28800 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 1:50am Subject: [dsg] Re: Paññatti VS Paramattha: To Nina, Mike B And Ken O Hi Michael, Michael: My take on the abhidhamma is exactly what you are saying, it should be regarded as part of phenomenology, and that is the way Nyanaponika Thera in his book Abhidhamma Studies interprets it as well. The problem with Karudanasa is that he refers to ontological ultimacy, and this has nothing to do with phenomenology. It goes right into metaphysics and it is in this respect, that I see the Abhidhamma being used poorly. James: Well, you have a point, if you are looking at `phenomenology' and `ontology' in the usual sense. However, now that I think I am getting a better grasp of the Abhidhamma, I think it should be viewed as a `phenomenological ontology'. To explain a bit more, from dictionary.com: phe•nom•e•nol•o•gy -n m -n l -j ) n.A philosophy or method of inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness and not of anything independent of human consciousness. Ontology \On*tol"o*gy\, n. [Gr. ? the things which exist (pl.neut. of ?, ?, being, p. pr. of ? to be) + -logy: cf.F. ontologie.] That department of the science of metaphysics which investigates and explains the nature and essential properties and relations of all beings, as such, or the principles and causes of being. When reality is viewed as a tightly woven, interconnected conglomeration of phenomena, phenomena that is either mind-based or form-based, than it is a phenomenological ontology, it doesn't necessarily have to be either or. Then we get to this issue of the `unobserved rupa' which, unfortunately, I wasn't following as closely as I should have in this group, but here is my take: If a tree falls in the forest and absolutely no one is there to hear it does it make a sound? No because `sound' is a rupa that depends on ear-form, ear-consciousness, and cittas. Vibrations in the air are scientific and beyond the scope of the Abhidhamma. If the Abhidhamma is saying that `sounds' can exist without anyone there to hear them, then those sounds must occur in `Rupaville'. ;-)) I don't know what to say about that: it is an obvious contradiction to the entire philosophy. Michael: Yes and no. On a person to person basis it is easier to gauge emotions and know when it is wise to say something or just keep quiet. In a list it is much harder. I try my best to use language in a way which is beneficial to the listener as well. Not always successful I have to concede but I try. In a list as I said it is harder. James: All I was saying is that if your intention is pure and the consequence is impure, you are not responsible. I know that it is harder to gauge what is appropriate and what isn't on a list, so all you can do is gauge from your side. This is my take on it and you don't have to agree. Right Speech is one of the hardest things for me to follow because I can easily get people agitated when I didn't mean to, and sometimes I did mean to but didn't realize that I meant to (it was subconscious). Oh well, life isn't easy. Michael: I forgot to mention in my previous post that prior to getting in contact with Buddhism I had the notion that talk was absolutely cheap, had no consequence whatsoever. It was one, among others, big impacts when I started to learn more. And one of the suttas that I have in the box of the `most liked' is the Ambalatthikarahulovada Sutta – MN 61, where the Buddha advises his son Rahula on the criteria to decide if something is worthwhile saying (doing, thinking as well ) or not. And one of the criteria is not causing affliction to others. James: I think the Buddha means not intentionally causing affliction. Of course that is a common sense criterion. However, what if you need to teach someone something and to do so will cause them affliction? I cause affliction on a daily basis when I try to teach English Literature to teenagers who don't want to learn it!! What am I to do? Quit? Remain silent? Silence isn't always the best option. Also, I think it is important to consider that Rahula was a monk and that monks have a much higher standard of conduct than householders. According to the Vinaya, a monk shouldn't even teach the dhamma to a person unless it is face-to-face and many other criterions are met (unfortunately there are some monks on these Buddhist lists who break these precepts). The standards for monks and the standards for householders are not exactly the same. Metta, James 28801 From: gazita2002 Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 2:10am Subject: Re: FW: Bangkok Meeting Dear Nina and Rob, I also cannot make it to Bkk this time. Had holidays for early Jan and was unable to change to late Jan - o well. I plan on being in Bkk the week preceding Apr 25, so if anyone else will be there then let me know. Patience, courage and good cheer, azita. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom > wrote: > > Dear Chuck, > > wonderful if you can join us. attire: informal, as at home, we > Dear Nina and all, > Just a note to say I can't come now: couldn't get a babysitter. > Anyway look forward to hearing the tapes. > Rob 28802 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 2:30am Subject: Angulimala Dear Group, What is the relationship of Buddhism to Civil Law? I've always been uncomfortable about the story of Angulimala. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn086.html He murders 999 people (my teacher made me do it), meets the Buddha, joins the Sangha, and is not arrested, and not punished in any way by King Pasenadi after he learns of his presence there. Are Monks exempt from due process? One rule for Lay and another for Ordained? 999 murders... Imagine the terror and agony of the victims. Imagine the grief and suffering in the homes of thousands of people who loved the 999; Imagine the fear in whole communities. And what happens to Angulimala? He gets a cut on the head after being hit by a few rocks and clods thrown at him by the local people .. poor chap. Did he discover a secret vipaka-neutralising practice? He is protected from suffering the same fate as his victims. The families of the victims are prevented from resolution of their grief, and are subjected to seeing this serial killer in a privileged group, supported with regard to requisites by the local community he preyed upon. Justice is not seen to be done. If YOUR whole family had been murdered by someone who publicly wore their right thumbs as decorative trophies, what would you think of the Buddha's actions? And King Pasenadi's inaction? metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 28803 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 4:01am Subject: Re: Angulimala --- Dear Christine, I guess one aspect is whether we think justice is related to vengence. King Pasenadi was a disciple of Buddha and accepted the Buddha's word that Angulimala was now of kind nature. Isn't that enough; once a person changes why would you want to punish them? He did discover a vipaka-neutralising miracle: upon parinibbana there is no more of the five khandhas and thus vipaka cannot arise. One point, there is no mention in the texts, as far as I know of anyone deliberately throwing anything at Angulimala. But because of past kamma he would sometimes be accidently hit when someone threw some rubbish out of the house or accidental things like that.. RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > What is the relationship of Buddhism to Civil Law? I've always been > uncomfortable about the story of Angulimala. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn086.html > He murders 999 people (my teacher made me do it), meets the Buddha, > joins the Sangha, and is not arrested, and not punished in any way > by King Pasenadi after he learns of his presence there. Are Monks > exempt from due process? One rule for Lay and another for Ordained? > 999 murders... Imagine the terror and agony of the victims. Imagine > the grief and suffering in the homes of thousands of people who > loved the 999; Imagine the fear in whole communities. > And what happens to Angulimala? He gets a cut on the head after > being hit by a few rocks and clods thrown at him by the local > people .. poor chap. Did he discover a secret vipaka-neutralising > practice? He is protected from suffering the same fate as his > victims. 28804 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 4:04am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Dear Htoo, You'll remember I found it puzzling that you, with your extensive knowledge of Abhidhamma, would advocate a 'formal practice' of satipatthana. As we all know, satipatthana takes a nama or a rupa as its object. Such a phenomenon exists for less than one billionth of a second; it cannot be an object of the kind of concentration you and I are familiar with (that is, conventional concentration). ---------------- H: > When the serious meditator is trying to concentrate on his breath or at some point in his body, he may fail to do so. He may miss recognizing his body positions. ---------------- We have to remember that the flood is not crossed by trying (or by not trying). When, for example, the meditator is trying to concentrate, the object of his consciousness is pannatti, not paramattha dhamma. So there is no satipatthana at that precise moment. Presumably, you are saying that 'trying' can condition satipatthana to arise in a subsequent mind moment. Is there any evidence, anywhere in the Tipitaka, to support this theory? --------------- H: > However, we need to fight against this powerful mental enemy ' craving '. --------------- As a conditioned nama, craving can be the object of satipatthana. So, rather than fight against it, right mindfulness will welcome lobha. (Even so, if right mindfulness of lobha is to occur, it will be within the same billionth of a second -- almost immediately after its arising -- so there is no way of directing sati to take that cetasika (or anything else) as its object.) Is this how you see it? Kind regards, Ken H 28805 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 4:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Space element Dear Nina, Thanks for your reply. I have studied that in formation of Rupa Kalapa, 4 Lakkhana Rupa and Akasa are not counted as components of Kalapa. I have a rough idea of space. Without which all will mix up. But in Rupa Kalapa, Akasa or space is not included. Am I wrong to take that? I am looking forward to hearing from you. With Metta, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Htoo, >My question is ' Is space involved in Kalapa? ' >N: As I said, it is around all the groups, kalapas, of rupas, so that they are distinct. > In the Atthasalini it is explained in a conventional way to help us, the manifestation of space if what is hollow in the body, > cavity of the ear. > When we come to it in the Vis. study with Larry, we shall go deeper into it. > Nina. 28806 From: jonoabb Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 5:10am Subject: Vism.EngPali.XIV, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53 Vism.EngPali.XIV, 49-53 49. 2. The ear [sensitivity] is to be found inside the [feature of the] ear-hole with its accessories in the place that is shaped like a finger-stall and surrounded by fine brown hairs. It is assisted by the elements in the way aforesaid. It is consolidated by temperature, consciousness, and nutriment; it is maintained by life; it is equipped with colour, etc.; and it duly serves both as physical basis and as door for ear-consciousness, and the rest. 49. sasambhaarasotabilassa anto tanutambalomaacite a"ngulivedhakasa.n.thaane padese sota.m vuttappakaaraahi dhaatuuhi katuupakaara.m utucittaahaarehi upatthambhiyamaana.m aayunaa anupaaliyamaana.m va.n.naadiihi parivuta.m sotavi~n~naa.naadiina.m yathaaraha.m vatthudvaarabhaava.m saadhayamaana.m ti.t.thati. ++++++++++++++++++ 50. 3. The nose [sensitivity] is to be found inside [the feature of the] nose-hole with its accessories in the place shaped like a goat's hoof. It has assistance, consolidation, and maintenance in the way aforesaid; and it duly serves both as physical basis and as door for nose-consciousness, and the rest. 50. sasambhaaraghaanabilassa anto ajapadasa.n.thaane padese ghaana.m yathaavuttappakaarupakaarupatthambhanaanupaalanaparivaara.m ghaanavi~n~naa.naadiina.m yathaaraha.m vatthudvaarabhaava.m saadhayamaana.m ti.t.thati. ++++++++++++++++++ 51. 4. The tongue [sensitivity] is to be found in the middle of the [feature of the] tongue with its accessories in the place shaped like a lotus petal tip. It has assistance, consolidation and maintenance in the way aforesaid; and it duly serves both as physical basis and as door for tongue-consciousness, and the rest. 51. sasambhaarajivhaamajjhassa upari uppaladalaggasa.n.thaane padese jivhaa yathaavuttappakaarupakaarupatthambhanaanupaalanaparivaaraa jivhaavi~n~naa.naadiina.m yathaaraha.m vatthudvaarabhaava.m saadhayamaanaa ti.t.thati. ++++++++++++++++++ 52. 5. The body [sensitivity] is to be found everywhere, like a liquid that soaks a layer of cotton, in this physical body where there is matter that is clung to.[23] It has assistance, consolidation and maintenance in the way aforesaid too; and it duly serves both as physical basis and as door for body- consciousness, and the rest. 52. yaavataa pana imasmi.m kaaye upaadi.n.naruupa.m naama atthi. sabbattha kaayo kappaasapa.tale sneho viya vuttappakaarupakaarupatthambhanaanupaalanaparivaarova hutvaa kaayavi~n~naa.naadiina.m yathaaraha.m vatthudvaarabhaava.m saadhayamaano ti.t.thati. ++++++++++++++++++ 53. Like snakes, crocodiles, birds, dogs, and jackals that gravitate to their own respective resorts, that is to say, ant-hills, water, space, villages, and charnal grounds, so the eye, etc., should be regarded as gravitating to their own respective resorts, that is to say, visible data, and so on (cf. DhsA. 314). 53. vammikaudakaakaasagaamasivathikasa"nkhaatasagocaraninnaa viya ca ahisusumaarapakkhiikukkurasi"ngaalaaruupaadisagocaraninnaava ete cakkhaadayoti da.t.thabbaa. ++++++++++++++++++ Note 23. Upaadi.n.na (also upaadi.n.naka) is pp. of upaadiyati (he clings), from which the noun upaadaana (clinging) also comes. Upaadi.n.na-(ka-) ruupa (clung-to matter) = kammaja-ruupa (kamma-born matter); see Dhs. par.653. It is vaguely renderable by 'organic or sentient or living matter'; technically, it is matter of the four primaries that is 'clung-to' (upaadi.n.na) or 'derived' (upaadaaya) by kamma. Generally taken as a purely Abhidhamma term (Dhs., p.1), it nevertheless occurs in the Suttas at M.i,185 in the same sense. 