis, but will just give a general 'pat on the head' for now;-) Metta, Sarah ====== 25942 From: Sarah Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 1:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:the Buddha's Last Meal. the Pali, also to Rob Edison Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > > LOL! No, this explanation doesn't sound like a brainwashed > explanation (when you start to get into that no-control, meditation > is dangerous/unnecessary kick that you sound brainwashed), .... LOL ...that’s coming next;-) .... > this just > sounds like a simple case of selective attention. Granting that the > one line in Pali is ambiguous (which I will have to take Derek's word > for that) the other details of the incident combined with that one > ambiguous line makes the whole incident far from ambiguous. That is > just common sense. The commentaries come up with this fantastic > story that isn't suggested by the text at all, that isn't ambiguous > either. ...... I can live with the 'selective attention' theory;-). Do you have any theory as to why the commentaries, originally recounted by arahants and carefully preserved by more arahants like Mahinda who brought them to Sri Lanka, later to be compiled by highly esteemed bhikkhus like Buddhaghosa, and then preserved for us to read today, should, according to you, defy common sense and make up a ‘fantastic story’ like this which even the highly esteemed Pali grammarians throughout the centuries have ‘fallen for’? ..... >I guess each person needs to decide for him/herself which > answer is the most plausible. I believe it is more plausible that > the Buddha got sick from that meal and died; those are definitely > what the facts point to. .... No problem. I’m sure anyone who prefers to ignore the commentaries will come to the same conclusion. No sweat. .... >Since you refer to old English riddles, I > will refer to an old English philosopher: William of Occam, the > medieval philosopher, set forth the logical principal of `Occam's > Razor,' which states that one should not make more assumptions than > the minimum needed. .... Ah yes, but then, but then.....what about the ‘Dhamma Congress’, the ‘Pali Congress’, the ‘Abhidhamma Congress’ and the future of DSG???;-) Just kidding, James. If only life were so simple.....;-) Believe me, I understand the appeal of just keeping a couple of collections of suttas (throwing out those given by disciples such as Sariputta), discarding the Vinaya (not that you’d do this), Abhidhamma and Commentaries (you might do this) and accepting the first sutta translation one comes across (today that seems to be Thanissaro’s) at face value. Let’s see if I can go and add ‘more assumptions’ and complicate a few other threads;-) Metta, Sarah p.s Jon and I had a good laugh at your ‘tender pork’ post which followed Suan’s. Note: this is NOT a pat on the head - nor have I given any advice;-) ===== 25943 From: Sarah Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 2:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: particular. specific characteristics...... Hi Ken H, (Larry, RobM & All), --- kenhowardau wrote: > > Thank you for correcting me on the cause of rupa. It's > easier for me to wax eloquent on these subjects if I know > someone will come along later and repair the damage. :-) .... That’s a deal (though no guarantees I’ll get it right either :-)) .... > Now that you mention it, I have seen that explained > before. I gather we can say that vipaka citta is > conditioned by kamma; If it is conditioned by kusala > kamma then it experiences a pleasant object -- akusala > kamma, an unpleasant object. External sense objects > (rupas), are conditioned by temperature; internal objects > by kamma, citta, temperature or nutrition. .... Right .... > That leaves only the cause of inherent pleasantness / > unpleasantness to be explained. Is that what you are > attributing to 'an intricate set of conditions?' > > Not as tidy as my version but more satisfactory :-) ... As I was just saying to James, I’m here to cause trouble :-) Any reality arising is always due to ‘an intricate set of conditions’. For example, we say that seeing consciousness is the result of kamma. This means that kamma is the main condition and without it, there could be no vipaka. But there have to be many other support conditions for that vipaka citta to arise - eg object condition (the visible object), proximity cond., conascence, mutuality, depenence, presence, decisive support and so on and so on. (Kom, keep an eye on what I write too...) As for the inherent pleasantness/unpleasantness, as you explained to Howard, this is inherent to the rupa. We discussed before how it’s impossible for us to know at any time whether we are seeing a pleasant or unpleasant visible object. Various examples were given of how we may be fooled in this regard. (let me know if you’d like me to find the other posts). “Saataruupa.m (‘agreeable’) is what is classed as agreeable. [this signifies] a desirable object as proximate cause of enjoyment” (Dispeller,16, 2286). .... > You are referring to the Balinese bathroom I thoughtfully > incorporated into the family home. Why are women so > unappreciative? .... ;-) Sometimes you sound just like Jon - must be that lawyer’s training, (and Larry, when did a Law Draftsman trained in Dickensian Legal Tomes ever get to the point in a hurry??) Metta, Sarah ====== P.S. Btw, I agree with all your comments about the lack of any sure-fire safe situations of kusala. Jon has an unusual blood group type and as a result tends to get called quite often by the Red Cross to make an offering. Sometimes, it’s too soon after the last one and there’s no spare blood to be found. I have no idea about any of his cittas at any of these times and have never been present. I do know, however, that he gets a nice rest, avoids a meeting or two and possibly gets a pat on the back when he returns to the office;-) And of course, the highest kusala, is a moment of satipatthana which, as we all know, is just as likely on a surfboard as at the transfusion centre. I don’t mean to sound cynical or not to encourage all kinds of kusala, including blood donations, but I wouldn’t want James to think that I was going soft;-) 25944 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 3:10am Subject: Re:the Buddha's Last Meal. the Pali, also to Rob Edison Hi Sarah, Just a few comments: Sarah: I can live with the 'selective attention' theory;-). Do you have any theory as to why the commentaries, originally recounted by arahants and carefully preserved by more arahants like Mahinda who brought them to Sri Lanka, later to be compiled by highly esteemed bhikkhus like Buddhaghosa, and then preserved for us to read today, should, according to you, defy common sense and make up a `fantastic story' like this which even the highly esteemed Pali grammarians throughout the centuries have `fallen for'? James: Now admit it, you wrote this to sound extremely persuasive. I do not believe that the original commentaries, the ones recounted by arahants, are the ones that we have today. As I have written and explained before, I believe that Buddhaghosa took great liberties with the commentaries and added a lot of material from his own pen. The fact that the commentaries have numerous references to Abhidhamma terms and concepts, when those weren't even in existence when the original commentaries were recounted, points to this fact. Of course we have also gone round and round about this before…so no need to do that again. I believe you also have `selective attention' when it comes to historical fact. Sarah: Just kidding, James. If only life were so simple.....;-) Believe me, I understand the appeal of just keeping a couple of collections of suttas (throwing out those given by disciples such as Sariputta), discarding the Vinaya (not that you'd do this), Abhidhamma and Commentaries (you might do this) and accepting the first sutta translation one comes across (today that seems to be Thanissaro's) at face value. James: I have never advocated `throwing out' anything, even the Abhidhamma; I have just stated that they must be seen in the proper light. There are those things that are completely in line with the Buddha's teaching (and that includes the Vinaya), and there are those things that are rather askew. Keep everything but know which is which. You believe that it is all in line with the Buddha's teaching; which I find a little naïve to think that everything would remain pure and original for over three thousand years. Surely you know that nothing lasts?\ Sarah: p.s Jon and I had a good laugh at your `tender pork' post which followed Suan's. Note: this is NOT a pat on the head - nor have I given any advice;-) James: Why would you two laugh? I find it quite disturbing to consider how the Buddha died. I feel sympathy and awe for him…but definitely no humor at his situation. If you haven't noticed by now, I take this whole issue very seriously. I want it understood what a great sacrifice he made and I don't want his sacrifice trivialized or presented incorrectly. Metta, James 25945 From: Sarah Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 3:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion Hi TG, --- TGrand458@a... wrote: > I believe personality-view or belief, or however we want to phrase it > comes > in three basic "strengths." > 1) The most subtle is associated with the sense of "mine." > 2) The next level is the idea/sense of "I." > 3) The last (most gross) is the belief/view of a "self" or "myself." ... I think you’re referring here to : 1) eta.m mama- this is mine (craving or attachment to me) 2) esoham asmi - this am I (conceit) 3) eso me attaa - this is myself (wrong view of self). We’re encouraged to see with right wisdom that ‘this is not mine, I am not this, this is not me’ as in the Rahulavada sutta. In other words, these are the three kinds cinging with regard to self, the first one not being accompanied by conceit or wrong view. However, I don’t think we can talk about these as 3 strengths of a view or belief. Although they are all rooted in lobha (attachment), they are different mental factors with their own strenghts and subleties. For example, there can be gross and subtle clinging to self, gross and subtle conceit and gross and subtle wrong view of self. .... > I believe the streamwinner has only eradicated the last of these levels. > The > streamwinner still has the idea or sense of "I" and "mine" which is why > attachment, conceit, ignorance, restlessness, and desire for future > "being" still > persists. Other than the more gross belief/view/theory of self, they > still see > things with 'self-view' (as I understand it.) .... Agreed. Now, I understand your meaning better I think, although we use ‘self-view’ in a different way (You are referring to conceit and I’m referring to sakkaya-ditthi by it). Back to ‘strengths’, just as we cannot say that jealousy is necessarily stronger than aversion, because the first is eradicated entirely by the sotapanna, in the same way I don’t think we can say that wrong view is stronger than conceit. Gross and subtle shades of each., although I agree on the importance of understanding wrong views and the fact that these have to be eradicated before other more subtle kinds of attachment. ..... > Appreciate your response as well. :) ..... Pls let me know if this sounds right. Also pls give Ray a prompt if you speak to him;-) Perhaps he can also help. Metta, Sarah Nina, thx for your comment and reminder. Also, if you’d like to give me a qu to raise on this point, I’ll happily do so if I can. ==================== 25946 From: Sarah Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 4:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:the Buddha's Last Meal. the Pali, also to Rob Edison Hi James, James: I have never advocated `throwing out' anything, even the Abhidhamma; I have just stated that they must be seen in the proper light. .... S: thank you for clarifying and I’m glad to hear it. Apologies for suggesting otherwise. .... James: Why would you two laugh? .... S: Put it down to worldling defilements ....intended in friendliness nonetheless;-),(but, maybe that’s an oxymoron;-(). ..... James:I find it quite disturbing to consider how the Buddha died. I feel sympathy and awe for him…but definitely no humor at his situation. If you haven't noticed by now, I take this whole issue very seriously. I want it understood what a great sacrifice he made and I don't want his sacrifice trivialized or presented incorrectly. .... S:I appreciate this and again apologise for any possible offence regading my careless words or humour. It’s been a great issue to raise as its highlighted the question of the extent to which we take note of the commentaries. As you say, everyone can decide for themselves. In appreciation, Metta, Sarah ======= 25947 From: robmoult Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 4:34am Subject: [dsg] Re: particular. specific characteristics...... Hi Sarah, When we last met in HK, you asked me if there were any points in the Dhamma / Abhidhamma that I was still wrestling with. I forgot to mention at that time that I am still very uncomfortable with the "inherent pleasantness / unpleasantness" aspects of rupa. Can you try and explain to me how rupa can have these "inherent" characteristics? I have a hard time accepting the explanation on P172 of CMA, "It is distinguishable according to what is found desireable at one time and undesireable at another time by average (men such as) accountants, government officials, burgesses, land owners and merchants". --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > > That leaves only the cause of inherent pleasantness / > > unpleasantness to be explained. Is that what you are > > attributing to 'an intricate set of conditions?' Metta, Rob M :-) 25948 From: javisens Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 5:39am Subject: Kamma and Clonning, Antibiotic and Kamma Can someone explain how clonning of an animal will explain in terms of kamma? As I understand clonning is done from another animal and new life is formed. In that case where is that new life has the same kamma as its benefactor or not? Is taking antibiotic, is killing a life? Please explain how it can be not. Hope my questions are clear enough to get some clear answers on these two questions javisens 25949 From: Dan D. Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 6:54am Subject: Nibbana a Nama? Almost never. Why "yes" in one sentence in Asl? Nyanatiloka's Dictionary has: NAMA: (lit. 'name'): 'mind', mentality. This term is generally used as a collective name for the 4 mental groups (arupino khandha), viz. feeling (vedana), perception (sañña), mental formations (sankhara), and consciousness (viññana). Within the 4th link (namarupa) in the formula of the paticcasamuppada, however, it applies only to karma- resultant (vipaka), feeling, and perception and a few karma-resultant mental functions inseperable from any consciousness. As it is said (M. 9; D. 15; S XXII, 2): "Feeling (vedana), perception (sañña), volition (cetana), impression (phassa), mental advertence (manasikara)): this, O brother, is called mind (mana)." The four mental aggregates (citta and cetasika) are nama, impermanent, conditioned, not nibbana. Nibbana is supramundane, i.e., beyond the entire field of mind and matter (nama, rupa, and nama- rupa). I do see that there is one sentence in Atthasalini that seems to put Nibbana in with nama, but the discussion really goes through a bizarre wriggling and twisting dance to force nibbana under the same umbrella as the 'nama'. The same word that is several times defined as vedana, sañña, cetana, phassa, + manasikara in the suttas, as citta and cetasika or as citta in abhidhamma, or classed as a link in the citta-to-citta, moment-to-moment version of paticcasamuppada in the Vibhana (avijja->sankharo->viññana->nama->chatth'-ayatana->etc.), or the thing that changes so quickly. I don't see the benefit of trying to force nibbana into the same category as nama when it really has nothing in common with anything else that we'd call 'nama'. Dan 25950 From: Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 3:27am Subject: Re: Nibbana a Nama? (Re: [dsg] Personality view vs. Delusion [Howard]) Hi, all - Here's an attempt at defining 'nama' : Nama is anything that can be an object of consciousness, but never through any of the five senses-doors. This is a definition that is an *alternative* to defining a nama as a phenomenon that *takes* objects. This alternative definition would make all thoughts, concepts, feelings, memories, recognitions, and absences (including nibbana) namas. To give a macroscopic example: When we notice that a particular someone is missing at a gathering, that absence is known through the mind door, not through the eye door. It is the result of a long chain of phenomena, some through various physical sense doors and some through the mind door, but the absence itself, while discerned, is not discerned through eye, ear, nose, tongue, or body. That makes it a nama according to this definition. We *do*, of course, note absences all the time, and that is always done through the mind door. Another example: The absence of thirst when one's thirst is slaked, or the absence of frustration when a DSG member sees the light, i.e. agrees with us! ;-)) With well-defined 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) 25951 From: Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 3:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.EngPali.XIV, 16, 17, 18 Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 10/9/03 4:27:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Likewise with ‘internal’ and ‘external’ materiality. Hardness experienced > by touch is simply hardness whether it is the hardness of one’s body or > the rock. We can refer to it as ‘internal’ or ‘external’ materiality > [inanimate matter] touched conventionally and it makes sense (to me) to > talk about it being ‘initiated by apprehending’ ‘the internal and > external’. Not an easy topic and I expect to hear from Howard;-) > ============================ I agree with you here. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 25952 From: Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 3:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: particular. specific characteristics...... Hi, Rob (and Sarah) - In a message dated 10/9/03 7:37:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > > Hi Sarah, > > When we last met in HK, you asked me if there were any points in the > Dhamma / Abhidhamma that I was still wrestling with. I forgot to > mention at that time that I am still very uncomfortable with > the "inherent pleasantness / unpleasantness" aspects of rupa. Can > you try and explain to me how rupa can have these "inherent" > characteristics? I have a hard time accepting the explanation on > P172 of CMA, "It is distinguishable according to what is found > desireable at one time and undesireable at another time by average > (men such as) accountants, government officials, burgesses, land > owners and merchants". > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah > wrote: > > >That leaves only the cause of inherent pleasantness / > >>unpleasantness to be explained. Is that what you are > >>attributing to 'an intricate set of conditions?' > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > ============================= Rob, I also didn't get this idea of feeling being inherent in rupas until I had a certain conversation with Ken Howard. I realized at that time that I had been thinking in substantialist/eternalist terms when it seemed to me that sometimes a particular rupa is felt as pleasant and at other times "it" is felt as unpleasant. My error was to think of this as *the same* rupa! It is *not* the same rupa. The previous pleasant rupa (say a hardness-rupa) was pleasant. It is now gone, but a current unpleasant rupa (another hardness-rupa), has now arisen. My error lay in identifying different hardnesses as the same, almost countenancing a kind of Platonic 'hardness'. Current conditions, especially intention, lead to the arising of rupas that are pleasant; other conditions lead to rupas that are unpleasant or neutral. A pleasant rupa is one which is discerned as pleasant, an unpleasant rupa is one which is discerned as unpleasant, and a neutral rupa is one which is discerned as affectively neutral. Often, our particular mental state determines what sort of rupa arises. It is not that "the same" rupa arises, now felt as pleasant, now as unpleasant, and now as neutral - they are different rupas. A crunchy texture in the mouth that is pleasant is not the same rupa as a crunchy texture in the mouth that is unpleasant. The first pleasant rupa could be conditioned by the belief that it is a nut in one's mouth, and the second unpleasant rupa could be conditioned by the belief that it is an insect in one's mouth! What distinguishes the two rupas? Answer: Time of occurrence and affective flavor. Different rupas arising from different conditions. The understanding must be phenomenalist rather than "objectivist". 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) 25953 From: abhidhammika Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 8:51am Subject: The Verse On The Buddha's Last Lunch: Anaadara? To Nina and Sarah Dear Nina, Sarah and all How are you? Nina asked: "You use the expression disrespect, a verb showing disrespect, and this I do not understand yet. Could you please give a further explanation?" Anaadara (a verb showing disrespect or no concern) is one of unique or peculiar technical terms of the traditional Pali grammar texts. It is best that we should focuss on what this peculiar term refers to syntactically and how we can use or interpret its syntactical form. The syntactical form of "anaadara / disrespect" is, as we have seen, cha.t.thii vibhatti / the genitive case. When the genitive case takes on the sense of "grammartical disrespect", so to speak, then we don't translate the genetive form in terms of usual possessiveness (noun's / of noun). Rather, we would translate the genetive form with the sense of "grammartical disrespect" in terms of "while/when/despite/even though/regardless of" subordinate clauses or phrases. Examples 1. Suram pivanassa pahaatabbassa, so pivati tam. While drinking of alcohol should be avoided, he drinks it anyway. 2. Tassa passantassevaati anaadare saamivacanam, tasmim passanteyevaati attho. Page 1.124 Saaratthadiipanii Tiikaa (Vinaya Subcommentary) "The expression "Tassa passantasseva" is the possessive case in the sense of grammartical disrespect, and means "Verily while he is watching". With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: Dear Suan, Most interesting. I am delighted you gave us the Saddaniti. You use the expression disrespect, a verb showing disrespect, and this I do not understand yet. Could you please give a further explanation? With many thanks, Nina. 25954 From: Derek Cameron Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 8:52am Subject: [dsg] Re:the Buddha's Last Meal. the Pali, also to Rob Edison Hi, > It's been a great issue to raise as its > highlighted the question of the extent to which we take note of the > commentaries. As you say, everyone can decide for themselves. It looks to me like what we're seeing here is evidence of a two- thousand-year old controversy. My hypothesis is that the Buddhist orthodoxy of the time held that giving food to monks was a virtuous act. Now, someone who wanted to argue with this would counter, "If giving food to monks is a virtuous act, then how come Cunda's alms-giving caused the death of the Buddha?" The only way to maintain the orthodoxy would be to claim that Cunda's alms-giving *didn't* cause the death of the Buddha. Hence the commentators and the author of the Milindapanha taking pains to argue this point, and so maintain the consistency of the Buddhist worldview. Derek. 25955 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 9:03am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Larry, > At birth. Some might say before then. I am not sure if you understood my question, maybe you do, just that I don't understand your response...? My question was in response to your statement, "Put 5 khandhas together and you get a person." And I see khandhas as arising and falling on a momentary basis, at time of birth, before, and after. And no two moments are ever the same, in terms of conditioning factors and in terms of itself being a condition for other dhammas. Are you saying that the rise and fall of khandhas is equivalent to a person rising and falling? Metta, Sukin 25956 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 10:07am Subject: Dhamma Issue 13, no 2. Devas reborn with an ahetuka kusala vip åkacitta. Devas reborn with an ahetuka kusala vipåkacitta. (coninued). Summarizing, the six classes of devas of the sensuous plane, they are, except for the ³earth-bound devas², born with rebirth-consciousness accompanied by two roots or three roots, not with an ahetuka citta. As to the earth-bound devas (the lowest class of the four Great Kings), such as the yakkhinís and the spirits with a glorious mansion (vemånika petas), they are born with a rebirth-consciousness that is without roots, with two roots or with three roots, just as in the case of human beings. Thus, the kusala vipåka santírana-citta accompanied by upekkhå can perform the function of rebirth only in the case of human beings and in the case of earth-bound devas. We read in the ³Visuddhimagga² (XIV, 111) : ³When through the influence of the eight kinds of sense-sphere profitable [consciousness] [6], beings come to be reborn among deities and human beings, then the eight kinds of sense-sphere resultant with root-cause occur, and also the resultant mind-consciousness element without root-cause associated with equanimity, which is the result of weak kusala [kamma]with two root-causes, in those who are entering upon the state of eunuchs, etc. , among human beings- thus nine kinds of resultant consciousness in all occur as rebirth-linking; and they do so making their object whichever among the kamma, sign of kamma, or sign of destiny, has appeared at the time of dying [7].² This text explains about rebirth with santírana-citta which is kusala vipåka and accompanied by indifferent feeling only in the case of humans who are deformed or handicapped from birth. It does not indicate with regard to the deva planes whether or not the rebirth with this type of citta is the condition for being deformed or handicapped from birth. 4. In the ³Abhidhammattha Sangaha², a ³Manual of Abhidhamma², Ch 5, in the section on four classes of rebirth, there is the following explanation: ³However, wholesome resultant investigating consciousness accompanied by equanimity occurs as relinking, existence-continuum [bhavanga-citta] and decease [consciousness] of deformed human beings, such as those born blind, etc., and of the earth-bound, fallen demons [8]. Thus, this text explains that the wholesome resultant investigating consciousness accompanied by equanimity can perform the function of rebirth in the case of human beings and of devas of the lowest class which includes the ³earth-bound devas². In the case of human beings it conditions them to be handicapped, foolish, mad, blind and deaf from birth and so on. But with regard to the devas of the lowest class, it is not said whether they are handicapped from birth or whether they are not. It can be concluded that the available sources, the commentaries and other texts, explain only with regard to the human plane that rebirth with the wholesome resultant investigating consciousness accompanied by equanimity is the condition for being handicapped from birth, that is: foolish, mad, blind, deaf or deformed, such as being a hermaphrodite or eunuch. This has not been explained with regard to the deva planes. It has not been said that devas are foolish, mad, blind, deaf and so on. Some teachers conclude that devas born with the wholesome resultant investigating consciousness accompanied by equanimity are not handicapped from birth. ***** Footnotes: 6. There are eight mahå-kusala cittas, kusala cittas of the sense-sphere: four are accompanied by wisdom, four are without wisdom; four are associated with happy feeling and four with neutral feeling; four are not prompted (asankhårika) and four are prompted. (sasankhårika). The rebirth-consciousness which is santírana-citta that is ahetuka kusala vipåka is the result of weak kusala kamma motivated by mahå-kusala citta without wisdom. 7. The last javana-cittas just before the dying-consciousness experience an object through one of the six doors. This object may be a deed one has performed, a symbol of it, or it can be a symbol or sign of one¹s next rebirth. 8. I used the ³Summary of the Topics of Abhidhamma² and its Commentary, translated by Wijeratne and Gethin. The Commentary to this passage states: ²Those born blind, etc. : Œetc¹ here includes those born deaf, born dumb, born idiot, born mad, eunuchs, hermaphrodites and the non-sexed, etc. Others, however, say that there are some whose relinking is without motivations [roots, hetus] who have all their faculties but are by nature slow in understanding, and that the word Œetc.¹ also includes these. The earth-bound (bhummassita) are those who are tied to (sita), dependent on (nisita), a god belonging to the earth, since that is their destiny (gati); having fallen from happy multitude, they are the fallen.² ****** (translated from Thai) Nina. 25957 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 10:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Dear Jon and Larry, following with interest your dialogue. I would like to add something. op 08-10-2003 22:58 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jonoabb@y...: > ...path and fruition cittas, > Path citta (magga citta) is the outcome of the development of insight > (vipassana bhavana) to a very high degree. It is a supramundane > kusala citta. > Fruition citta (phala citta) follows immediately after path citta and > is the result of that immediately preceding magga citta. As a vipaka > citta, it is not said to have the quality of tranquillity (vipaka > cittas are accompanied by the 7 'universal' cetasikas only). N: It depends on the kind of vipaka. Seeing is ahetuka vipaka and only the universals accompany it. There are also sahetuka vipakacittas, sobhana vipakacittas. In the case of sense-sphere cittas, they can be rebirth-consciousness, bhavangacitta, cuti-citta and tadarammanacitta, retention. They are accompanied by at least nineteen cetasikas, including the pasaddhi cetasikas, tranquillity cetasikas. All rupajhanacittas, arupajhanacittas and lokuttara cittas are sobhanacittas, including the vipakacittas. They are accompanied by three sobhana hetus, and other sobhana cetasikas. Fruition consciousness is sobhana vipakacitta, accompanied by lokuttara panna. Nibbana is the object and thus, it has a high degree of tranquillity: defilements have been eradicated by the previous maggacitta according to the stage of enlightenment that has been attained. Nina. 25958 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 10:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism. XIV, 21 Dear Larry, Thank you for this extract. op 09-10-2003 01:19 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Below is the definition of "patisambhida" in the PTS Dict. I was > wondering what "resolving" means in "resolving continuous breaking up". > How do you get "resolving" from "pati"? N: The prefix pa.ti has different meanings, depending on the context: against, opposite, towards. The translations analytical insight or discriminative knowledge will do, so long as we understand what it means, at least intellectually. I do not like dhamma translated as law, better to keep the word dhamma. Attha: benefit, purpose, meaning, this depends on the context. Just looking at the Tiika: bhindati: divide, bheda: division. I compare with the Dispeller of Delusion, and the Tiika is overlapping it, or in order to translate I have to look at different pages of the Dispeller here and there. But it is really difficult to understand: what is actually the real meaning of this text. Seeing your interest I wonder if you still might consider getting Warder Pali grammar (inspite of hesitations) and taking it up little by little. This Warder book gives sutta readings rather soon. You will enjoy it. It is good to read suttas in the original language. Nina. 25959 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 11:09am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: Are you saying that the rise and fall of khandhas is equivalent to a person rising and falling? KKT: Make attention, a person is too heavy to fall and to rise :-)) KKT 25960 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 1:33pm Subject: Re: Kamma and Clonning, Antibiotic and Kamma Hello Javisens, I think it is essential to have a definition of exactly what a sentient being is within Buddhism. Someone said that sentient beings are those who are capable of experiencing suffering (Dukkha), that if a being seeks to avoid a blow, it is sentient So a kangaroo seeking to get out of the spotlight of a night shooter, is seeking to avoid suffering (pain of being wounded/killed). The snails on the paths at my workplace seeking to (very slowly) avoid the shoes of the passers-by are seeking to avoid suffering (pain of being squashed). The fear they feel is also suffering. This would fit with a Tibetan teachings which says that sentient beings are all beings that have mind, and mind is found in all beings that breathe. I think this would cut out all bacteria, virus, and plants. One wonders about beings in other realms, like petas, devas etc (Do they breathe. can they feel a blow?) In "An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics" Peter Harvey (p151) 'sentience, the ability to experience and to suffer, and the related ability, in this or a future life, to transcend suffering by attaining enlightenment' and 'The flux of consciousness from a previous being is a necessary condition for the arising and development in the womb of a body (rupa) endowed with mental abilities which amount to sentience (nama): feeling, identification, volition, sensory stimulation and attention (S.II.3-4)' You may be interested in an article written on Cloning and Buddhism by RobK http://www.humancloning.150m.com/article8.html metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "javisens" wrote: > Can someone explain how clonning of an animal will explain in terms > of kamma? As I understand clonning is done from another animal and > new life is formed. In that case where is that new life has the same > kamma as its benefactor or not? > Is taking antibiotic, is killing a life? Please explain how it can > be not. > Hope my questions are clear enough to get some clear answers on > these two questions > javisens 25961 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 3:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Nina (and Larry) Thanks very much for this correction to my earlier post, and the comprehensive detail. Larry, there's your answer! Specifically: "All lokuttara cittas are sobhanacittas, including the vipakacittas. They are accompanied by three sobhana hetus, and other sobhana cetasikas. Fruition consciousness is sobhana vipakacitta, accompanied by lokuttara panna. Nibbana is the object and thus, it has a high degree of tranquillity" Jon -- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Jon and Larry, ... > N: It depends on the kind of vipaka. Seeing is ahetuka vipaka and > only the > universals accompany it. There are also sahetuka vipakacittas, > sobhana > vipakacittas. In the case of sense-sphere cittas, they can be > rebirth-consciousness, bhavangacitta, cuti-citta and > tadarammanacitta, > retention. They are accompanied by at least nineteen cetasikas, > including the pasaddhi cetasikas, tranquillity cetasikas. All > rupajhanacittas, > arupajhanacittas and lokuttara cittas are sobhanacittas, including > the vipakacittas. They are accompanied by three sobhana hetus, and > other sobhana > cetasikas. Fruition consciousness is sobhana vipakacitta, > accompanied by > lokuttara panna. Nibbana is the object and thus, it has a high > degree of > tranquillity: defilements have been eradicated by the previous > maggacitta > according to the stage of enlightenment that has been attained. > Nina. 25962 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 3:47pm Subject: [dsg] Re:the Buddha's Last Meal. the Pali, also to Rob Edison --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi James, > James: Why would you two laugh? > .... > S: Put it down to worldling defilements ....intended in friendliness > nonetheless;-),(but, maybe that's an oxymoron;-(). Hi Sarah, Well, this is a rather evasive answer. I believe that you said that you two laughed because you wanted to cast derision on the nature of that post. It was a little too factual and plausible for your comfort level. You had nothing to say in response so you said that you two laughed. Metta, James 25963 From: Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 4:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Jon: "As I said before, I think this is important to recognise. First, it shows that samatha does not depend on 'being concentrated', and secondly it means there is a basis in one's daily life as it already is for samatha to be further developed. Any problem with this?" Hi Jon, No problem at all. Onward--> Larry 25964 From: Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 5:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Sukin: "Are you saying that the rise and fall of khandhas is equivalent to a person rising and falling?" Hi Sukin, I would say there is rise and fall of a person and also continuity of a person. I was thinking of the dependent arising formula. At the stage of birth enough khandhas have come together in a particular way to form a person. A person grows old, gets sick, and dies. Then another person continuity arises with the whole baggage of the previous person continuity. The same goes for groups of people but there isn't necessarily a continuity between the dissolution of one group and the arising of another. But this kamma stuff is just conceptual. No one sees it arising from seed to fruition, one life to another. Right? It's all about what you can see arising and falling. You can see a feeling arising, a person arising, a building arising, an argument arising, and a government arising. Larry 25965 From: Sarah Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 5:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:the Buddha's Last Meal. the Pali, also to Rob Edison Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > I believe that you said that > you two laughed because you wanted to cast derision on the nature of > that post. .... I certainly didn't say that and it isn't true. I wouldn't have mentioned it if it hadn't been a 'friendly intended' comment. I don't recall either of us ever casting 'derision' on a post ever, on list or in private (and I don't think this is a case of Selection Attention Disorder either;-)). ..... >It was a little too factual and plausible for your > comfort level. You had nothing to say in response so you said that > you two laughed. .... OK, no more laughs, James;-( Metta, Sarah ====== 25966 From: Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 5:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Hi Nina and Jon, Thanks for your answers concerning what kind of cittas have a tranquility cetasika accompanying it. What I really wanted to know is what exactly is tranquility. Is it a kind of mental feeling? If so, I'm surprised it would be included with higher jhana cittas and path and fruition cittas. I would think these cittas would be free of feeling. Also, any ideas on what is the difference between nirodha samapatti and bhavanga cittas? Do bhavanga cittas arise during nirodha samapatti? Larry 25967 From: Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 7:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: particular. specific characteristics...... Hi Rob, I had a thought on the question of the value of objects. This is really an indirect way of determining what is right and wrong insofar as we are determining whether an object is the result of a wholesome or unwholesome root, without actually seeing the root. As