28807 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 5:12am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hi Ken H (and Htoo), If you both don't mind, I would like to jump into this conversation: Ken: When, for example, the meditator is trying to concentrate, the object of his consciousness is pannatti, not paramattha dhamma. So there is no satipatthana at that precise moment. James: This is not true. The meditator is not concentrating on pannatti, the meditator is concentrating on paramattha dhamma. It is a bare awareness of arising and falling phenomena, without cognition, and it is therefore concentration of paramattha dhamma. Who says that any attempt at concentration automatically involves cognition? The Buddha didn't say that and I personally haven't seen that in my vipassana practice. Ken: Presumably, you are saying that 'trying' can condition satipatthana to arise in a subsequent mind moment. Is there any evidence, anywhere in the Tipitaka, to support this theory? James: This isn't a `theory' of Htoo, this is what the Buddha taught. But since you want some proof of `trying' from the Tipitaka, here is some pretty strong proof: "And what, monks, is right effort? [i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. [ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen. [iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen. [iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn45-008.html Since `trying' is defined as: try (tr ) v. tried, (tr d) try•ing, tries (tr z) v. tr. To make an effort to do or accomplish (something); attempt: tried to ski. www.dictionary.com, I think this quote from the Buddha shows that trying is an important element of Buddhism. Metta, James 28808 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 5:14am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Dear Ken H, Thanks for your post replying to me. Some points are not clear to my knowledge but I try to my best and see them below,please. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing --------- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: >Dear Htoo, >You'll remember I found it puzzling that you would advocate a > 'formal practice' of satipatthana. As we all know, > satipatthana takes a nama or a rupa as its object. Such > a phenomenon exists for less than one billionth of a > second; ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H : it cannot be an object of the kind of concentration you and I are familiar with (that is, conventional concentration). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo : I have to ask you why? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >H: > When the serious meditator is trying to concentrate > on his breath or at some point in his body, he may fail > to do so. He may miss recognizing his body positions. > ---------------- Ken H : We have to remember that the flood is not crossed by trying (or by not trying). When, for example, the meditator is trying to concentrate, the object of his consciousness is pannatti, not paramattha dhamma. So there is no satipatthana at that precise moment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo : Dear Ken H, I do not understand here what you meaned. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H : Presumably, you are saying that 'trying' can condition satipatthana to arise in a subsequent mind moment. Is there any evidence, anywhere in the Tipitaka, to support this theory? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo : Satipatthana is mental cultivation. With practice there is considerable changes in the way we live. This whole sentence is Pannatti. No Dhamma can be conditioned as they are Anatta Dhamma. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > H: > However, we need to fight against this powerful > mental enemy ' craving '. > --------------- Ken H : As a conditioned nama, craving can be the object of satipatthana. So, rather than fight against it, right mindfulness will welcome lobha. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo : Here, I do not understand your idea. Meditators are trying to tame their mind. They are trying to suppress their Lobha. They are trying to eradicate Lobha if possible. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H :(Even so, if right mindfulness of lobha is to occur, it will be within the same billionth of a second -- almost immediately after its arising -- so there is no way of directing sati to take that cetasika (or anything else) as its object.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo : There is a difference. Not everyone is able to do so. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken H :Is this how you see it? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo :I am not clear what you asked exactly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Kind regards, > Ken H ---------------------------------------------------------------------- With Metta, Htoo Naing 28809 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 5:21am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Dear James, Thanks for your discussion and link to ' accesstoinsight ' page. When you were writing your message I was trying to reply Ken H post. Thanks again for your effort. Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Ken H (and Htoo), > > If you both don't mind, I would like to jump into this conversation: >This, monks, is called right effort." >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn45-008.html >Since `trying' is defined as: >try (tr ) v. tried, (tr d) try•ing, tries (tr z) v. tr. To make an > effort to do or accomplish (something); attempt: tried to ski. > www.dictionary.com, >I think this quote from the Buddha shows that trying is an important element of Buddhism. > Metta, James 28810 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 5:40am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hi Htoo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > Dear James, > > Thanks for your discussion and link to ' accesstoinsight ' page. When > you were writing your message I was trying to reply Ken H post. > Thanks again for your effort. > > Htoo Naing > I thought/sensed you might need a little help so I jumped in; glad you didn't mind. Metta, James 28811 From: Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 0:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Two to tango (was Re: Contraception and the First Precept) Hi, Herman (and Christine) - In a message dated 1/8/04 1:51:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, hhofman@t... writes: > Hi Christine, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > >Hiya Herman, and all, > > > >Herman: The initial activity proceeds from the initial > >opinion, belief, judgement. How one dresses it up afterwards will > >not alter the initial activity. > >But I really wonder how kamma can play a role for one who suspends > >judgement? > > > >Christine: Good question. Suspending judgment would be living > >uncontaminated by ignorance/craving, comment/interpretation, > >identification/label, no? How would we live our daily life? Is it > >possible to choose to suspend judgement or has judging happened > >before we are even aware of it? Isn't there no control, no free- > >will? :-) :-) > > Yeah, I've heard that mentioned. And I'm sure I've said so myself. > But it is contrary to all experience. (I've probably changed my take > on this more times than I care to remember :-) That there is no self > that controls and no self that has free-will is quite different to > there not being control and free-will. Free-will is being exercised > at each moment. That the choices that are being made mostly have the > effect of perpetuating imprisonment within certain beliefs is > neither here nor there. There is no inbuilt necessity to see things > in any particular way at all, but the choice is made moment to > moment. The idea of self comes out of free will, free will does not > come out of self. > > Ask me again tomorrow, and it'll probably be different. > > All the best > > Herman > ============================= There is definitely will. I'm not clear, however, on what exactly is meant by "free" will. What exactly is such willing supposed to be free OF (or FROM)? When there is willing, I do believe that it is conditioned, that it arises for reasons among which are desires, and these desires, in turn, arise due to conditions. Do we mean that a choice is made not under duress, without being forced to choose a particular way by threats? If so, then, yes, often there is free will. But I don't think anyone will say that that is exactly what they mean by 'free will'? Is it not possible that we really don't know what we mean when we say "free will," and that it is more of a vague feeling than a well understood concept? 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) 28812 From: Michael Beisert Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 7:16am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Paññatti VS Paramattha: To Nina, Mike B And Ken O Hello Ken. Ken: In my personal opinion, let discuss this on the basis on the commentary text and lets not put others writings into this discussion. Michael: Which commentary are you referring to? Any writings on the tipitaka is a commentary whether ancient or not. Metta Michael _________________________________________________________________ Check your PC for viruses with the FREE McAfee online computer scan. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 28813 From: abhidhammika Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 8:01am Subject: [dsg] Re: Paññatti VS Paramattha: To Nina, Mike B And Ken O Dear Michael B, Nina, Howard, Htoo, Enzir, James and all How are you? Happy New Year to Howard, Htoo, Enzir and James! Michael wrote: "1. Thanks for your effort. Not that it has produced many results because you preferred to leave many questions unanswered." Suan : Perhaps, my style of answering may not be to your liking. For example, you asked me to give you an abstract definition of what truth is. I answered that truth does not exist by itself on its own. Here is my question to you. Does the thing called truth exist independently of the paramattha dhammaa (real or actual phenomena that can be observed, experienced, and experimented)? Michael wrote: "2. But don't worry in providing those answers because it is quite clear to me what is the thinking of the ancient Theravada commentators." Suan: I doubt it very much. If you haven't read (at least some of ) those ancient Theravada commentaries, you are very unlikely to know their thinking and how they never deviated from the teachings of Gotama the Buddha. They are famously called, and accepted as, the orthodox followers of the Buddha for nothing! Michael also wrote: "3. You refrained from giving me a definition of paramatha but the article written by Karudanasa (I presume he is part of your list of trusted scholars – don't bother to answer) clearly shows what paramatha means:" Suan: No, I never refrained from giving you a definition of paramattha. Even though I did not quote from Pali sources, I did provide the qualities of paramattha dhammaa as follows. "Thus, the qualities that make something a paramattha phenomenon is 1. emergence when there are relevant conditions. 2. total disappearance when those relevant conditions disappear. Please also note that I describe anger as a phenomenon that emerges, instead of stating that anger "has" a real existence as though it were a container that contains something." So what was wrong with my definition? Do you agree with those defining qualities of a paramattha? Michael also wrote after quoting from Karunaadasa: "4. Those are quite straight forward explanations of what is a paramatha and paññatti. There are many words used in those quotes, like `own-nature,' `own-being,' `characteristic peculiar to a dhamma,' `distinctive intrinsic characteristic,' `existence,' `ontological ultimacy,' `truly existing thing,' `exists in a real and ultimate sense.' All those words only confirm to me what I knew already. Pointing to qualities that the dhammas posses that can only be explained by one attribute. If the dhammas are all that which has been described, they must have an essence, they exist from their own side, by their own power. But this interpretation is not in accordance with the suttas." Suan: So you like answers with big terms like "own-being", "ontological ultimacy" that confirm what you knew already. And then you accused Abhidhamma commentaries of not being in accordance with the Suttas. Ha Ha Ha! Now I know why you were disappointed with my answers. My answers did not confirm what you "knew" already, nor they allow you to accuse Abhidhamma commentaries of conflicting with the Suttas? But, my answers come from Abhidhamma commentaries! Amazing, isn't it? And then, Michael patronized as follows. "5. I said before and say again, there is no paramatha, no sabhava, in the suttas, and paññatti appears in the suttas but with a different meaning than the one used in the Abhidhamma commentaries. Those are all concepts invented by the Commentators. I am not discarding the Abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma is a good tool to understand human psychology but it is very poor in defining Buddhist philosophy." Suan: Your patronizing accusations like the above reminded me of an ostrich hiding its head in the sands. Assuming that you haven't read the standard Pali commentaries, those types of patronizing accuations should not be made before you have learnt to read advanced commentarial Pali. Hence, my previous advice to you that you do your homework! When you have adequate skills and patience and time to read the standard Theravada Pali commentaries, perhaps you might well be able and willing to revise your present position. Then Michael made further patronizing remarks as follows. "6. I have to say that from my point of view this thread is closed. I realized from recent messages that my observations have stirred up a lot of emotions. I don't want to upset people even more. For those who don't have a strong attachment to their views and want to better understand a philosophical stand which is closer to the teachings of the suttas I suggest to study the Madhyamaka philosophy. For those who have strong attachment to the views expressed by the Abhidhamma commentators, just remember that any strong attachment is a hindrance in the path." Suan: Many people on this list are Theravada Buddhists. The charactersitcs of Theravdins are their preservation, research, learning, and practicing of Pali TIPI.TAKA. Please note my emphasis on TIPI.TAKA with Capital Letters. Ti means three. Tipi.taka means the Three Collections of Gotama the Buddha's teachings, namely, Vinaya, Suttanta and Abhidhamma. What I am getting at is that Theravadins directly learn from Suttanta Pi.taka. As such, they do not need to study Madhyamaka philosophy so as to understand a philosophical standpoint which is CLOSER to the teachings of the SUTTAS. Please pay attention to CLOSER and SUTTAS. Michael, do you realize that you are advising the Theravadins who directly learn and follows Pali Suttas to opt for something that is merely CLOSER or APPROXIMATE to Suttas? Who said that the people with the wrong views (micchaadi.t.thi) could not come up with such laughable accusations and advice? Good luck with your second-hand Buddhist views! With regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: Suan (and all,) May you all be happy and sorry for any disturbances that I may have caused. Metta Michael 28814 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 9:17am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Dear James, You have been very helpful. I really didn't mind that you jump in our discussion. Thanks again for that. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Htoo, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" > wrote: > > Dear James, > > > > Thanks for your discussion and link to ' accesstoinsight ' page. > When > > you were writing your message I was trying to reply Ken H post. > > Thanks again for your effort. > > > > Htoo Naing > > > > I thought/sensed you might need a little help so I jumped in; glad > you didn't mind. > > Metta, James 28815 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 10:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Whose Abhidhamma? ( Was:Re: Karunadasa - "Time and Space..) Dear James, there are many things you write I appreciate, and in the end I see that you think like me: the main thing: what will deliver me from dukkha, not the scholarship. I also see that you are openminded, keep an eye open to the Abhidhamma, you never know! James to Michael:< But I do agree with you that something is amiss in this group's overriding interpretation of these matters. Believe me, you haven't upset people like I have, you should read my "Rupa is Rubbish" thread! ;-))> Nina: I can really laugh now, James. Do not change your style. The rubbish is nothing, has fallen away. Sometimes you say things very straight and if people do not know you they take it amiss;-) But I can look through now. Also, there is mostly a little something to your words I can reflect on later, I find them quite sympathetic and understanding. But you cover it up with some jokes. Like what you said about Abhidhamma and people's emotional needs: yes, quite true: I find the Abhidhamma helps solving problems, but I also include the suttas. I always see the unity of the Tipitaka as a whole. But no more words now, you know already what I think. And then mini meditation as I said. With warm regards, Nina. op 07-01-2004 17:27 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > However, I am not really interested in > scholarship of Buddhism; I am interested in knowing what will deliver > me from dukkha (as I believe you are as well). I don't want to read > everything; I just want the `facts jack'! ;-). If there is more to > the Abhidhamma than what I presently know, which could be of > assistance in this regard, I will stick with it. 28816 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 10:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: Bangkok Meeting Dear Chuck, Thanks for your nice mail and it is so encouraging to know that also lurkers find this list useful. What about unlurking for a while as a preparation for Bgk? Just one point you find important or an experience you had, it always interests people here, anything about daily life. Or something that you like to discuss in Bgk? People think too soon that what they write is not interesting, I find. Looking forward to meeting you, but hoping to hear from you before, Nina. op 08-01-2004 01:35 schreef Charles Thompson op dhammasaro@h...: > > A very warm thank you. > > Unfortunately, I am not that lucky Chuck. A real miss on my part. self> > > I do look forward to meeting you and all my many virtual friends from whom I > learned so much as your "lurker" member. 28817 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 10:11am Subject: Tiika Vis XIV, 60, 2 b Tiika Vis XIV, 60, in footnote 24, 2 b 2 b: Elaboration on Tiika text: And the teaching in the material-basis dyad (vatthu-duka) is given by way of the material support thus, "There is matter that is the physical basis of eye-consciousness, there is matter that is not the physical basis of eye-consciousness" (Dhs. 585) and so on; N: the eyebase (eyesense) is the physical basis of seeing-consciousness, it arises there. The same for the other sense bases, thus, these are five pairs. : not all rupas are the basis for eye-consciousness. Text: and if the dyads were stated by way of what had the heart-basis absolutely as its support thus, "There is matter that is the physical basis of mind-consciousness" and so on, then the object dyads (aaramma.na-duka) do not fall into line: for one cannot say: "There is matter that is the object of mind-consciousness, there is matter that is not the object of mind-consciousness". N: The Tiika deals here with the pairs of bases (vatthus) and of objects. In the Dhsg this is in the Matika, but the translator has left this out. All rupas can be the object of mind-consciousness, thus, one cannot say: "There is matter that is the object of mind-consciousness, there is matter that is not the object of mind-consciousness". I want to add more about aayatanas, sensebases to clarify this. There are 6 inward ayatanas: the five senses and citta (mind-base, which is not the heartbase, but which includes all cittas). There are 6 outer ayatanas: the five sense objects and dhammaayatana, including cetasikas, subtle rupas and nibbana. Heartbase is included in the subtle rupas. Thus, five inner and outer ayatanas form pairs, namely, the inward aayatana of eyesense and the outward aayatana of visible object, and so on. But the heartbase itself does not form a pair with citta. Text: So the physical-basis dyads and object dyads being thus made inconsistent, the teaching would lack unity. That is why the heart-basis is not mentioned, not because it is unapprehendable. [to be continued] N: I quote from the Co to the Yamaka (Abhidhamma): Good to remember when one believes that there are inconsistencies. ----------------- Nina. 28818 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 10:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Views along the way Dear James, Thank you for your kind letter. I was just in the process of writing to you on account of , since you made some pithy points I wanted to hook in with, but now I answer this first. op 07-01-2004 23:10 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > I am glad that you, and Sarah it seems, like my description of `mini- > meditations'; I do believe that they are real and can be accumulated; > like `a penny a day' as you state…very cute! ;-). And this may very > well be the proper method for the householder, I am not sure. > However, I have chosen to push onward and forward, at a very > accelerated rate, to find out the answers. My dedication is so > strong that at one point I was going to become a monk, but I think I > was born in the wrong time-frame for that. Oh well, I am sure you > will understand about that also. N: It was good you discovered in time that those temples were not the right place, and that is was I had heard too. Difficult to find a good temple. On the other hand, you have done many good deeds helping the temple so much near the place where you lived in the U.S.A. I was always happy to hear about what you did there, even helping with administration and cleaning up. J: As far as the fear aspect to my meditation, I don't know. I have > been reading contradictory things about that. I like what you > write, "On the other hand, understanding can condition the right > balance." That is probably true, my understanding is not strong > enough at this point so I continue to back down. I am not brave > enough yet I don't think. Perhaps with your help and encouraging > words some day I will be. N: I find it difficult what to say. I hear you say, I need meditation a lot because of my many defilements, but as to defilements, same, same. Everyone who studies the Dhamma more discovers that he has endless defilements. As Suan says, there is Dependent Origination everywhere, and I think of that often to understand myself and also others. We are all in the cycle, born because of ignorance, we all have the latent tendencies, so persistently adhering. As I often now discussed with Lodewijk, how powerful they are, uncontrollable, unforeseeable. We all need our own time for development and I believe this cannot be hurried. If we want to hurry, we may think that we progress, but in fact we go more slowly. This helps me to respect more other people's views, how could I convince them to what I think, impossible. I like to add in this letter that for me the Abhidhamma has to be very down to earth, not a philosophical or conceptual system, that does not help my life now. I want to learn more about what presents itself now. I was reading your kind letter, and immediately I was clinging, and conceit: my important personality, lifting a banner. There was appreciation and also akusala. Never all akusala, never all kusala. Sarah and I keep on reminding each other that it is all so common, that it is our study material (study in life!) and this makes me laugh too. Being upset, or clinging, I can really laugh about it. A good point for Bangkok! Even a beginning of satipatthana can help us to understand Abhidhamma, that is, realizing one's cittas more. Understandable that you were put off with Abhidhamma. Especially if you follow details as Larry and I study now. Details about rupa, and a way of reasoning which must seem complicated, with those dyads. It is very personal as to what extent an individual wants to study details, and also, can he step back in time milleniums of years to the past. Not at all necessary or even desirable for everyone. It is best if people find out whether there are some principles of Abhidhamma they find helpful for their own life, and whether these help them to understand the suttas. With appreciation, Nina. 28819 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 10:11am Subject: latent tendencies, 1 The Latent Tendencies. Introduction [1] This book is a translation from Thai of Bulletin II, of the ³Dhamma Study and Support Foundantion² which deals with the latent tendencies, anusayas. Since each citta that arises and falls away is immediately succeeded by the next citta, unwholesome and wholesome behaviour and inclinations are accumulated from moment to moment and from life to life. The latent tendencies are unwholesome inclinations that are accumulated. They are the following: sense-desire (kåma-råga), aversion (patigha), conceit (måna), wrong view (diììhi), doubt (vicikicchå), desire for becoming (continued existence, bhavaråga), and ignorance (avijjå). It is essential to have more understanding of the latent tendencies and their power. They are called subtle defilements because they do not arise with the akusala citta, but they are powerful. Since they have not been eradicated they can strongly condition and influence our behaviour. They lie dormant in the citta like microbes infesting the body. So long as they have not been eradicated we are like sick people, because they can condition the arising of akusala citta when there are the appropriate conditions.They can condition the arising of akusala citta even to the degree of transgression of sila at any time, and thus, more defilements are accumulated again and added to the latent tendencies. The teaching of the latent tendencies helps us to see why the defilements in our life are so tenacious, arising again and again, and why their arising is unforeseeable and uncontrollable. When we study the enumeration of the latent tendencies, we should remember that these latent tendencies are not abstract notions. The latent tendency of sense-desire or sensuous clinging conditions akusala citta with attachment to any kind of pleasant object. We may have expectations as to kind words or praise from other people. This is selfish desire that has been deeply accumulated and is very powerful. The latent tendency of aversion conditions akusala citta with aversion, but we should know that this has many shades. It is not only a matter of hate or anger, but it also arises when we are upset or depressed because we do not receive the pleasant object we were hoping for. The latent tendency of conceit conditions the arising of akusala citta with clinging to the importance of self. It can arise on account of any object experienced through the six doorways, and it often motivates our speech and actions. All latent tendencies condition the arising of akusala citta, but because of the accumulated ignorance we do not notice their arising, we are deluded time and again. Through the Abhidhamma we come to know the deep underlying motives of our actions, speech and thoughts. We often deceive ourselves as to the motives of our actions, speech and thoughts that seem to be wholesome. In reality they are mostly directed towards our own gain, they are motivated by selfish desire. With a growing understanding of the latent tendencies that are powerful conditions for all akusala cittas in our life, we will be urged to be mindful of all realities, akusala included. By reflecting and being aware of whatever reality appears we can learn to become more sincere and truthful with regard to the cittas that arise. In this book there are quotations from the texts of the Tipitaka and Commentaries which deal with the latent tendencies and which explain in detail their characteristics and the way they are eradicated. ****** Issues 1: Are there latent tendencies? 2: What are the latent tendencies? 3: Can the latent tendencies be eradicated by the eightfold Path? ******* Footnote 1. I wrote this Introduction. Nina. 28820 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 11:34am Subject: Re: Angulimala Dear Robert, A definition of "Just" is 'The rendering to every one his due or right, just treatment, requital of desert, merited reward or punishment, that which is due to one's conduct or motives.' The definition of "vengeance" is 'retaliation for hurt or harm done to oneself or to a person whom one supports.' I am talking about 'justice', not vengeance. A country is a safe place to live in because its citizens can rely on being treated equally before the Law, and on being protected by the authorities. King Pasenadi was the head of the country of Kosala - responsible for the welfare of all those under his rule - and he wasn't doing too well - 999 people in a very small area had been murdered, by a person so vicious that even groups of up to twenty or thirty men were relentlessly killed. Whole towns had been de-populated. This is not a person who killed impulsively out of passion - this is a person so violent and pitiless that he could listen to the screams and begging of his victims and continue on and on through hundreds and hundreds of people. It is hard to kill a person, it isn't a clean, clinical exercise. When a person is dying in pain and fear, there are horrible sounds, sights and smells. This man wasn't deflected by anything - gotta make the quota. This story is not a fantasy in a book, a jataka, a morality tale, about a situation where people's reactions would be any different than if the incident was transferred into this day and age. If your children, parents, and wife had been murdered - because someone wanted their thumbs - a really important reason, eh? - but you were told the murderer was now 'kind', and had 'seen the light' - and the perpetrator wasn't going to be brought to account in any way - would you say 'Oh, he's kind now you say? bless 'im, that's all right then'. C'mon, Robert .... I always wondered why, if he wasn't enjoying the thrill of the kill, he didn't just say "Your thumb or your life?" - most people would have been reasonable... http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/ay/angulimaala.htm And Angulimala was 'accidentally' hit by people only 'accidentally' throwing rocks and pots out the window? ... :-) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- > Dear Christine, > I guess one aspect is whether we think justice is related to > vengence. King Pasenadi was a disciple of Buddha and accepted the > Buddha's word that Angulimala was now of kind nature. Isn't that > enough; once a person changes why would you want to punish them? > > He did discover a vipaka-neutralising miracle: upon parinibbana > there is no more of the five khandhas and thus vipaka cannot arise. > One point, there is no mention in the texts, as far as I know of > anyone deliberately throwing anything at Angulimala. But because of > past kamma he would sometimes be accidently hit when someone threw > some rubbish out of the house or accidental things like that.. > RobertK > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > Dear Group, > > > > What is the relationship of Buddhism to Civil Law? I've always > been > > uncomfortable about the story of Angulimala. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn086.html > > He murders 999 people (my teacher made me do it), meets the > Buddha, > > joins the Sangha, and is not arrested, and not punished in any > way > > by King Pasenadi after he learns of his presence there. Are Monks > > exempt from due process? One rule for Lay and another for Ordained? > > 999 murders... Imagine the terror and agony of the victims. > Imagine > > the grief and suffering in the homes of thousands of people who > > loved the 999; Imagine the fear in whole communities. > > And what happens to Angulimala? He gets a cut on the head after > > being hit by a few rocks and clods thrown at him by the local > > people .. poor chap. Did he discover a secret vipaka-neutralising > > practice? He is protected from suffering the same fate as his > > victims. 28821 From: Charles Thompson Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 1:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: Bangkok Meeting Okay, you asked for it. "What about unlurking for a while as a preparation for Bgk? Just one point you find important or an experience you had, it always interests people here,..." Ans: Becoming a monk, for four months, at Wat Thai DC in the area of Washington DC, USA. While there I was most fortunate to travel to Thailand as a bhikkhu for a month. I was at Wat Ampharan in Bangkok with my vice-abbot. To me being a monk was my most important experience. "...anything about daily life." Ans: On daily life, it is the simple example of most of the life-long Buddhist I met from Thailand. Their simple day-to-day good treatment of all people brought me to investigate Buddhism. To me they were living the Christian Way that I did not observe in my fellow Christians. "Or something that you like to discuss in Bgk?" Ans: Still working on that. Thanks again for the warm welcome. Your Texan amigo, Chuck ----- Original Message ----- From: nina van gorkom To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 10:11 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: Bangkok Meeting Dear Chuck, Thanks for your nice mail and it is so encouraging to know that also lurkers find this list useful. What about unlurking for a while as a preparation for Bgk? Just one point you find important or an experience you had, it always interests people here, anything about daily life. Or something that you like to discuss in Bgk? People think too soon that what they write is not interesting, I find. Looking forward to meeting you, but hoping to hear from you before, Nina. 28822 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 3:25am Subject: Ease Friends: At Ease in Peace: Always Happy -Yeah!- lives the freed Noble... Quenched, detached, unpolluted by any Lust Having Clinging through Mind Control released So Calmed at Ease one gains mental Peace. --ooOoo-- Sources: The gradual Sayings: Anguttara Nikaya [i 38] http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=132552 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/index.html The connected Sayings: Samyutta Nikaya [i 212] http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/index.html Sutta Nipata verse 612 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=201818 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka/suttanipata/index.html All yours in the Dhamma. Peace is Ease. Bhikkhu Samahita, Ceylon. 28823 From: Egberdina Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 1:42pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hi Ken, I am rewriting some of the sentences you have written. Hope you don't mind. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Dear Htoo, > > You'll remember I found it puzzling that you, with your > extensive knowledge of Abhidhamma, would advocate a > 'formal practice' of satipatthana. As we all know, As some of us have been taught and have accepted > satipatthana takes a nama or a rupa as its object. Such > a phenomenon exists for less than one billionth of a > second; some of us take such a phenomena to last less than a billionth of a second. There are others who acknowledge that events lasting less than one hundredth of a second do not register anywhere it cannot be an object of the kind of > concentration you and I are familiar with (that is, > conventional concentration). > some us have been taught and accept that it cannot be the object of concentration. Others have been taught it and do not accept it. There are still more permutations possible along these lines. > > We have to remember that the flood is not crossed by > trying (or by not trying). Some of us have been taught, and accept that trying or not trying is not possible. Others understand that one cannot remember things that are not known. When, for example, the > meditator is trying to concentrate, the object of his > consciousness is pannatti, not paramattha dhamma. So > there is no satipatthana at that precise moment. > some of us have digested so much theory that anything that is not experienced in terms of theory does not register and is not experienced. > Presumably, you are saying that 'trying' can condition > satipatthana to arise in a subsequent mind moment. Is > there any evidence, anywhere in the Tipitaka, to support > this theory? I would need to see what I believe you are saying written in a book that I like before I choose to accept it. > > As a conditioned nama, craving can be the object of > satipatthana. So, rather than fight against it, right > mindfulness will welcome lobha. > The fighting nama will become a welcoming nama if there is a mindful nama. > (Even so, if right mindfulness of lobha is to occur, > it will be within the same billionth of a second -- almost > immediately after its arising -- so there is no way of > directing sati to take that cetasika (or anything else) > as its object.) > > Is this how you see it? > > Kind regards, > Ken H The following is not a changing of your well-wishing or name. I quite like them :-) All the best Herman 28824 From: Egberdina Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 2:18pm Subject: [dsg] Two to tango (was Re: Contraception and the First Precept) Hi Howard, Christine and everyone, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Herman (and Christine) - > > In a message dated 1/8/04 1:51:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, > hhofman@t... writes: > > > Hi Christine, > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" > > wrote: > > >Hiya Herman, and all, > > > > > >Herman: The initial activity proceeds from the initial > > >opinion, belief, judgement. How one dresses it up afterwards will > > >not alter the initial activity. > > >But I really wonder how kamma can play a role for one who suspends > > >judgement? > > > > > >Christine: Good question. Suspending judgment would be living > > >uncontaminated by ignorance/craving, comment/interpretation, > > >identification/label, no? How would we live our daily life? Is it > > >possible to choose to suspend judgement or has judging happened > > >before we are even aware of it? Isn't there no control, no free- > > >will? :-) :-) > > > > Yeah, I've heard that mentioned. And I'm sure I've said so myself. > > But it is contrary to all experience. (I've probably changed my take > > on this more times than I care to remember :-) That there is no self > > that controls and no self that has free-will is quite different to > > there not being control and free-will. Free-will is being exercised > > at each moment. That the choices that are being made mostly have the > > effect of perpetuating imprisonment within certain beliefs is > > neither here nor there. There is no inbuilt necessity to see things > > in any particular way at all, but the choice is made moment to > > moment. The idea of self comes out of free will, free will does not > > come out of self. > > > > Ask me again tomorrow, and it'll probably be different. > > > > All the best > > > > Herman > > > ============================= > There is definitely will. I'm not clear, however, on what exactly is > meant by "free" will. What exactly is such willing supposed to be free OF (or > FROM)? When there is willing, I do believe that it is conditioned, that it > arises for reasons among which are desires, and these desires, in turn, arise due > to conditions. Do we mean that a choice is made not under duress, without > being forced to choose a particular way by threats? If so, then, yes, often there > is free will. But I don't think anyone will say that that is exactly what they > mean by 'free will'? Is it not possible that we really don't know what we > mean when we say "free will," and that it is more of a vague feeling than a well > understood concept? > > With metta, > Howard > A great debate in physics in the early 20th century revolved around whether there could be a scientific theory that could predict any future state of affairs given a known state of affairs. Einstein et al firmly did not want to believe that "God could play dice". He approached the cosmos in a deterministic way. Bohr et al had no such predilection. Hence theories of relativity and quantum mechanics. It seems there is evidence both for and against both of them. I would reckon it to be very worthwhile to examine notions such as free-will, to find out what substance there is to them. I would start of by making the following points: 1] To say that something is conditioned does not mean to say that it is determined. 2] The notion of free-will comes from the experience of indeterminacy. All the best Herman 28825 From: Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 3:19pm Subject: Vism.XIV 60 (3 of 4) [Note 26. ' "The heart-basis ... the support for the mind-element and for the mind-consciousness element"; how is that to be known? (i) From scriptures and (ii) from logical reasoning.] '(ii) But the logical reasoning should be understood in this way. In the five-constituent becoming, [that is, in the sense sphere and fine-material sphere,] these two elements [mind element and mind-consciousness element] have as their support produced (nipphanna) derived matter. Herein, since the visible-data base, etc., and nutritive essence, are found to occur apart from what is bound up with faculties, to make them the support would be illogical. And since these two elements are found in a continuity that is devoid of feminity and masculinity faculties [i.e. in the Brahmaa-world], to make them the support would be illogical too. And in the case of the life faculty that would have to have another function, so to make it the support would be illogical too. So it is the heart-basis that remains to be recognized as their support. For it is possible to say that these two elements have as their support produced derived matter, since existence is bound up with matter in the five-constituent becoming. Whatever has its existence bound up with matter is found to have as its support produced derived matter, as eye-consciousness-element does. And the distinction "in the five-constituent becoming" is made on account of the mind-consciousness-element; in the four-constituent becoming, [that is, the immaterial sphere,] there is no mind-element. Does there not follow contradiction of the middle term (hetu) because of establishing faculties as their support? No; because that is disproved by what is seen. For these two elements are not, as in the case of eye-consciousness, controlled by the slackness and keenness,etc., of their physical basis; and accordingly it is not said in the texts that they have the faculties as their condition. Hence their having faculties as their support, in other words, their being controlled by them, is disproved. 