such, we could say it is the abhidhamma basis of democratic law. The ultimate authority in determining what is inherently desirable doesn't reside with the king, the general, or the religeous leader. It is the sole right and responsibility of the merchant class, the average man. On another note: regarding what is a specific characteristic, you might ask, is a wife a characteristic? Answer: yes. See Sukin for details. Larry 25968 From: robmoult Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 7:57pm Subject: [dsg] Re: particular. specific characteristics...... Hi Howard (and Sarah), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > In a message dated 10/9/03 7:37:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > rob.moult@j... writes: > > I am still very uncomfortable with > > the "inherent pleasantness / unpleasantness" aspects of rupa. Can > > you try and explain to me how rupa can have these "inherent" > > characteristics? > Rob, I also didn't get this idea of feeling being inherent in rupas > until I had a certain conversation with Ken Howard. I realized at that time that > I had been thinking in substantialist/eternalist terms when it seemed to me > that sometimes a particular rupa is felt as pleasant and at other times "it" is > felt as unpleasant. My error was to think of this as *the same* rupa! It is > *not* the same rupa. The previous pleasant rupa (say a hardness- rupa) was > pleasant. It is now gone, but a current unpleasant rupa (another hardness-rupa), > has now arisen. My error lay in identifying different hardnesses as the same, > almost countenancing a kind of Platonic 'hardness'. Current conditions, > especially intention, lead to the arising of rupas that are pleasant; other > conditions lead to rupas that are unpleasant or neutral. A pleasant rupa is one which > is discerned as pleasant, an unpleasant rupa is one which is discerned as > unpleasant, and a neutral rupa is one which is discerned as affectively neutral. > Often, our particular mental state determines what sort of rupa arises. It is > not that "the same" rupa arises, now felt as pleasant, now as unpleasant, and > now as neutral - they are different rupas. A crunchy texture in the mouth that > is pleasant is not the same rupa as a crunchy texture in the mouth that is > unpleasant. The first pleasant rupa could be conditioned by the belief that it > is a nut in one's mouth, and the second unpleasant rupa could be conditioned by > the belief that it is an insect in one's mouth! What distinguishes the two > rupas? Answer: Time of occurrence and affective flavor. Different rupas arising > from different conditions. The understanding must be phenomenalist rather than > "objectivist". I'm not sure that I buy this argument. Through object pre-nascence condition (purejata-paccaya), rupa (object for cittas and cetasikas in the citta-process) forms the condition for the cittas and cetasikas arising later. In other words, each rupa in intrinsically "pleasant" or "unpleasant" before it is taken as object of a citta. If we think of the sense-door citta process, the rupa exists for at least three citta durations (past bhavanaga, vibrating bhavanga, arresting bhavanga - all taking past life object) before the adverting citta takes the new rupa as object. It does not make sense to me that the same type of rupa (a millionth of a second later) arising in a subsequent citta-process could have a different intrinsic property. In a footnote in CMA, Bhikkhu Bodhi references a section of Sammohavinodani (The Dispeller of Delusion) under Chapter I, "Classification of the Aggregates". I have reproduced paragraphs 39-45 and part of paragraph 46 below: ===== 39. But a disputatious speaker (vitandavadin) said: `there is no intrinsic (patiyekka) agreeable and disagreeable. It is stated according to the likings of these or those, according as it is said: "I will state the limits of the pleasing, Majesty, in respect of the five cords of sense-desire. These same visible data (rupa), Majesty, are pleasing to one and they are unpleasing to another; … these same sounds … odours … flavours … tangible data, Majesty, are pleasing to one and they are unpleasing to another." (S i 80) Thus, because the one enjoys and delights in these visible data and arouses greed for them, while the other is annoyed and vexed by them and arouses hate for them; and for the one they are agreeable, desired and pleasing, and for the other they are disagreeable, undesired and unpleasing; and the one takes them right-handedly and agreeable, desired and pleasing, and the other left-handedly as disagreeable, undesired and unpleasing - therefore there is no distinguishing an object as intrinsically agreeable or disagreeable. For the border dwellers, worms are agreeable and desired and pleasing, while to the dwellers in the middle country they are extremely disgusting. To the former peacock's flesh, etc. is agreeable, while to the latter such things are extremely disgusting.' 40. He should be asked: `But how? Do you say that there is no distinguishing an object as intrinsically agreeable or disagreeable?' `Yes: I say that there is not.' Again after confirming it likewise up to the third time, the question should be asked: `Is Nibbana agreeable or disagreeable?' If he knows he will say: `Agreeable' Even if he should not say so, let him not say [so]. [He should be told:] `But Nibbana is entirely agreeable. It is not [the case] that one who becomes angry when the praises of Nibbana are being spoken asks: "You speak the praises of Nibbana. Are there the five cords of sense-desire there, which are satisfied with food and drink, garlands, perfumes, unguents, couches and clothing?"? And when it is replied: "There are not", [saying:] "Enough of your Nibbana!" he becomes angry when the praises of Nibbana are spoken and stops both his ears. This is agreeable; yet in your assertion according to him Nibbana may be disagreeable. But it is not to be taken thus; for that man speaks out of perverted perception. And it is through perversion (vipallasa) of perception that the same object is agreeable for one and disagreeable to another. But there is the distinguishing of an object as intrinsically agreeable or disagreeable.' 41. But according to whom is it distinguishable? By way of the average being (majjhimaka-satta). For this is not distinguishable according to the likes and dislikes of great emperors such as Mahasammata, Mahasudassana, Dhammasoka and so on. For to them, even a divine object appears unpleasing. Nor is it distinguishable according to [the likes and dislikes of] the extreme unfortunates who find it hard to get food and drink. For to them lumps of broken rice-porridge and the taste of rotten meat seem as exceedingly sweet as ambrosia. But it is distinguishable according to what is found agreeable at one time and disagreeable at another time by average [men such as] accountants, government officials, burgesses, land owners and merchants. For such are able to distinguish between the agreeable and disagreeable [i.e. it is distinguishable according to the average man's impulsion]. 42 But the Elder Tipitaka Cula-Abhaya said: `The agreeable and disagreeable are distinguishable according to [kamma-] result (vipaka) only, not according to impulsion (javana). But it is impulsion through perversion of perception (sannavipallasa) only that lusts for the agreeable and hates the same agreeable, that lusts for the same disagreeable and hates the same disagreeable. Only by way of [kamma-] result, however, is it rightly distinguishable. For [kamma] resultant consciousness cannot be mistaken. If the object is agreeable it is profitable result that has arisen; if disagreeable, it is unprofitable result that has arisen.' 43. Although those of wrong view, on seeing such exalted objects as the Enlightened One or the Order, or a great shrine and so on, shut their eyes and feel grief (domanassa), and on hearing the sounds of the Law they stop their ears, nevertheless their eye consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc. are only profitable [kamma-] result. 44. Although dung [-eating] pigs and so on, on smelling the odour of dung, become joyful (somanassajata), [thinking]: `We shall get something to eat,' nevertheless their eye-consciousness in the seeing of the dung, nose-consciousness in the smelling its odour [and] tongue-consciousness in tasting its flavour is only unprofitable result. And when a pig is tied up and made to lie on a fine couch, although he cries out, still the mental pain arises only in his impulsions through perversion of perception and his body consciousness is solely profitable consciousness. Why? Because of the agreeableness of the object. 45. Furthermore, agreeableness and disagreeableness should also be understood by way of doors (dvara). For dung-mud which is pleasant to touch is disagreeable in the eye-door and nose-door, and is agreeable in the body-door. For one who is struck by the Wheel- Turning Monarch's (cakkavatti) Gem Treasure (maniratana) and impaled on a golden spike, the golden spikes of the Gem Treasure are agreeable in the eye-door and disagreeable in the body-door. Why? Because of the arousing of great pain. Thus it should be understood that the agreeable and disagreeable are rightly distinguishable only by way of [kamma-] result. 46. Tam tam va pana ("But this or that"): here the above method should be disregarded. For the Blessed One is not dealing with conventional pleasing (sammutimanapa), but He is dealing with the pleasing of the person (puggalamanapa). Therefore inferiority and superiority should be understood by comparison of this and that. For the materiality of the dwellers in hell is called inferior at the lower extremity. Compared with that, among animals that of nagas and suppanas is called superior. Their materiality is inferior. Compared with that, petas materiality is called superior… ===== When I contemplated on that last paragraph, things started to come into focus for me. I remember a recent quote that I read regarding kamma, "Modern society measures quality of actions predominantly by the impact they have on our surroundings. With kamma, we focus on the effect of actions on ourselves (agents of actions)." With this new paradigm, together with the introduction of sannavipallasa (perversion of perception), I am starting to feel more comfortable with the idea of intrinsic qualities. I still need to sort out some implications of this new information, but I think that I am on the right path. Comments? Metta, Rob M :-) 25969 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 7:58pm Subject: [dsg] Re:the Buddha's Last Meal. the Pali, also to Rob Edison Hi Sarah and James, ---------- >> S: I appreciate this and again apologise for any possible offence regarding my careless words or humour. It's been a great issue to raise as its highlighted the question of the extent to which we take note of the commentaries. As you say, everyone can decide for themselves. ----------- Needless to say, Sarah, I'm sure none of us thought for one moment that your comments were in any way disrespectful of the Buddha. In contrast, certain statements made by Zen Buddhists seem highly questionable. Sometimes they say, "If you meet the Buddha you must kill him." (I suppose that means you must see that there is only impersonal nama and rupa.). On another Yahoo-list, there is currently a thread named "The Buddha is a [.........]." (a word too objectionable to be repeated here.) This is reputedly another Zen saying and the rationale behind it is that satipatthana can happen at any moment -- even when we are performing the most unglamorous of daily tasks. Zen Buddhists seem to refer to satipatthana as 'the Buddha,' and so they say the Buddha 'is' that unglamorous daily task. (What a shame.) But that is all by the way. I really wanted to comment on this statement of yours, James: "I don't want his sacrifice trivialized or presented incorrectly." That sums up my feelings too and it explains my esteem for DSG; This is the one place I have found where the Buddha and his Dhamma are discussed at a non-trivial level. After joining DSG and having the true nature of satipatthana explained, I rejected my former, trivial, understanding of that practice. Now, I tend to be shocked and affronted (not a good tendency), by popular versions of satipatthana: "When you are walking, know that you are walking; when you are washing the dishes, know that you are washing the dishes." That is NOT what the Buddha taught. Even so, the people who follow popular practices are no less admirable for that. Some 'vipassana meditators,' are like elite artists and athletes -- worthy of respect and admiration -- who attain amazing degrees of concentration. But they unknowingly trivialise the Dhamma; they present it as just another discipline to be mastered. It's as if they are claiming to be black-belt Buddhists. ( And there ain't no such animile.) The Abhidhamma eliminates trivial interpretations that might otherwise be consistent with the Suttanta and Vinaya. If some of us still miss the point, then the Commentaries will put us straight. If we still get it wrong, then people like K Sujin and her students can show us the errors of our inconsistent, incorrect, trivialising, interpretations. Kind regards, Ken H 25970 From: jhcsks Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 8:50pm Subject: G'day! Hi all you wonderful people of the dsg, Have recently joined this fascinating group and would like to say hi. I can pretty much guarantee that I wont be participating all that often, as most of what you're discussing is well and truly over my head. It's been really valuable trying to absorb some of what's been discussed. Didn't just want to be a lurker out in cyber space without introducing myself. Hope you don't mind me "lurking". Kind Regards, Julie 25971 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 11:22pm Subject: [dsg] Re:the Buddha's Last Meal. the Pali, also to Rob Edison --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi James, .... > OK, no more laughs, James;-( > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== Sarah, You still haven't answered my original question. Could you please be serious for a moment and give your reaction/analysis of the post in question without all of the wisecracks and laughter? (I wouldn't ask, but you brought it up in the first place). Thank you. Metta, James 25972 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Oct 9, 2003 11:50pm Subject: Re:the Buddha's Last Meal. the Pali, also to Rob Edison Hi Ken H. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: After joining DSG and having the true nature of > satipatthana explained, I rejected my former, trivial, > understanding of that practice. Now, I tend to be > shocked and affronted (not a good tendency), by popular > versions of satipatthana: "When you are walking, know > that you are walking; when you are washing the dishes, > know that you are washing the dishes." That is NOT > what the Buddha taught. Hi Ken H., I am not sure how you are interpreting these directions, but they are what the Buddha taught. Actually, he taught that doing this is the MOST IMPORTANT thing a person should do. This is just a general description for mindfulness of the body: when lying, know that you are lying; when sitting, know that you are sitting; when standing, know that you are standing; when washing the dishes, know that you are washing the dishes, etc. I believe you have it backwards; the mental categorization of nama/rupa suggested by the Abhidhamma and the teachings of K. Sujin (that meditation is unwholesome among others) are not what the Buddha taught. In support, allow me to quote from the Anguttara Nikaya, 11. Mindfulness Directed Toward the Body: "One thing, O monks, if developed and cultivated leads to a strong sense of urgency, to great benefit; to great security from bondage; to mindfulness and clear comprehension; to the attainment of vision and knowledge; to a pleasant dwelling in this very life; to the realization of the fruit of knowledge and liberation. What is that one thing? It is mindfulness directed to the body. If one thing, O monks, is developed and cultivated, the body is calmed, the mind is calmed, discursive thoughts are quietened, and all wholesome states that partake of supreme knowledge reach fullness of development. What is that one thing? It is mindfulness directed to the body. If one thing, O monks, is developed and cultivated, ignorance is abandoned, supreme knowledge arises, delusion of self is given up, the underlying tendencies are eliminated and the fetters are discarded. What is that one thing? It is mindfulness directed to the body." Metta, James 25973 From: robmoult Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:25am Subject: Re: G'day! Hi Julie, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jhcsks" wrote: > Have recently joined this fascinating group and would like to say > hi. I can pretty much guarantee that I wont be participating all > that often, as most of what you're discussing is well and truly over > my head. It's been really valuable trying to absorb some of what's > been discussed. Didn't just want to be a lurker out in cyber space > without introducing myself. Hope you don't mind me "lurking". Welcome! I take it from your introduction that you are an Aussie. There are quite a number of active Aussies on the list (Christine, KenH, Jon, etc.). If you are interested in Abhidhamma, you might want to download the scripted PowerPoint presentation from the files section, "Introduction to the Abhidhamma". If you are interested in a more general introduction to Buddhism, you might want to download Nina's "Buddhism in Daily Life" as an e-book from: http://www.zolag.co.uk/ I have found that it is introductory questions from ex-lurkers (you now no longer qualify as a lurker!) that raise some of the most interesting exchanges. There are probably some other lurkers out there who are wondering the same things you are. Please post a question or two! Metta, Rob M :-) 25974 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:55am Subject: Re: G'day! Hello Julie, and all, May I add my welcome to RobM's. He didn't tell you the awful truth - there are more from Oz than just KenH (Noosa), Jon (ex-pat in Hong Kong) and myself (South of Brisbane). Additionally, there are Andrew (Sunshine Coast Hinterland), Bodhi 2500 (Steve, also Sunshine Coast Hinterland), Azita (Cairns), and Abhidhammika (Suan, from Canberra). And other lurkers, known - SarahF, and Kieran - and unknown. Where are you from Julie? Is there anything you care to share about yourself and how you came to be interested in the Dhamma? It's worth looking over the Useful Posts (fourth from the top in Files): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/ and you can have a look at many of us (and maybe add your own photo) in the albums at: http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/lst Speaking of adding photos - any other 'shrinking violets' on the List are also urged, roused, encouraged, [and indeed even nagged and berated] to consider adding their own special decoration to the albums. It is so much nicer to know what those you discuss dhamma with look like. :-) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jhcsks" wrote: > Hi all you wonderful people of the dsg, > > Have recently joined this fascinating group and would like to say > hi. I can pretty much guarantee that I wont be participating all > that often, as most of what you're discussing is well and truly over > my head. It's been really valuable trying to absorb some of what's > been discussed. Didn't just want to be a lurker out in cyber space > without introducing myself. Hope you don't mind me "lurking". > > Kind Regards, > Julie 25975 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 4:25am Subject: letter about Egypt Dear James, It's me again, Janice! I hope you are keeping well? Well, I have read many of your diaries about Egypt as well as reply to many letters. Well, I have a bountiful amount of questions. However, I shall only ask a few now!!! Does the Buddha believe in committing adultery? (This is like, is there a consequence after you have committed adultery) Is Buddhism only in a specific area in Egypt or the whole of Egypt? Are there Egyptian Buddha prayer books? Metta, Janice 25976 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 4:27am Subject: Buddhism in Egypt Hi James, It's Hilary. I've read your letters and saw that you've moved to Egypt. Is the living life style there quite different? What religion do most people there believe in? Are the Buddhist temples there built differently? How does it feels as a BUddhist living in Egypt? Well, hope you have a good time living in Egypt Metta, Hilary 25977 From: robmoult Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 5:07am Subject: [dsg] Re: particular. specific characteristics...... Hi Larry (Howard, KenH, Sarah, etc.), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > I had a thought on the question of the value of objects. This is really > an indirect way of determining what is right and wrong insofar as we are > determining whether an object is the result of a wholesome or > unwholesome root, without actually seeing the root. As such, we could > say it is the abhidhamma basis of democratic law. The ultimate authority > in determining what is inherently desirable doesn't reside with the > king, the general, or the religeous leader. It is the sole right and > responsibility of the merchant class, the average man. > > On another note: regarding what is a specific characteristic, you might > ask, is a wife a characteristic? Answer: yes. See Sukin for details. Some time ago, I was wrestling with the idea of "free will". Once I "saw the light", I was "born again" and I asked, "How could one possibly believe in free will?" I can now appreciate the common closing phrase to many Suttas, "turning upright what had been overthrown". The same thing has now happened to me on the subject of intrinsic properties of rupa. I ask you, "How can you possibly deny that rupa has intrinsic properties?" :-) Let us consider the citta-moments of a sense-door citta process: Citta-moment 1 ============== - Rupa arises (it will continue to exist for 16 more cittas) - Past Bhavanga citta arises (citta 39-46, past life object) Citta-moment 2 and Citta-moment 3 ================================= - Rupa continues - Vibrating Bhavanga and Arresting Bhavanga (citta 39-46, past life object) Citta-moment 4 ============== - Rupa continues - Five Sense Door Adverting consciousness (citta 28): the functional adverting citta is called a controlling citta because it controls the flow of the mental process; either kusala vipaka or akusala vipaka, it is the intrinsic nature of the rupa that conditions the direction of flow Citta-moment 5, Citta-moment 6 and Citta-moment 7 ================================================= - Rupa continues - If the rupa is intrinsically unpleasant, then the series is as follows: sense consciousness (citta 13-17) followed by receiving (citta 18) followed by investigating (citta 19) - If the rupa is intrinsically pleasant, then the series is as follows: sense consciousness (citta 20-24) followed by receiving (citta 25) followed by investigating (citta 26 or citta 27; citta 26 if the object is "gross", citta 27 if the object is "subtle") And so what is the difference between citta 13 (akusala vipaka eye consciousness) and citta 20 (kusala vipaka eye consciousness)? The associated cetasikas are identical, but this is not the point. Citta 13 is conditioned to arise when the object is intrinsically unpleasant whereas citta 20 is conditioned to arise when the object is intrinsically pleasant. Citta-moment 8 ============== - Rupa continues - Determining (citta 28): the functional adverting citta is called a controlling citta because it controls the flow of the mental process; either kusala javana or akusala javana, it is the accumulations (ayuhana) that conditions the direction of flow Citta-moment 9 to Citta-moment 15 ================================= - Rupa continues - If accumulations conditioned the arising of akusala javana cittas then one of the citta 1-12 arises and akusala kamma is created - If accumulations conditioned the arising of kusala javana cittas then one of the citta 31-38 arises and kusala kamma is created - In the case of an Arahant, then one of the citta 47-54 arises and no kamma is created Citta-moment 16 and Citta-moment 17 =================================== - Rupa continues until it falls away at the end of citta-moment 17 - If the rupa is intrinsically unpleasant, then the two registration cittas are citta 19 - If the rupa is intrinsically pleasant and the object is "subtle" (to use a phrase taken from Vibhanga), then the two registration cittas are citta 27 - If the rupa is intrinsically pleasant and the object is "gross" (to use a phrase taken from Vibhanga), then the two registration cittas are one of citta 39-46 From this analysis, does it not imply that the rupa must have an intrinsic pleasant / unpleasant quality (linked to the kamma-result, as pointed out by Buddhaghosa in the Sammohavinodani) to condition the controlling aspect of the sense-door adverting citta and the type of registration citta which arises? Of course, due to perversion of perception (sannavipallasa) we usually do not see the intrinsic nature of the rupa object. Comments? Metta, Rob M :-) 25978 From: robmoult Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 6:32am Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 24-26 for comment What is Citta? Slide Contents ============== - Citta is pure awareness - Process of being aware of an object: Citta is an activity - That which is aware of an object: Citta is an agent - The means by which the accompanying mental factors are aware of an object: Citta is an instrument Speaker Notes ============= Let's take a look at the first ultimate reality, citta or consciousness. We can define citta as an activity, the process of being aware of an object. The problem with this definition is the question, "If there is no self, what is it that is aware?" The answer is that it is the citta itself that is aware of an object. Citta is also like a container; it carries the various mental factors and allows them to access the object. 