28826 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 3:42pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Views along the way Hi Nina, Nina: It was good you discovered in time that those temples were not the right place, and that is was I had heard too. Difficult to find a good temple. James: Yes, it didn't take me long to figure out that the forest temple in Thailand was not a good place. I stayed there one night and left the next day. I follow my instincts. I am sure that there are good temples as you say, but they are difficult to find. My parents won't give me permission (something required by the Buddha) to go searching all over the world for a good temple. I had one shot and that was it: That is what I promised them. I guess it is my karma not to be a monk anyway; I don't think I am supposed to be tucked away somewhere in complete seclusion. I want to be out in the world, helping and learning from many people. Nina: On the other hand, you have done many good deeds helping the temple so much near the place where you lived in the U.S.A. I was always happy to hear about what you did there, even helping with administration and cleaning up. James: Yea, I hope that Wat Promkunaram is doing well. There are many good monks who come and go from that temple. I did not ordain at that temple, even though I am very close to it, because it is not the sort of temple where novices ordain. Nina: I find it difficult what to say. I hear you say, I need meditation a lot because of my many defilements, but as to defilements, same, same. Everyone who studies the Dhamma more discovers that he has endless defilements. James: I'm sorry Nina, but you hear me wrong. That is not what I have stated. Please allow me to explain, I meditate because I want to know the truth, not because I want to rid myself of defilements. I don't have the goal to become a `perfect person'…that is way too `goody-goody' for me! ;-)) Defilements are just something that stand in the way of knowing the truth, so in that sense I would like to get rid of them; but probably not completely, I am too attached to some of my defilements, they define who I am, so I am stuck in a dilemma. What to do?? I can't have my cake and eat it too!! ;-)) If my goal was just to rid myself of defilements, as if I didn't like myself, it would be easy to proceed at this point, but that is not the case. I like myself for the most part just fine…I just don't like not knowing the truth. But you can't have both, you have to drop one to have the other. To me dukkha is mainly ignorance: not knowing the truth. Oh well, we will see how it goes. I take it day by day. Nina: We are all in the cycle, born because of ignorance, we all have the latent tendencies, so persistently adhering. As I often now discussed with Lodewijk, how powerful they are,uncontrollable, unforeseeable. We all need our own time for development and I believe this cannot be hurried. If we want to hurry, we may think that we progress, but in fact we go more slowly. James: Yes and no. I don't believe in the thinking, expressed quite often in this group, that it must take several lifetimes to become enlightened. That is not what the Buddha taught. The Buddha taught that anyone, regardless of their number of defilements (even Serial Killers! As Christine has noted), can become enlightened in just one lifetime. All one needs to do is follow the path to perfection. There is one caveat emptor to this however: one can not have committed any of the five cardinal sins (Panchanandriya kamma): Killing an Arahant, Killing your mother or father, causing a split in the Sangha, or causing physical harm to the Buddha; otherwise if the practice is right it will take either seven years for a dull person, seven months for an average person, and seven days for a very bright person. But the practice must be consistently good and correct. Me? I would be lucky to have even seven minutes of good and correct practice over the years! ;-)) But then again, I don't have an arahant to teach me….that makes a big difference. Now it is just the blind leading the blind for the most part (though I do respect my teachers, they are not arahants). Nina: Understandable that you were put off with Abhidhamma. Especially if you follow details as Larry and I study now. Details about rupa, and a way of reasoning which must seem complicated, with those dyads. James: As an educator, I know that some people learn best by details and some learn best by understanding/seeing the big picture before the introduction of details. I am one who must see the big picture first or I don't learn well. I have been drowning in the details of this group for over a year now! ;-)). Perhaps I have a better understanding of the big picture in regards to Abhidhamma and perhaps I don't, but I don't think I will ever be enamored with details like you and Sarah and others here. It is just not my learning style or my interest. Metta, James 28827 From: ashkenn2k Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 5:08pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Paññatti VS Paramattha: To Nina, Mike B And Ken O Hi Michael I beg to differ. There is whole world of difference when we talk about ancient commentaries and present commentaries. Are present commentaries enlighted to make such comments. To present: No. To ancient: Yes. The Commentaries if I am not wrong, originated either in the 1st or 2nd or 3rd Council. Hence we have to stick to anicent ones bc they know and not the present ones. Modern commentators can clarify ancient commentaries but they cannot change the substance or meaning of the commentaries. Presently some of the modern commentaries I have so far come across either reject ancient commentaries (partially or totally) or they interpret commentatories on their own inclination. Furthermore your dispute in on the ancient commentaries comment, so we are discussing ancient ones and not present ones. Honestly IMHO I could not be bother about modern ones, when I read certain part of the article, I have stopped reading bc I know this professor has also made his own personal opinion. I only read those clarify the meanings and not impose their own meanings. Kind rgds Ken O --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > Hello Ken. > > Ken: > In my personal opinion, let discuss this on the basis on the > commentary text and lets not put others writings into this > discussion. > > Michael: > Which commentary are you referring to? Any writings on the tipitaka is a > commentary whether ancient or not. > > Metta > Michael > > _________________________________________________________________ > Check your PC for viruses with the FREE McAfee online computer scan. > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 28828 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 5:58pm Subject: Re: Angulimala --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Robert, And Angulimala was 'accidentally' hit by people only 'accidentally' > throwing rocks and pots out the window? ... :-) ============= Dear Christine, I don't have access to the commentary right now but the main point was that he was occasionally hit by objects, but not becuase they were deliberately thrown at him. This abbreviated version on the web explains one incident. http://www.vipassana.info/h.htm Then, one day, while he was on an alms-round, he came to a place where some people were quarrelling among themselves. As they were throwing stones at one another, some stray stones hit Thera Angulimala on the head and he was seriously injured. Yet, he managed to come back to the Buddha, and the Buddha said to him, "My son Angulimala! You have done away with evil. Have patience. You are paying in this existence for the deeds you have done. These deeds would have made you suffer for innumerable years in niraya." Angulimala had in a past life been a man-eater, he had accumulations to savagery so that when his teacher asked him to kill his brutality had the opportunity to show itself. He also had great accumulations of wisdom so that when the Buddha spoke to him he could become enlightened. I think we are like him (minus the great wisdom part). When the opportunity arises we can do bad things. This life maybe we don't do so much, but a few lives from now we might become a hunter, or work in an abortion clinic, or as a butcher and kill every day? Samsara is like that. I think King Pasenadi was very wise to forgive Angulimala. Angulima was a monk, an enlightened one, he had goodwill to all and should have been given the greatest respect. If you could meet one such as Angulimala wouldn't it be wonderful to touch the ground with your head in front of him and worship. I just find the teachings on kamma and vipaka very compelling. So I think I can say if a murderer killed my family I would try to forgive him immediately. We don't have to look for justice or vengence because kamma gives its result. Instead we should should feel compassion for the killer : as they will experience the painful result of their actions in the future. RobertK > > A definition of "Just" is 'The rendering to every one his due or > right, just treatment, requital of desert, merited reward or > punishment, that which is due to one's conduct or motives.' The > definition of "vengeance" is 'retaliation for hurt or harm done to > oneself or to a person whom one supports.' > I am talking about 'justice', not vengeance. A country is a safe > place to live in because its citizens can rely on being treated > equally before the Law, and on being protected by the authorities. > > King Pasenadi was the head of the country of Kosala - responsible for > the welfare of all those under his rule - and he wasn't doing too > well - 999 people in a very small area had been murdered, by a person > so vicious that even groups of up to twenty or thirty men were > relentlessly killed. Whole towns had been de-populated. This is not > a person who killed impulsively out of passion - this is a person so > violent and pitiless that he could listen to the screams and begging > of his victims and continue on and on through hundreds and hundreds > of people. It is hard to kill a person, it isn't a clean, clinical > exercise. When a person is dying in pain and fear, there are horrible > sounds, sights and smells. 28829 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 9:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Space element Dear Htoo, op 08-01-2004 13:53 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > > Thanks for your reply. I have studied that in formation of Rupa > Kalapa, 4 Lakkhana Rupa and Akasa are not counted as components of > Kalapa. I have a rough idea of space. Without which all will mix up. > But in Rupa Kalapa, Akasa or space is not included. Am I wrong to > take that? I am looking forward to hearing from you. N: Space is without its own distinct nature, asabhava rupa. Its function is delimiting the kalapas, and it is also called: pariccheda (boundary) rupa. It arises simultaneously with the different groups of rupa it surrounds. Space comes into being whenever the groups of rupa are produced by the four factors, and thus, it is regarded as originating from these four factors. Nina. 28830 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 9:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV 59 Hi Larry, op 29-12-2003 00:39 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Does the life faculty maintain any consciounesses? N: We talked before about it that there is rupa-jivitindriya and nama-jivitindriya, which is a cetasika, one of the seven universals arising with each citta. Rupa-jivitindriya only maintains conascent kinds of matter, it does not maintain nama. L:What about the > formless realm? N: no rupa-jivitindriya. L:Is the life faculty the same for plants? N: See former post on plants. These are not produced by kamma, no life faculty. Nina. 28831 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 9:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] life-faculty, explanation op 30-12-2003 06:14 schreef nina van gorkom op nilo@e...: > Dear Larry, This was in the wrong file and I am not sure I sent it before. Sorry for confusion. > some explanations of footnote 25. > note 25. 'Since the life faculty is itself entirely kamma-born it is > established, by taking them as conascent, that the things to be > protected by it are kamma-born too; this is why there is no inclusion of > the term "kamma-born". > N: The rupas conascent with life faculty are in one group that originates > from kamma. Thus there is no need to say that the other rupas that are > conascent are also originating from kamma. > > 'It maintains as if it were its own that > kamma-born matter by being the cause of its occurrence even though only > lasting for a moment; that is why it has the characteristic of > maintaining conascent kinds of matter. For kamma alone is not competent > to be the cause of kamma-born things' presence, as nutriment, etc., are > of the nutriment-born.' > N: Kamma is past kamma and is since long fallen away. But life-faculty > maintains the other rupas in the group originated from kamma. U Narada: does not relate by the force of production>, thus, it is not the same as the > way the factors of nutrition, heat and citta produce the other rupas in > their respective groups. These rupas produced by them are compared to a > child with the mother alive, maintained by physical life-faculty, is compared to the motherless child > maintained by a wet-nurse.> > > ' "Because it does accomplish each of those functions": it does so > because it is a condition for distinguishing what is living. For it is > the life faculty that distinguishes matter that is bound up with > faculties from dead matter, and kamma-born matter and what is bound up > with that from matter that is temperature originated, and so on.' > > N: Kamma-born matter is not only different from dead matter but also from > materiality produced by the three other factors of heat, nutrition, citta. > > 'And the life faculty must be regarded as the reason not only for > presence during a moment but also for non-interruption of connexion; > otherwise death as the termination of a life span would be illogical' > > N: The groups of rupa with life-faculty fall away but they are replaced > throughout life until death occurs. > Pm. 448). 28832 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 9:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] life-faculty, swimmingpool meditation Hi Howard, I was delayed. About temperature, element of heat, see former post. About elements: "The dispeller of > delusion" under the classification of elements > "As regards pathavidhatu ("earth element") and so on, the meaning > of the element has the meaning of "nature" (sabhava) and the meaning > of nature has the meaning of "voidness" (sunna) and the meaning of > voidness has the meaning of "not a being" (nissatta). Thus it is the > element that is only earth element in the sense of nature, voidness > and not a being that is the earth element." op 30-12-2003 20:29 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > Moreover, "dead matter" isn't a single rupa, is it? There must be much > here > that I am missing. N: All rupas that are not produced by kamma, citta, nutrition. We use the word dead matter to denote them, in Pali mata rupa. Mata is dead. >> N: Life faculty is a subtle rupa, it can be known only through the >> mind-door. It cannot be touched or seen. H: In what way is it known through the mind door? As a direct object of > mano-vi~n~nana (as a paramattha dhamma), or by inference (as a concept)? N: By insight wisdom this subtle rupa can be realized through the mind-door. When we at this moment think about it, we know only a concept, not this reality. H: I find > the notion of direct mind-door awareness (and not following upon a sense-door > process) perplexing, but very interesting. N: Even if there is no awareness, there can be, without there being first a sense-door process, a mind-door process of cittas which think of concepts. Why would there always be a sense-door process before a mind-door process. H:I know that awareness of the > "water element" (i.e. fluidity/cohesion) is said to fall into this category. N: Only through the mind-door. Nina. 28833 From: Eznir Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 9:12pm Subject: Re: Angulimala Dear Christine, This lifetime that we are now experiencing is just an example of the countless number of times we must have been rebecoming in the past, and its duration is just a wink of an eye when compared to that of a lifespan of a 100 years (I speculate)! Therefore we are judging the actions made by Arahat Angulimala in just this 'eye-wink' period. And it so happens that he became an Arahat too during this period, which would have been the result of his actions done in the past, ie., the period other than this 'eye- wink'period (samsara). As the Lord Buddha says that Kamma and it's retributions cannot be thought, since this whole 'life-span of 100 years - samsara' has to be seen (or to the extent that one is capable of seeing), we are not in a position to judge Arahat Angulimala's actions in just this period of his lifetime. That is why the Lord Buddha (who could see some 92 eons into his own past!), having seen the 'paramis' of Angulimala, interwined in the nick of time, before he could commit the murder of his own Mother to complete the 'finger-chain' of a 1000 fingers to fulfill the aspirations of his Teacher! As otherwise he would be condemned to a place of woe when he dies for committing one of the 5 unpardonable actions! What one could learn from this is that, even to one's own Teacher, one should pay wise attention, and not follow blindly just because he was one's Teacher! May you be happy! Eznir 28834 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 11:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction cum 1st posting on Truth & Paramatthas Dear Eznir, Welcome to DSG! --- rinze randeniye wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > I am new to your group and hope that our correspondence will benefit > mutually. I came across your group when browsing through the web. I > thought that I could be of use here. .... Looking at your two messages so far, I'm sure you can be of great use here;-) I particularly liked your comments on this lifetime being a mere 'wink of an eye' in samsara. I can tell that you have a lot of familiarity with the Buddha's teachings. ... > Please find my response to a posting by Kenneth. Sometimes my positings > are quite abrupt and precise! But rest assured they are written in good > faith and utmost sincerety .... Well, you've made a good start and we look forward to hearing plenty more from you. It's true that we greatly encourage courtesy and friendliness here, but there's no indication you'll have any difficulty. .... > K:"Truth is definitely subjective and relative, what you think is truth > and what I think may differ." > > Precisely! And the Truths that is being discussed here are those as seen > by Lord Buddha and his Noble Disciples. Therefore there will always be a > difference of opinions as long as we do not see the Dhamma as been seen > by Lord Buddha! > > When our differences in opinion narrows down and ultimately coincides > with that of Lord Buddha it is then that we understand and see the > Dhamma as it should be seen. .... All your points are good ones. If you feel inclined, we'd all be grateful for any other background you care to share with us, such as where you live or studied the teachings. Metta and thanks for posting, Sarah p.s DSG is backed up (not quite from the start) at: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/ (Also useful for searches) Archives also backed up from the very beginning on word documents at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/ (useful for searches and off-line reading,not quite up to date) ====== 28835 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 11:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: Bangkok Meeting Dear Nina, Chuck & All, --- Charles Thompson wrote: > Dear Nina, et al > > A very warm thank you. > > Unfortunately, I am not that lucky Chuck. A real miss on my part. > .... ;-) I think I asked the same qu before as well, getting confused with 2 American Chucks in the group that visit Bkk. Nina, you may like to look at this helpful post Chuck T sent before: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m12421.html .... > I do look forward to meeting you and all my many virtual friends from > whom I learned so much as your "lurker" member. .... We all look forward to meeting you too. Like Nina, I hope you de-lurk more in future too, but glad you learn so much;-) We're just in the process of finalizing our plans - we're going off to a beach for a few days beforehand, but will be back for all the discussion sessions with K.Sujin, Nina and everyone. Ken O, hope your plans are working out. RobK and Azita, sorry you can't make it this time. Metta, Sarah ====== 28836 From: Egberdina Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 11:46pm Subject: Satipatthana Hi everybody, A serious question to all, if I may. No need to reply if not inclined to do so, but please consider the question if inclined to do so. Is the intended audience for the satipatthana sutta the wordling as found on this list? Are the foundations of mindfulness cultivated while choosing the choicest fruit in the shops, getting cash out of the ATM, navigating through traffic on the streets, talking to friends, working for the boss, being involved involved in loving relationships etc. Or is the sattipatthana sutta intended for one withdrawn from the world? All the best Herman 28837 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 11:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Question Re: Stage Hypnotism Hi Simon, It's good to see your post. --- dragonwriter2 wrote: > Hi, > Hypnotised subjects of stage hypnotism after the show often report > experiencing one of two responses. > > 1. Being totally aware of their actions but being unable to stop > themselves. > > 2. Total amnesia of the event that occured. > > How would the teachings of the Abhidhamma explain these responses > and stage hypnotism in general. ..... I don't have any answers except to say 'conditions, conditions'. In other words, as a result of various causes any kinds of strange or unusual results can occur in namas and rupas arising. For example, we're used to cittas while dreaming leading to sleep-walking and talking effects with either some kind of awareness or total amnesia afterwards. Sometimes we can guide the movements of these people verbally. We're also used to strange effects while taking drugs, under anaesthesia, for some in meditation or deep relaxation and so on. As James said, best not to be attached to special effects or responses but to understand any namas and rupas as conditioned by a variety of causes that only a Buddha can fully comprehend. I'm sorry that this probably isn't what you're looking for.Maybe others can help more. Hope to hear more from you. Metta, Sarah ======= 28838 From: Sarah Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 0:03am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Paññatti VS Paramattha: To Nina, Mike B And Ken O Hi Michael. --- Michael Beisert wrote: >And one of the suttas that I have in the box of the ‘most > > liked’ is the Ambalatthikarahulovada Sutta – MN 61, where the Buddha > advises > his son Rahula on the criteria to decide if something is worthwhile > saying > (doing, thinking as well ) or not. And one of the criteria is not > causing > affliction to others. .... Yes, many good reminders in this sutta. .... > >Michael: > >Yes and no. On a person to person basis it is easier to gauge emotions > and > >know when it is wise to say something or just keep quiet. In a list it > is > >much harder. I try my best to use language in a way which is beneficial > to > >the listener as well. Not always successful I have to concede but I > try. In > >a list as I said it is harder. ..... I'm sure none of us get it right all the time, but I appreciate your efforts and considerations in this regard. Metta, Sarah ====== 28839 From: Sarah Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 0:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Samyutta Corner - Remedy for festive over-indulgence Hi Christine, James, Herman, Michael & All, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Group, > > For those who over-indulged in the holiday season - astute advice > from the lips of the Buddha. Don't you just love King Pasenadi? He > is so REAL, and if he could transport across two and a half thousand > years, he'd be so natural, just like the man next to you in the > supermarket line! .... ;-) He certainly shares all our mundane dullard difficulties. I’m following my hobby-horse and introducing SN3-11, Seven Ja.tilas (Bodhi transl), which follows on from the threads about judging others. King Pasenadi is very impressed by various ascetics included the matted hair ascetics (ja.tilas) and Jains that pass by. He goes to pay respects and tells them three times that he is King Pasenadi of Kosala. There’s no indication of whether they are impressed by him, but they soon pass on. Afterwards the King suggests to the Buddha that all those ascetics should be included amongst the arahants. The Buddha is certainly not impressed : “Great king, being a layman who enjoys sensual pleasures, dwelling in a home crowded with children, enjoying the use of Kaasian sandalwood, wearing garlands, scents, and unguents, receiving gold and silver, it is difficult for you to know: ‘These are arahants or these have entered upon the path to arahantship.’ “It is by living together with someone, great king, that his virtue is to be known, and that after a long time, not after a short time; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is wise, not by a dullard.” ***** He goes on to say that it is by dealing with someone, that his honesty is to be known with the same provisos, in adversities that a person’s fortitude is to be known and only by discussion that his wisdom is to be known. Finally, after a suggestion that the King’s spies might be considered as thieves, the Buddha recited these verses: “A man is not easily known by outward form Nor should one trust a quick appraisal, for in the guise of the well controlled Uncontrolled men move in this world. “Like a counterfeit earring made of clay, Like a bronze half-pence coated with gold, Some move about in disguise: Inwardly impure, outwardly beautiful.” ***** Metta, Sarah ===== 28840 From: connie Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 0:51am Subject: Re: Angulimala Hi Christine, CF: A definition of "Just" is 'The rendering to every one his due or right, just treatment, requital of desert, merited reward or punishment, that which is due to one's conduct or motives.' The definition of "vengeance" is 'retaliation for hurt or harm done to oneself or to a person whom one supports.' I am talking about 'justice', not vengeance. A country is a safe place to live in because its citizens can rely on being treated equally before the Law, and on being protected by the authorities. CP: A fine line sometimes when vengeance is built into the criminal code... the whole question of punishment vs reform. And our man was definitely reformed. I think the equal treatment before social law is nice in theory, but it doesn't work out that way. You can break the law countless times before you're caught and even then, the police can use discretion and look the other way or let you off with just a warning or make a deal with you to become a paid informant or or or... they might not have a good enough case against you, you get off on a technicality, you're pardoned, you're found guilty even though you didn't do it... blah, blah... it's not certain justice. The kamma cops might not get you right away, but you know they've got a nice case file. Angulimala is an extreme example and it does seem like he got away with it, but when you remember that most of our day is spent piling up more akusala than kusala, it's kinda nice to think that there's the possibility of tipping the scales and sliding off... otherwise, I believe that with the Dhammic Law, justice is certain... even if it might seem more capricious insofar as we don't know what kammas lead to what results or when. "What did I ever do to deserve this?" My daughter used to say "it's not fair" and didn't think it was funny when I'd tell her "it just is, fairs are for judging cows". Ideally, we shouldn't need to be protected by any outside human authority, but would all know that it's our own behavior and thinking that gets us. The idea of an outside agency/other, especially one as fallible as other humans, as the moral enforcer is something of a disservice in that respect. CF: King Pasenadi was the head of the country of Kosala - responsible for the welfare of all those under his rule - and he wasn't doing too well - 999 people in a very small area had been murdered, by a person so vicious that even groups of up to twenty or thirty men were relentlessly killed. Whole towns had been de-populated. This is not a person who killed impulsively out of passion - this is a person so violent and pitiless that he could listen to the screams and begging of his victims and continue on and on through hundreds and hundreds of people. It is hard to kill a person, it isn't a clean, clinical exercise. When a person is dying in pain and fear, there are horrible sounds, sights and smells. This man wasn't deflected by anything - gotta make the quota. This story is not a fantasy in a book, a jataka, a morality tale, about a situation where people's reactions would be any different than if the incident was transferred into this day and age. If your children, parents, and wife had been murdered - because someone wanted their thumbs - a really important reason, eh? - but you were told the murderer was now 'kind', and had 'seen the light' - and the perpetrator wasn't going to be brought to account in any way - would you say 'Oh, he's kind now you say? bless 'im, that's all right then'. C'mon, Robert .... CP: Hmmm... crimes of passion... special category... calls for a different kind of protection/justice than a cold-blooded one. True even under Dhammic Law... that intent thing. But what was in his mind? He was doing what his teacher required of him... back to the bomber pilot or whoever pushes the button and threatens my reality. I'm not sure how vicious he was. I don't remember reading how he killed, but some methods are quicker/more merciful than others. Interesting, I think, that he was Ahimsaka before he was But what's the difference in how dead someone is whether it's for a thumb or a fortune or just to see them dead... or even to liberate a country? And how long is dead when the consciousness leaves the puppet? And what is is we think we're protecting, really? I never used to understand my mother telling me not to hate the men who would beat her up and that I should feel 'bad' for them instead and it took a long time to figure that out... that we all have to live with ourselves and any time I hate someone, they probably couldn't care less even if they did know, but that I was hurting myself... all those things an enemy would wish upon an enemy that anger does. CF: I always wondered why, if he wasn't enjoying the thrill of the kill, he didn't just say "Your thumb or your life?" - most people would have been reasonable... http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/ay/angulimaala.htm CP: Maybe there was some social stigma attached to having missing fingers from your right hand and some people's pride would've said, "I'd rather be dead"? In any case, they weren't screaming and giving him away to the posse if they were already dead... and wouldn't come back with their