25979 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 7:01am Subject: Re:the Buddha's Last Meal. the Pali, also to Rob Edison Hi James, ------------- J: > I am not sure how you are interpreting these directions, -------------- Are you really unsure after all this time? Not that I mind going over the same ground yet again. In fact, there is nothing I would rather do. One way of looking at it is to imagine the greatest philosophers and religious leaders in India walking half way across the continent to hear the Buddha. What are they going to think if he tells them to be mindful of what they conventionally know as walking, sitting and lying down? But he didn't tell them anything so utterly banal and pointless. What he did tell them was totally new and profound -- it had nothing to do with conventional understandings of walking and sitting. As we know those things, they are mere concepts relying on the illusory existence of past and future. They fail the simplest tests of ultimate validity. There is nothing new or profound about them. When the Buddha said that an ariyan disciple who is walking knows he is walking, he described the greatest knowledge in the universe -- the knowledge of absolute reality. What is ultimately present when, conventionally speaking, we are walking? There are dhammas experiencing dhammas -- nothing more. Being conditioned, those dhammas are anicca, dukkha and anatta. Direct knowledge of them as such conditions the realisation of Nibbana, the end of suffering. ------------- J: > but they are what the Buddha taught. Actually, he taught that doing this is the MOST IMPORTANT thing a person should do. ------------- Here again, there is nothing worth travelling across India to hear. But what the Buddha actually taught was entirely different from conventional understanding. When, conventionally speaking, there is a being who 'should do' something, there is, in the Buddha's teaching, mere impersonal dhammas with no interest in whether they arise or don't arise. --------------- J: > This is just a general description for mindfulness of the body: -------------- Mindfulness of the body in the conventional sense, is the domain of animals and uninstructed worldlings. It is not what the Buddha taught. When there is direct right understanding of rupa there is mindfulness of the body as taught by the Buddha. -------------- J: > I believe you have it backwards; the mental categorization of nama/rupa suggested by the Abhidhamma and the teachings of K. Sujin (that meditation is unwholesome among others) are not what the Buddha taught. -------------- It's your prerogative to reject the Abhidhamma. The Theravada school upholds it. As for saying that K Sujin teaches 'meditation is unwholesome,' that's laughable. Her books contain the Buddha's explanations of jhana. She teaches that wrong understanding of meditation is unwholesome. --------------- J: > In support, allow me to quote from the Anguttara Nikaya, 11. Mindfulness Directed Toward the Body: --------------- As usual, I need that sutta explained. Is it about jhana or vipassana or both combined? To answer that, I need a broad knowledge of the Tipitaka, not just a small extract. Kind regards, Ken H 25980 From: Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: particular. specific characteristics...... Hi, Rob (and Sarah) - In a message dated 10/9/03 11:00:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > > Hi Howard (and Sarah), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >In a message dated 10/9/03 7:37:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > >rob.moult@j... writes: > >>I am still very uncomfortable with > >>the "inherent pleasantness / unpleasantness" aspects of rupa. > Can > >>you try and explain to me how rupa can have these "inherent" > >>characteristics? > > Rob, I also didn't get this idea of feeling being inherent > in rupas > >until I had a certain conversation with Ken Howard. I realized at > that time that > >I had been thinking in substantialist/eternalist terms when it > seemed to me > >that sometimes a particular rupa is felt as pleasant and at other > times "it" is > >felt as unpleasant. My error was to think of this as *the same* > rupa! It is > >*not* the same rupa. The previous pleasant rupa (say a hardness- > rupa) was > >pleasant. It is now gone, but a current unpleasant rupa (another > hardness-rupa), > >has now arisen. My error lay in identifying different hardnesses > as the same, > >almost countenancing a kind of Platonic 'hardness'. Current > conditions, > >especially intention, lead to the arising of rupas that are > pleasant; other > >conditions lead to rupas that are unpleasant or neutral. A > pleasant rupa is one which > >is discerned as pleasant, an unpleasant rupa is one which is > discerned as > >unpleasant, and a neutral rupa is one which is discerned as > affectively neutral. > >Often, our particular mental state determines what sort of rupa > arises. It is > >not that "the same" rupa arises, now felt as pleasant, now as > unpleasant, and > >now as neutral - they are different rupas. A crunchy texture in > the mouth that > >is pleasant is not the same rupa as a crunchy texture in the mouth > that is > >unpleasant. The first pleasant rupa could be conditioned by the > belief that it > >is a nut in one's mouth, and the second unpleasant rupa could be > conditioned by > >the belief that it is an insect in one's mouth! What distinguishes > the two > >rupas? Answer: Time of occurrence and affective flavor. Different > rupas arising > >from different conditions. The understanding must be phenomenalist > rather than > >"objectivist". > > I'm not sure that I buy this argument. Through object pre-nascence > condition (purejata-paccaya), rupa (object for cittas and cetasikas > in the citta-process) forms the condition for the cittas and > cetasikas arising later. In other words, each rupa in > intrinsically "pleasant" or "unpleasant" before it is taken as > object of a citta. If we think of the sense-door citta process, the > rupa exists for at least three citta durations (past bhavanaga, > vibrating bhavanga, arresting bhavanga - all taking past life > object) before the adverting citta takes the new rupa as object. It > does not make sense to me that the same type of rupa (a millionth of > a second later) arising in a subsequent citta-process could have a > different intrinsic property. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: As far as I'm concerned, a rupa that is pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral is, of necessity, an experienced rupa. Any other rupa is unknown, and the notion of its having an affective flavor is meaningless. It is not yet an actuality. As I see it, a group of phenomenal conditions that serve as conditions for the arising of a rupa, when not yet all in place, can be thought of as "the potential" for that rupa. Until they have all arisen, the rupa, as an experienced phenomenon does not yet exist - is not yet an actuality, but only a growing potential. When all the conditions are in place, the rupa, including its affective characteristic, arises as an actuality. Now, of course, one can take two positions that, on the face of it, are contradictory, but are possibly only two alternative ways of decribing the same set of circumstances. One of these is that the full set of conditioning phenomena have arisen, and thus the pleasant/unpleasant/neutral rupa determined arises. The other is that with the arising of the full set of conditions, two separate phenomena arise, one the rupa, and the other the feeling associated with the experiencing of that rupa. Thus, one view says the set of conditions determines the rupa, and the rupa determines the feeling. The other view says the set of conditions determines the rupa, and the set of conditions also, separately, determines the associated feeling. These are very close, and possibly equivalent. What are *not* equivalent, however, are the views that a rupa, a hardness, say, experienced, at one time (or by one being) is "the same" as a hardness experienced at another time (or by another being). These are different rupas, because rupas that are actualities, and just potentialities, are experienced phenomena, not something independent of experience. Namarupa and vi~n~nana are mutually dependent (as object and subject). I find the second interpretation of a rupa having an affective character determinbed by that rupa as the better view, because it identifies a rupa as a phenomenal reality rather than as something independent of awareness. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > In a footnote in CMA, Bhikkhu Bodhi references a section of > Sammohavinodani (The Dispeller of Delusion) under Chapter > I, "Classification of the Aggregates". I have reproduced paragraphs > 39-45 and part of paragraph 46 below: > > ===== > > 39. But a disputatious speaker (vitandavadin) said: `there is no > intrinsic (patiyekka) agreeable and disagreeable. It is stated > according to the likings of these or those, according as it is > said: "I will state the limits of the pleasing, Majesty, in respect > of the five cords of sense-desire. These same visible data (rupa), > Majesty, are pleasing to one and they are unpleasing to another; … > these same sounds … odours … flavours … tangible data, Majesty, are > pleasing to one and they are unpleasing to another." (S i 80) Thus, > because the one enjoys and delights in these visible data and > arouses greed for them, while the other is annoyed and vexed by them > and arouses hate for them; and for the one they are agreeable, > desired and pleasing, and for the other they are disagreeable, > undesired and unpleasing; and the one takes them right-handedly and > agreeable, desired and pleasing, and the other left-handedly as > disagreeable, undesired and unpleasing - therefore there is no > distinguishing an object as intrinsically agreeable or disagreeable. > For the border dwellers, worms are agreeable and desired and > pleasing, while to the dwellers in the middle country they are > extremely disgusting. To the former peacock's flesh, etc. is > agreeable, while to the latter such things are extremely disgusting.' > (Snip of complex material that doesn't interest me greatly ;-) > > 46. Tam tam va pana ("But this or that"): here the above method > should be disregarded. For the Blessed One is not dealing with > conventional pleasing (sammutimanapa), but He is dealing with the > pleasing of the person (puggalamanapa). Therefore inferiority and > superiority should be understood by comparison of this and that. For > the materiality of the dwellers in hell is called inferior at the > lower extremity. Compared with that, among animals that of nagas and > suppanas is called superior. Their materiality is inferior. Compared > with that, petas materiality is called superior… > > ===== > > When I contemplated on that last paragraph, things started to come > into focus for me. I remember a recent quote that I read regarding > kamma, "Modern society measures quality of actions predominantly by > the impact they have on our surroundings. With kamma, we focus on > the effect of actions on ourselves (agents of actions)." > > With this new paradigm, together with the introduction of > sannavipallasa (perversion of perception), I am starting to feel > more comfortable with the idea of intrinsic qualities. I still need > to sort out some implications of this new information, but I think > that I am on the right path. > > Comments? --------------------------------------------------- Howard: As I view it, a pleasant taste from the eating of peacock flesh (or of pig dung) is a different rupa than an unpleasant taste fromthe eating of peacock flesh (or of pig dung), whether this involves the same being under differnt circumstances or different beings. There is no independent, self-existent taste of peacock flesh (or pig dung). ------------------------------------------------------ > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > > =========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 25981 From: Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:59am Subject: Correction Re: [dsg] Re: particular. specific characteristics...... Hi - In a message dated 10/10/03 10:18:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > These are different > rupas, because rupas that are actualities, and just potentialities, are > experienced phenomena, not something independent of experience. ========================== In the foregoing, "and just potentialities" was meant to be "and NOT just potentialities." Sorry. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 25982 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 8:54am Subject: Re:the Buddha's Last Meal. the Pali, also to Rob Edison Hi Ken H.: Here are some responses to the highlights of your post: Ken H: Are you really unsure after all this time? Not that I mind going over the same ground yet again. In fact, there is nothing I would rather do. James: You will have to forgive me if I don't completely know your position on matters. When you use a lot of Pali in your posts, without definitions, I will skip the post. I don't speak Pali and have no desire to learn it; there are many living languages to learn as it is (I have learned/am learning Spanish and I am learning Arabic… no room for Pali ;-). Ken H: One way of looking at it is to imagine the greatest philosophers and religious leaders in India walking half way across the continent to hear the Buddha. What are they going to think if he tells them to be mindful of what they conventionally know as walking, sitting and lying down? But he didn't tell them anything so utterly banal and pointless. What he did tell them was totally new and profound -- it had nothing to do with conventional understandings of walking and sitting. James: I think you have the wrong idea of what the Buddha was like. He wasn't like some kind of guru on the mountain top who people visited to get life's answers. When people traveled to see him they did it for predominately two reasons: to join his Sangha or to venerate him; not to discuss philosophy or dhamma with him. He didn't participate in colloquy. Granted, his lay visitors may ask a question or two, and he would give an answer or two, but anything more than that and they would have to ordain to get the answers. Then he would teach that person the PRACTICE of knowing the difference between sitting and sitting with mindfulness; standing and standing with mindfulness; lying and lying with mindfulness, etc. Words and philosophy of dhamma mean nothing without the practice. Ken H: As usual, I need that sutta explained. Is it about jhana or vipassana or both combined? To answer that, I need a broad knowledge of the Tipitaka, not just a small extract. James: No, you don't need that sutta explained. You know, the problem with you is that you think you need too many things explained. To understand, you just need to do it…start paying attention to your body. Granted, you aren't going to do it perfectly to begin with, you will have to monitor and adjust your technique as you go along; and there will be times when you will get tired, or restless, or have doubts (the hindrances), but you just need to keep doing it. Then you will understand…and only then. All the explanation in the world isn't going to make you understand. You have to understand on your own, through your own efforts. That is what the Buddha taught. Metta, James 25983 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 11:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] discussions Myanmar. Dear Sarah, As to points of discussion in Myanmar, intellectually we can understand that sakkaya-ditthi and other ditthis are extremely subtle. We can also cling to "me" just with lobha, no wrong view or conceit. It would be helpful to hear more about it. You formulated it very well: Sarah: quite sure that at the higher stages of insight any lingering > sakkaya-ditthi and other ditthi are extremely subtle. Even now, amongst > grosser forms, I am sure there are many subtle variants that we have > little idea about. Quite possibly, too, that many so called conceits (or > sense-of-self’ cittas), may with more wisdom turn out to be one form of > ditthi or other. They follow each other so very closely, I find.> Q 2: about the four discriminations: Very high degrees of panna, some mundane, some lokuttara as the Tiika says. We cannot even try to grasp what they are, and when reading texts we meet many difficulties. Such as nirutti, language. The Atthasalini says that the name of a reality, such as feeling arises together with that reality. Even intellectually, hard to understand. If someone can help us to understand this a little more it is good. It depends on the occasion, there will be so many discussions on satipatthana which comes foremost. Nina. 25984 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 11:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] G'day! Hi Julie, Welcome here. There are difficult topics and surely difficult forall of us. But by discussing we learn more. Any question is welcome, it helps us to consider more. I hope you will not be a lurker, Nina. op 10-10-2003 05:50 schreef jhcsks op julie_and_steve@b...: I can pretty much guarantee that I wont be participating all > that often, as most of what you're discussing is well and truly over > my head. 25985 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 11:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concentration and samatha Hi Larry, op 10-10-2003 02:21 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: What I really wanted to know is > what exactly is tranquility. Is it a kind of mental feeling? N: No, not feeling cetasika. Two cetasikas are tranquillity, pasaddhi: calm of body and of mind. Body stands for: mental body, the cetasikas. Calm of body allays agitation of the accompnaying cetasikas, and calm of mind allays agitation of citta. Thus they are formations khandha, not feeling khandha. L:If so, I'm > surprised it would be included with higher jhana cittas and path and > fruition cittas. I would think these cittas would be free of feeling. N: see above. And as to being free from feeling, no, feeling always accompanies each kind of citta. L: Also, any ideas on what is the difference between nirodha samapatti and > bhavanga cittas? Do bhavanga cittas arise during nirodha samapatti? N: See B. Dictionary, Nyanatiloka, for details. The anagami and arahat who have developed jhana and insight can attain it. There is a subtle residuum of citta and cetasikas, and it is quite different from bhavangacitta which only experiences the same object as the rebirth-consciousness, throughout life. After emerging they experience fruition-consciousness. Nina. 25986 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 11:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Verse On The Buddha's Last Lunch: Anaadara? Dear Suan, Thank you very much, I begin to understand. No concern is clearer, we should not take respect literally when it comes to grammar. Taking again the sentence: bhutassa ca suukaramaddavena: The -ena ending is instrumentalis, not ablative. As I read in Warder, which does not give many details, ablative would rather give the cause, the reason of something. But Instrumentalis is more general, has more meanings, not so definite. What do you think? it can influence our translation. Nina. op 09-10-2003 17:51 schreef abhidhammika op suanluzaw@b...: > Anaadara (a verb showing disrespect or no concern) is one of unique > or peculiar technical terms of the traditional Pali grammar texts. > > It is best that we should focuss on what this peculiar term refers to > syntactically and how we can use or interpret its syntactical form. > > The syntactical form of "anaadara / disrespect" is, as we have seen, > cha.t.thii vibhatti / the genitive case. > > When the genitive case takes on the sense of "grammartical > disrespect", so to speak, then we don't translate the genetive form > in terms of usual possessiveness (noun's / of noun). > > Rather, we would translate the genetive form with the sense > of "grammartical disrespect" in terms of "while/when/despite/even > though/regardless of" subordinate clauses or phrases. > 25987 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 11:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:the Buddha's Last Meal, merit Hi Derek, op 09-10-2003 17:52 schreef Derek Cameron op derekacameron@y...: > My hypothesis is that the Buddhist orthodoxy of the time held that > giving food to monks was a virtuous act. N: Yes, that is for all times. It is the wholesome intention that makes the virtuous act of dana. The receiver, in this case the Buddha, also conditions the degree of merit for the giver. There is still merit if what you give would by accident turn out unfavorable to the receiver. D: Now, someone who wanted to argue with this would counter, "If giving > food to monks is a virtuous act, then how come Cunda's alms-giving > caused the death of the Buddha?" > > The only way to maintain the orthodoxy would be to claim that Cunda's > alms-giving *didn't* cause the death of the Buddha. > > Hence the commentators and the author of the Milindapanha taking > pains to argue this point, and so maintain the consistency of the > Buddhist worldview. N: Buddhaghosa did not fabricate any stories, he had no advantage doing this. Cunda had pure intention, and the Buddha explained later on that two kinds of giving were the most meritorious in the world: food given before his enlightenment and food given before his parinibbana. The Commentators were very careful and did not utter their own opinion, ancient sources rehearsed at the first council were used. They toke note of the original sutta very carefully, making no mistakes in the grammar, as you can read from Suan's explanations. Following the grammar rules, the story comes out very clearly. We, poor Pali students of the present time, have much more trouble to really understand the subtle points. Very helpful that Suan brings up the grammatical explanations of Agavamsa's Saddaniiti. Nina. 25988 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 11:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga. Tiika 17, daily life. op 09-10-2003 09:58 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...:> > For myself (& Jon), however, we find it invaluable. Perhaps now, much of > it is over our heads or we may just consider a little intellecutually, but > we never know when it may be a condition for deeper reflection or when a > Larry’ may come along with a probing question which helps us to consider > more carefully. N: Yes, the discussions with Larry makes us consider more carefully the contents of the Visuddhimagga and Tiika. S: until you added the Tiika lines about the various kinds of kosalla > (skill), I had never really considered the importance of understanding the > skill in detriment’ in daily life. N: Neither did I. And I still forget this!! > Tiika: Herein this is called, means: understanding concerning the non-arising and > cessation of profitable dhammas and the arising and maintenance of > unprofitable dhammas,this is called skill in detriment. > **** S: We may think that all we need to understand is the development of > wholesome states and that anytime we’re taking a break’ there is no cause > for concern. However, I think it’s very helpful to understand how > detrimental states develop whenever wholesome states are not developing. N: I am glad you are summarizing this again. I like to take breaks! But, when we do not act, speak or think with the objectives of dana, sila or bhavana, the cittas are akusala. We forget that we are accumulating new akusala on and on. S: In other words, if there isn’t the understanding of the way unprofitable > dhammas’ accumulate in daily life, there is no way that they will > diminish. > Tiika; “Thus also skill in detriment is truly understanding." N: And panna does not have to think, it just realizes immediately what is detriment. Thank you for summarizing and reminding us again. I hope you will do this more often. Otherwise we get so lost in the words and do not consider them enough in daily life, and that is the purpose of our study. Nina. 25989 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 2:21pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Sukin, I would say that the Buddha's teaching is not about what concept is and what reality is, it is not about seeing the dichotomy between these two. Discussions along those lines of inquiry can be fascinating; nevertheless, those discussion are irrelevant to the Buddha's teaching. Regarding mindfulness, I would refer to the discourses Anapanasati Sutta Mindfulness of Breathing http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn118.html Kayagata-sati Sutta Mindfulness Immersed in the Body http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn119.html and Satipatthana Sutta Frames of Reference http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn010.html Regarding causal relations in the context of what the Buddha taught, I would refer to the discourses in Nidana Vagga (samyuttas XII-XXI) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/index.html#Nidana and the discourses on kamma/action. Peace, Victor [snip] 25990 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 2:37pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Larry, The view "A person, a human being, is formed of the five aggregates" is a self-view(or personality view.) Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Sukin: "Are you saying that the rise and fall of khandhas is equivalent > to a person rising and falling?" > > Hi Sukin, > > I would say there is rise and fall of a person and also continuity of a > person. I was thinking of the dependent arising formula. At the stage of > birth enough khandhas have come together in a particular way to form a > person. A person grows old, gets sick, and dies. Then another person > continuity arises with the whole baggage of the previous person > continuity. The same goes for groups of people but there isn't > necessarily a continuity between the dissolution of one group and the > arising of another. But this kamma stuff is just conceptual. No one sees > it arising from seed to fruition, one life to another. Right? > > It's all about what you can see arising and falling. You can see a > feeling arising, a person arising, a building arising, an argument > arising, and a government arising. > > Larry 25991 From: Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Victor: "The view "A person, a human being, is formed of the five aggregates" is a self-view(or personality view.)" Hi Victor, Are you a person? Larry 25992 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:36pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hello Victor, Larry, and All, Would the Bhara Sutta and its notes be of assistance in your discussion? metta and peace, Christine ---The Trouble is that you think you have time--- "Bhara Sutta The Burden At Savatthi. "Monks, I will teach you the burden, the carrier of the burden, the taking up of the burden, and the casting off of the burden. [1] Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "And which is the burden? 'The five clinging- aggregates,' it should be said. Which five? Form as a clinging- aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging- aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. This, monks, is called the burden. "And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is called the carrier of the burden. "And which is the taking up of the burden? The craving that makes for further becoming -- accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there -- i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming. This is called the taking up of the burden. "And which is the casting off of the burden? The remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving. This is called the casting off of the burden." That is what the Blessed One said. Having said that, the One Well- gone, the Teacher, said further: A burden indeed are the five aggregates, and the carrier of the burden is the person. Taking up the burden in the world is stressful. Casting off the burden is bliss. Having cast off the heavy burden and not taking on another, pulling up craving, along with its root, one is free from hunger, totally unbound. " ---------------- Note 1. This discourse parallels the teaching on the four noble truths, but with a twist. The "burden" is defined in the same terms as the first noble truth, the truth of suffering & stress. The taking on of the burden is defined in the same terms as the second noble truth, the origination of stress; and the casting off of the burden, in the same terms as the third noble truth, the cessation of stress. The fourth factor, however -- the carrier of the burden -- has no parallel in the four noble truths, and has proven to be one of the most controversial terms in the history of Buddhist philosophy. When defining this factor as the person (or individual, puggala), the Buddha drops the abstract form of the other factors, and uses the ordinary, everyday language of narrative: the person with such-and- such a name. And how would this person translate into more abstract factors? He doesn't say. After his passing away, however, Buddhist scholastics attempted to provide an answer for him, and divided into two major camps over the issue. One camp refused to rank the concept of person as a truth on the ultimate level. This group inspired what eventually became the classic Theravada position on this issue: that the "person" was simply a conventional designation for the five aggregates. However, the other camp -- who developed into the Pudgalavadin (Personalist) school -- said that the person was neither a ultimate truth nor a mere conventional designation, neither identical with nor totally separate from the five aggregates. This special meaning of person, they said, was required to account for three things: the cohesion of a person's identity in this lifetime (one's person's memories, for instance, cannot become another person's memories); the unitary nature of rebirth (one person cannot be reborn in several places at once); and the fact that, with the cessation of the khandhas at the death of an arahant, he/she is said to attain the Further Shore. However, after that moment, they said, nothing further could be said about the person, for that was as far as the concept's descriptive powers could go. As might be imagined, the first group accused the second group of denying the concept of anatta, or not-self; whereas the second group accused the first of being unable to account for the truths that they said their concept of person explained. Both groups, however, found that their positions entangled them in philosophical difficulties that have never been successfully resolved. Perhaps the most useful lesson to draw from the history of this controversy is the one that accords with the Buddha's statements in MN 72, where he refuses to get involved in questions of whether a person has a live essence separate from or identical to his/her body, or of whether after death there is something of an arahant that exists or not. In other words, the questions aren't worth asking. Nothing is accomplished by assuming or denying an ultimate reality behind what we think of as a person. Instead, the strategy of the practice is to comprehend the burden that we each are carrying and to throw it off. That is what will settle all questions. [Go back] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn22-022.html --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Victor: "The view "A person, a human being, is formed of the five > aggregates" is a self-view(or personality view.)" > > Hi Victor, > > Are you a person? > > Larry 25993 From: Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:49pm Subject: Vism. XIV, 22, 23 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV [Regarding the four patisambhida.] 22. Herein, "meaning" (attha) is briefly a term for the fruit of a cause (hetu). For in accordance with the cause it is served, (7) arrived at, reached, therefore it is called 'meaning' (or 'purpose'). But in particular the five things, namely, (i) anything conditionally produced, [441] (ii) nibbana, (iii) the meaning of what is spoken, (iv) (kamma-) result, and (v) functional (consciousness), should be understood as "meaning". When anyone reviews that meaning, any knowledge of his, falling within the category (pabheda) concerned with meaning, is the "discrimination of meaning". 23. "Law" (dhamma) is briefly a term for a condition (paccaya). For since a condition necessitates (dahati) whatever it may be, makes it occur or allows it to happen, it is therefore called 'law' (dhamma). But in particular the five things, namely,(i) any cause that produces fruit, (ii) the noble path, (iii) what is spoken, (iv) what is profitable, and (v) what is unprofitable, should be understood as "law". When anyone reviews that law, any knowledge of his, falling within the category concerned with the law, is the "discrimination of law". --------------- (7) "Ariiyati--'to honor, to serve'. Not in P.T.S. Dict. Cf. ger. ara.niiya (MA.i,21,173), also not in P.T.S. Dict. explained by Majjhima .Tikaa as 'to be honored. (payiruupasitabbaa). 25994 From: Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 3:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Christine, What is your view? Are you a person or not, and why? Larry 25995 From: Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 4:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism. XIV, 22, 23 "When anyone reviews that meaning, any knowledge of his, falling within the category (pabheda) concerned with meaning, is the "discrimination of meaning"." Hi Nina, Do we have a commentary on this "anyone"? It seems to contradict Vism. XIV, 27 regarding trainers and non-trainers. Generally, here are a few speculative ideas on the 4 patisambhida: We might regard this as a description of the experience of an arahant and the path of trainers. As such, we could possibly divide it into body, speech, and mind; "attha" and "dhamma" being the 'body' of that experience, speech being highly evocative, and mind being transparent. Judging by the examples given of 'meaning' in CMA, I am inclined to think 'meaning' is equivalent to sign (nimitta), a product of sanna khandha. If so, we could possibly understand attha and dhamma as experience arising as grammatical analysis (object and verb, attha and dhamma) without the need to convert that experience into vitakka and vicara, which is what we do in ordinary analysis. In other words, a kind of analytical understanding that arises with/as experience. Larry 25996 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 5:18pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Hi Christine and all, Christine, this is an excellent reference and its notes are of relevance. I remember reading this sutta. When I was replying to Larry's message, the thought of aggregates being burdens was in the back of my mind. But now you brought up this reference, which is indeed opportune. Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Victor, Larry, and All, > Would the Bhara Sutta and its notes be of assistance in your > discussion? > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The Trouble is that you think you have time--- [snip] 25997 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 5:19pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sutta and interpretation. Yes, Larry, I am a person, a human being. Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Victor: "The view "A person, a human being, is formed of the five > aggregates" is a self-view(or personality view.)" > > Hi Victor, > > Are you a person? > > Larry 25998 From: m. nease Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 7:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:the Buddha's Last Meal. the Pali, also to Rob Edison Nice! ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarah To: Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 1:52 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:the Buddha's Last Meal. the Pali, also to Rob Edison > Hi James, > > --- buddhatrue wrote: > > > > LOL! No, this explanation doesn't sound like a brainwashed > > explanation (when you start to get into that no-control, meditation > > is dangerous/unnecessary kick that you sound brainwashed), > .... > LOL ...that's coming next;-) > .... > > this just > > sounds like a simple case of selective attention. Granting that the > > one line in Pali is ambiguous (which I will have to take Derek's word > > for that) the other details of the incident combined with that one > > ambiguous line makes the whole incident far from ambiguous. That is > > just common sense. The commentaries come up with this fantastic > > story that isn't suggested by the text at all, that isn't ambiguous > > either. > ...... > I can live with the 'selective attention' theory;-). Do you have any > theory as to why the commentaries, originally recounted by arahants and > carefully preserved by more arahants like Mahinda who brought them to Sri > Lanka, later to be compiled by highly esteemed bhikkhus like Buddhaghosa, > and then preserved for us to read today, should, according to you, defy > common sense and make up a 'fantastic story' like this which even the > highly esteemed Pali grammarians throughout the centuries have 'fallen > for'? > ..... > >I guess each person needs to decide for him/herself which > > answer is the most plausible. I believe it is more plausible that > > the Buddha got sick from that meal and died; those are definitely > > what the facts point to. > .... > No problem. I'm sure anyone who prefers to ignore the commentaries will > come to the same conclusion. No sweat. > .... > >Since you refer to old English riddles, I > > will refer to an old English philosopher: William of Occam, the > > medieval philosopher, set forth the logical principal of `Occam's > > Razor,' which states that one should not make more assumptions than > > the minimum needed. > .... > Ah yes, but then, but then.....what about the 'Dhamma Congress', the 'Pali > Congress', the 'Abhidhamma Congress' and the future of DSG???;-) > > Just kidding, James. If only life were so simple.....;-) Believe me, I > understand the appeal of just keeping a couple of collections of suttas > (throwing out those given by disciples such as Sariputta), discarding the > Vinaya (not that you'd do this), Abhidhamma and Commentaries (you might do > this) and accepting the first sutta translation one comes across (today > that seems to be Thanissaro's) at face value. > > Let's see if I can go and add 'more assumptions' and complicate a few > other threads;-) > > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s Jon and I had a good laugh at your 'tender pork' post which followed > Suan's. Note: this is NOT a pat on the head - nor have I given any > advice;-) > ===== > 25999 From: m. nease Date: Fri Oct 10, 2003 7:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:the Buddha's Last Meal, merit Excellent answer to a fair hypothesis. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: nina van gorkom To: Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 11:54 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:the Buddha's Last Meal, merit > Hi Derek, > op 09-10-2003 17:52 schreef Derek Cameron op derekacameron@y...: > > > My hypothesis is that the Buddhist orthodoxy of the time held that > > giving food to monks was a virtuous act. > N: Yes, that is for all times. It is the wholesome intention that makes the > virtuous act of dana. The receiver, in this case the Buddha, also conditions > the degree of merit for the giver. There is still merit if what you give > would by accident turn out unfavorable to the receiver. > D: Now, someone who wanted to argue with this would counter, "If giving > > food to monks is a virtuous act, then how come Cunda's alms-giving > > caused the death of the Buddha?" > > > > The only way to maintain the orthodoxy would be to claim that Cunda's > > alms-giving *didn't* cause the death of the Buddha. > > > > Hence the commentators and the author of the Milindapanha taking > > pains to argue this point, and so maintain the consistency of the > > Buddhist worldview. > N: Buddhaghosa did not fabricate any stories, he had no advantage doing > this. Cunda had pure intention, and the Buddha explained later on that two > kinds of giving were the most meritorious in the world: food given before > his enlightenment and food given before his parinibbana. The Commentators > were very careful and did not utter their own opinion, ancient sources > rehearsed > at the first council were used. > They toke note of the original sutta very carefully, making no mistakes in > the grammar, as you can read from Suan's explanations. Following the grammar > rules, the story comes out very clearly. We, poor Pali students of the > present time, have much more trouble to really understand the subtle points. > Very helpful that Suan brings up the grammatical explanations of Agavamsa's > Saddaniiti. > Nina. > >