friends looking for him or describe him to the authorities, who weren't supposed to know who they were looking for. Maybe his teacher said they had to be dead? I always wondered why he couldn't take all the fingers off one hand, but if it was just thumbs, that answers that. CF: And Angulimala was 'accidentally' hit by people only 'accidentally' throwing rocks and pots out the window? ... :-) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- CP: two thumbs up, connie 28841 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 0:53am Subject: Re: Samyutta Corner - Remedy for festive over-indulgence Hi Sarah, Nice Sutta, I am glad that you brought it up. I see that you paraphrased some parts to make it briefer, so is it okay if others follow suit? Some suttas can get rather lengthy. One small note: You wrote, "Finally, after a suggestion that the King's spies might be considered as thieves, the Buddha recited these verses:" This is not quite correct. What the sutta states is that after the Buddha told the King that one could not judge the ascetics by their appearance, the King rejoiced and revealed that those ascetics which had just passed were actually his spies in disguise who went into the land to gather information for him and that they were not true ascetics. The Buddha recognized this of course. So the King was kind of testing the Buddha I guess and he passed. Metta, James 28842 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 0:58am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hi James, On the subject of 'trying to concentrate,' you wrote: ------------- > This is not true. The meditator is not concentrating on pannatti, the meditator is concentrating on paramattha dhamma. -------------- As Herman has pointed out, concentration, in the conventional sense, cannot grasp anything that lasts less than one hundredth of a second. So, if there is to be perception of dhammas, who is it that will do the perceiving? It cannot be you or I, in the conventional sense of 'living beings'; it can only be you or I in the ultimate sense -- of those same, fleeting paramattha dhammas. Only dhammas know dhammas. -------------- J: > It is a bare awareness of arising and falling phenomena, without cognition, and it is therefore concentration of paramattha dhamma. Who says that any attempt at concentration automatically involves cognition? -------------- Sorry James, I don't follow that. According to my understanding, every moment in time involves cognition (experience, consciousness). I had been suggesting that 'trying to concentrate' must involve thinking -- conceptualising. Have you ever tried to concentrate on breathing (or on some part of the body), and not had, at the same time, a concept of what you are concentrating on? Another point you took issue with was my assertion that 'trying' (and 'not-trying'), will never amount to satipatthana -- as explained in the Flood-crossing sutta we recently studied. You wrote: ---------------- > This isn't a `theory' of Htoo, this is what the Buddha taught. But since you want some proof of `trying' from the Tipitaka, here is some pretty strong proof: "And what, monks, is right effort? [i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of ----------------- I know you haven't liked it in the past, but I am going to fall back on my standard reply: "The Dhamma is deep, profound, directly-understood only by the wise." The Buddha taught anatta and, in doing so, he taught a reality that is beyond the understanding of uninstructed worldlings. In the quoted case, where a monk generates desire, there is no monk and there is no concept of 'trying to generate desire;' there are only dhammas. Dhammas don't try; as mere, conditioned phenomena, they are indifferent -- uncaring. These fleeting, unsatisfactory, uncaring phenomena are the realities taught by the Buddha. In this sutta, he taught the reality known as samma-vayama, right effort. On the outside -- in the conventional world created by thinking -- there is a monk and it seems as if that monk has control over the arising or non-arising of right effort. You argue that this is the same reality the Buddha taught but it isn't. In other suttas, the Buddha has told us to see past the conventional language he employs. This is why we have Abhidhamma and commentaries; they enable us (intellectually, at least), to understand the conventional language of the suttas in a way that is consistent with the (unconventional) doctrine of anatta. ------------- J: > I think this quote from the Buddha shows that trying is an important element of Buddhism. ------------- The quote doesn't mention trying, it describes the arising, and the functioning, of right effort. There is a big difference. Kind regards, Ken H 28843 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 1:04am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Dear Htoo, Thanks for trying to make sense of my message. Did my reply to James clarify? That is, did it explain my reservations about 'conventional concentration' and about the efficacy of 'trying to meditate?' You also questioned my comments about lobha as 'an appropriate object of right mindfulness': ------------- > Htoo : Here, I do not understand your idea. Meditators are trying to tame their mind. They are trying to suppress their Lobha. They are trying to eradicate Lobha if possible. ------------- I think the supression of lobha was the aim of meditators prior to the Buddha's teaching but isn't that practice obsolete now? Vipassana, as you know, is very different from jhana. It takes any presently arisen dhamma as its object. If there is akusala citta with craving, then akusala citta with craving (or simply craving or any other present dhamma), becomes a potential object of vipassana. So there is need to suppress lobha. More to the point, there is no need to 'try' to have right mindfulness. It arises when the conditions are right. And those conditions do not include 'trying.' Please correct me if I am wrong. Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > Dear Ken H, > > Thanks for your post replying to me. Some points are not clear to my > knowledge but I try to my best and see them below,please. > > 28844 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 1:15am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hi Herman, ---------- H: > I am rewriting some of the sentences you have written. Hope you don't mind. ---------- Not at all. I think you've done a great job. ----------- KH : > As we all know, H: > As some of us have been taught and have accepted ----------- And are proud to admit it! :-) ----------- KH: > satipatthana takes a nama or a rupa as its object. Such a phenomenon exists for less than one billionth of a second; H: > some of us take such a phenomena to last less than a billionth of a second. There are others who acknowledge that events lasting less than one hundredth of a second do not register anywhere ----------- Are those 'others' Dhamma students? Or are they exclusively conventional-science students? (By the way, has an alternative duration-period, for paramattha dhammas, been suggested anywhere?) ------------ KH: > it cannot be an object of the kind of > concentration you and I are familiar with (that is, > conventional concentration). > H: > some us have been taught and accept that it cannot be the object of concentration. Others have been taught it and do not accept it. There are still more permutations possible along these lines. ------------- All right, but what did the Buddha teach? Isn't that all that matters? Who cares what Herman or Ken accepts or doesn't accept? No one! (apart from Herman or Ken) ------------- KH: > > We have to remember that the flood is not crossed by > trying (or by not trying). H: > Some of us have been taught, and accept that trying or not trying is not possible. Others understand that one cannot remember things that are not known. ------------ Do we remember the sutta in which 'crossing the flood' is taught? That would be a good start. ----------- KH: > When, for example, the > meditator is trying to concentrate, the object of his > consciousness is pannatti, not paramattha dhamma. So > there is no satipatthana at that precise moment. > H: > some of us have digested so much theory that anything that is not experienced in terms of theory does not register and is not experienced. ----------- Hmmm, that's one theory. I prefer to think that theoretical understanding leads to direct understanding (providing the theory is right). ----------- KH : > Presumably, you are saying that 'trying' can condition > satipatthana to arise in a subsequent mind moment. Is > there any evidence, anywhere in the Tipitaka, to support > this theory? H: > I would need to see what I believe you are saying written in a book that I like before I choose to accept it. ----------- Enough about accept/don't-accept; let's just learn what the Buddha taught. The trouble with you, Herman, is you think you have time. (Where have I heard that before?) :-) ----------- KH: > > As a conditioned nama, craving can be the object of > satipatthana. So, rather than fight against it, right > mindfulness will welcome lobha. > H: > The fighting nama will become a welcoming nama if there is a mindful nama. ------------ Well, that is a rewrite, but I'm not sure it's an improvement. :-) ------------- KH: > > Kind regards, > Ken H H: The following is not a changing of your well-wishing or name. I quite like them :-) All the best Herman ---------- Hooray! :-) Kind regards, Ken H 28845 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 1:15am Subject: Question Re: Stage Hypnotism Hi Simon, Since Sarah mentioned me in this post I am going to throw my two cents in. I didn't answer your original question because you asked about stage hypnotism in regards to the Abhidhamma. I am not an expert in that regard. In my opinion and limited experience, stage hypnotism is a complete fake. No one is really hypnotized to do things they can't control or can't remember. If you will watch carefully at the beginning of the hypnotist's routine, he or she, after supposedly hypnotizing everyone, people who have already volunteered to be hypnotized, will make various suggestions for them to follow. Those who don't follow these suggestions will be immediately dismissed from the stage for the supposed reason of being `hard to hypnotize'. No, in other words they wouldn't play along with the show after all. Those who remain are the exhibitionist types who don't mind doing crazy things for a laugh, especially if they don't have to be held accountable. There is also a certain amount of peer pressure and group dynamics at play. At the end the hypnotist will sometimes say that those involved will forget everything that happened, so when they are done they say they forgot everything that happened. But they really didn't. I had a student who participated in a stage hypnotism act, at the high school prom, who was in my drama club (a perfect candidate!). He did all kinds of crazy things and then told everyone that he couldn't remember what he had done. I got him alone at one point and told him to tell me the truth, which I wouldn't tell any of his friends, and he confessed to me that he knew and remembered everything that happened, and had complete control the whole time, but went along with it anyway because it was fun. So there ya go, it is a complete fake in my opinion. However, hypnotism to recall past lives, forgotten memories, and subliminal suggestions (like to quit smoking, etc.), in the privacy between a hyponist and a client, may not be a fake. There is much evidence to prove it to work, but not in all cases. Metta, James 28846 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 1:23am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/KenH Hiya KenH, (and Herman), Only one thing I don't understand in your reply to Herman - was that Hooray! as in Hooroo! ... or was that Hooray! as in Hurrah!? (Just a little joke for those of us living in the basement of the world:-)) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: <<>> > Hi Herman, > H: The following is not a changing of your well-wishing > or name. I quite like them :-) > All the best > > Herman > ---------- > > Hooray! :-) > Kind regards, > Ken H 28847 From: Sarah Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 1:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samyutta Corner - Remedy for festive over-indulgence Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Nice Sutta, I am glad that you brought it up. I see that you > paraphrased some parts to make it briefer, so is it okay if others > follow suit? Some suttas can get rather lengthy. .... You're in charge;-) I think I'll have to paraphrase sometimes. I looked to see if I could find an on-line link but couldn't. .... > One small note: You wrote, "Finally, after a suggestion that the > King's spies might be considered as thieves, the Buddha recited these > verses:" This is not quite correct. What the sutta states is that > after the Buddha told the King that one could not judge the ascetics > by their appearance, the King rejoiced and revealed that those > ascetics which had just passed were actually his spies in disguise > who went into the land to gather information for him and that they > were not true ascetics. The Buddha recognized this of course. So > the King was kind of testing the Buddha I guess and he passed. .... Thank you very much for this good summary. I had skimmed through these vital lines which you have now clarified nicely. When I mentioned thieves, I was looking at the note 222 which gives a discussion of spies and thieves in different editions. I agree that the cryptic paraphrase was unclear and not quite correct. Metta, Sarah ====== 28848 From: Sarah Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 1:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Extolling, disparaging & teaching Dhamma Hi Andrew, I’ve just got round to looking at this interesting sutta. --- Andrew wrote: > Hi folks > I have just read the Exposition of Non-Conflict (Aranavibhanga Sutta, > MN139)and found some aspects of the Buddha's exposition to the monks > perplexing. Maybe someone has some thoughts on these points: > 1. Buddha said "One should know what it is to extol and what it is to > disparage, and knowing both, one should neither extol nor disparage > but should teach only the Dhamma". This seems to imply that teaching > Dhamma never involves extolling or disparaging. The sutta gives > examples of extolling and disparaging which take the form of "those > who do X are on the right way" and "those who do Y are on the wrong > way". Teaching Dhamma takes the form of "the doing of X is a state > without suffering and it is the right way". > Was Buddha simply telling the monks that they should discuss/debate > doctrinal points in non-inflammatory language? .... He seems to be recommending not making the comments ‘personal’. I think it’s apparent, on DSG and in everyday life, that there’s a difference -- and an inflammatory/non-inflammatory one as you suggest -- between saying ‘you are wise/unwise’ and ‘such a pursuit or way is wise/unwise’. It would have been helpful for me to have read and considered this before one or two comments I made to my brother about lifestyles and so on. Still, mostly it wasn't too personal. .... >Or can we read > something deeper into this? Is this authority for the view that > Dhamma is purely descriptive rather than prescriptive [an oldie but a > goodie]? .... I think the ‘something deeper’ is that there truly is no self. No me or you that is wise/unwise, but various states and conditions which lead to different results. A description, as you say, of realities in effect. .... > 2. Buddha also said "one should not insist on local language, and one > should not override normal usage". This is explained along the lines > of, if I say "tomato sauce" and you say "ketchup", I should not > insist that only "tomato sauce" is correct. > That doesn't seem very profound, does it - and yet it is. Language > can be very divisive eg the battle in Norway earlier last century > between 2 dialects of Norwegian that saw people sacked for > pronouncing the word "snow" differently. I can only imagine that the > Sangha had a smattering of "grammar-dictators" at the time, people > who were attached to their language/dialect and wanted to impose it > on others? Flexibility helps condition non-conflict. Even on humble > DSG, I think, this can be displayed by not insisting on the use of > English or Pali terms, for example. .... Yes, obviously the message is more helpful if it is in language which is relavant to the listener. It can be difficult sometimes on DSG, I find. I may be writing to one friend in ‘tomato sauce’ language, but a ‘ketchup’ person is also reading and might object to the sauce. Sometimes I’m just in a rush or lazy and use what’s easiest at the time, ie namas and rupas without more ado;-) ... > I hope you have found these thoughts of interest. ... I’m also reflecting now on the one about how ‘the speech of one who speaks hurriedly is a state beset by suffering, vexation, despair, and fever, and it is the wrong way.’ So often here, like now, I write hurriedly, make mistakes (as James just helped me with), and sometimes later can feel quite feverish if I find there are too many typos or other errors;-( “Here, bhikkhus, when one speaks hurriedly, one’s body grows tired and one’s mind becomes excited, one’s voice is strained and one’s throat becomes hoarse, and the speech of one who speaks unhurriedly is distinct and easy to understand.” Yes, this is what I need to remind myself about in my work and all my rushed activities. Many thanks, Metta, Sarah p.s Do you also have a copy of Samyutta Nikaya, Andrew? ===== 28849 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 3:36am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hi Ken, Ken: As Herman has pointed out, concentration, in the conventional sense, cannot grasp anything that lasts less than one hundredth of a second. James: First, my impression is that Herman was teasing you, and the Abhidhamma to some extent. He is not to be taken seriously in this regard. Second, I am not going to debate if phenomena last one billionth of a second or one hundredth of a second, I think that is just plain silly. It doesn't matter and there isn't even modern equipment sophisticated enough to measure such events, do you think they had such equipment in the Buddha's time? (I am reminded of the Professor from `Gilligan's Island' who would always make outrageously sophisticated equipment out of some wires and coconut shells! LOL!;- ). Let me explain this in terms of my experience first and then later in this post I will quote from the Buddha. Phenomena arise and fall in various durations at various levels, like in layers. For example, the pyramids have been pretty much intact for over five thousand years but eventually they will pass away like everything else. However, even the pyramids are composed of phenomena which are arising and passing away by the second (or less). This same fact of life is true for the body and the mind as well. Some sensations in the body are gross and last for a long duration and can be easily known, but these gross sensations are composed of even finer sensations that arise and fall at a quicker rate and require more concentration to know (rupas). Also, the mind has moments and thoughts that are of a long duration and can be known quite easily, and these moments and thoughts are composed of even smaller moments that arise and fall that require more concentration to know (like cittas). It is not necessary to have the power of concentration to know each individual citta and rupa of the body at first, one should start with the gross sensations and thoughts. As the concentration becomes stronger and finer, like a microscope, the smaller moments can be known. Can these very fast arising and falling cittas and rupas be eventually known with concentration, even though that may last one hundred billion zillion quadrillionth of a second? ;-) Sure, how do you think they came up with that wonderful Abhidhamma? ;- ) Ken: So, if there is to be perception of dhammas, who is it that will do the perceiving? It cannot be you or I, in the conventional sense of 'living beings'; it can only be you or I in the ultimate sense -- of those same, fleeting paramattha dhammas. Only dhammas know dhammas. James: Correct! What is the problem? One practices from when it is a person knowing gross phenomena until it is only dhammas knowing dhammas. Ken: I had been suggesting that 'trying to concentrate' must involve thinking -- conceptualising. Have you ever tried to concentrate on breathing (or on some part of the body), and not had, at the same time, a concept of what you are concentrating on? James: Yes, each time I meditate, but it took years of practice to get to that point. That is what I mean by `bare awareness', there is no conceptualizing. Ken: I know you haven't liked it in the past, but I am going to fall back on my standard reply: "The Dhamma is deep, profound, directly- understood only by the wise." James: I don't recall you telling me this in the past but if you did, and it appeared like I didn't `like it' and responded negatively, I apologize. To me what you are strongly implying is that you are wise and that I am not. That is okay, I don't claim to be wise. Actually, I know that I am quite ignorant. I think that we all are quite ignorant. And if you think you are wiser than me, okay. No reason to take a vote on it! ;-)) I am just expressing my opinion, sharpening my mind with healthy debate, and keeping my interest in the dhamma strong and active. I am not trying to convince you or anyone of my wisdom (or lack thereof) Ken: The Buddha taught anatta and, in doing so, he taught a reality that is beyond the understanding of uninstructed worldlings. In the quoted case, where a monk generates desire, there is no monk and there is no concept of 'trying to generate desire;' there are only dhammas. Dhammas don't try; as mere, conditioned phenomena, they are indifferent -- uncaring. James: Do you realize that you are putting words in the Buddha's mouth? You are saying, "I know that this is what the Buddha said but this is not what he really meant. What he really meant is… blah, blah, blah." What? I cannot possibly respond to this. You asked for a quote to demonstrate `trying' in the Tipitaka, I provide you the quote and you state that it doesn't mean what it clearly states. What am I supposed to do now? I could just give up like Michael but I have some time on my hands today so let's trudge on! ;-) Ken: On the outside -- in the conventional world created by thinking - - there is a monk and it seems as if that monk has control over the arising or non-arising of right effort. You argue that this is the same reality the Buddha taught but it isn't. In other suttas, the Buddhahas told us to see past the conventional language he employs. This is why we have Abhidhamma and commentaries; they enable us (intellectually, at least), to understand the conventional language of the suttas in a way that is consistent with the (unconventional) doctrine of anatta. James: Yes, now that I more fully understand the Abhidhamma I will agree with you that it is an excellent method of understanding more clearly the two truths: the conventional truth and the ultimate truth. Unfortunately, the mistake you are making, and I don't think was intended by the framers of the Abhidhamma, is your thinking that conventional truth is false and that only the ultimate truth is true. This is not correct, THEY ARE BOTH TRUE!! Wrap your mind around that a bit and get back to me. ;-) Ken: The quote doesn't mention trying, it describes the arising, and the functioning, of right effort. There is a big difference. James: Again, you refuse to see the reality of the two truths. Let's take Howard's Tree for example, I could point to Howard's tree and tell you, "That's Howard's Tree" you would say, "No, that is a conglomeration of rupas processed by cittas." I would say, "Yeah, and it is Howard's Tree also." You would say, "No it is not and if you had more wisdom you would know it is not." And then I would have to string you up on Howard's Tree to show you how real it is! LOL! (Just kidding…really ;-)). Metta, James Ps. Oh, I forgot that quote by the Buddha about concentration I promised, here you go (not that it will do much good anyway, you think that he usually didn't REALLY mean what he said): "(3) "And what is the development of concentration that... leads to mindfulness & alertness? There is the case where feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness. (4) "And what is the development of concentration that... leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the five clinging- aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an04- 041.html 28850 From: Eznir Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 2:33am Subject: Ambalatthikarahulovada Sutta MN 61 Dear Michael & Friends! 28789\Michael: And one of the suttas that I have in the box of the `most liked' is the Ambalatthikarahulovada Sutta MN 61, where the Buddha advises his son Rahula on the criteria to decide if something is worthwhile saying (doing, thinking as well ) or not. And one of the criteria is not causing affliction to others. "How do you construe this, Rahula: What is a mirror for?" "For reflection, sir." "In the same way, Rahula, bodily acts, verbal acts, and mental acts are to be done with repeated reflection. "Whenever you want to perform a bodily/verbal/mental act..........., While you are performing a bodily/verbal/mental act................, Having performed a bodily/verbal/mental act........................," [Sutta MN 61] Michael, apart from the criteria of not causing affliction to others, what I observed in this Sutta is the technique adopted to realize that very same criteria or whatever that one may choose to correct or develope oneself from. Observe the three tenses involved- just before the act, while performing the act and having performed the act. There is a cyclic process involved here so that one may either suppress, abstain, maintain or develop one's actions the next time it is repeated. Life in general is cyclic in nature. This very cyclic nature of life is what enables a wise person to realize The Dhamma. It enables one to evolve from one's present miserable conditions to that of a Noble Person! This is what I see in the advice that The Lord Buddha was trying to impart to his 7 yr old son Rahula in that sutta! The technique, the mechanism with which one prise loose and abandons the bad actions (akusal) and maintains and develops the good actions (kusal). Be Happy eznir 28851 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 4:28am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Dear Ken H, Herman and all, Now I have got new words. Even though I have started this topic, the discussion goes in deviated way. Anyway, fighting nama, welcoming nama and mindful nama have been learnt. Thanks. Htoo Naing --------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina" wrote: > Hi Ken, > The fighting nama will become a welcoming nama if there is a mindful > nama. > > Is this how you see it? > > Kind regards, > > Ken H > The following is not a changing of your well-wishing or name. I > quite like them :-) > All the best > Herman 28852 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 4:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Space element Dear Nina, Thanks for your further clarification regarding space. Space is an interesting subject to discussed. Htoo --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Htoo, >N: Space is without its own distinct nature, asabhava rupa. Its function is > delimiting the kalapas, and it is also called: pariccheda (boundary) rupa. > Nina. 28853 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 4:43am Subject: Re: Satipatthana Dear Herman, Very good question. Satipatthana is for all those who want to get through the Samsara. They include worldlt people as well. But if worldly people become very serious on the practice, they will join the order of Sangha, which is better for them for their seriousness. For worldly people, Satipatthana does work to cut down unwholesome series of Citta to a considerable extent. When choosing fruit at a shop, if mindful Satipatthana works. At ATM, if mindful, Satipatthana works. Even at the time of having sex leaving the climax which is a long long series of Moha and Lobha mixed Cittas, Satipatthana may ( MAY ) work at least partly. Here Satipatthana need to be redefined. If Kayagata Sati is included then having sex will be no way to involve. If Sampajanna works, each stage of pleasure will be noticed leaving orgasm. As Satipatthana is aimed to avoid unwholesome things, choosing will behave differently from without Satipatthana. And so do in other examples that you have put up. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina" wrote: > Hi everybody, > > A serious question to all, if I may. No need to reply if not > inclined to do so, but please consider the question if inclined to > do so. > > Is the intended audience for the satipatthana sutta the wordling as > found on this list? Are the foundations of mindfulness cultivated > while choosing the choicest fruit in the shops, getting cash out of > the ATM, navigating through traffic on the streets, talking to > friends, working for the boss, being involved involved in loving > relationships etc. > > Or is the sattipatthana sutta intended for one withdrawn from the > world? > > All the best > > > Herman 28854 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 4:54am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Dear Ken H, We are in the mid of word. Trying is conventional trying. Arising is unconditional. That is no one can control this Citta arise, this Citta fall away. In this sense, trying does not involve. But as conventional trying, James coded The Buddha's words to his disciples. I got your point. I hope you also got my point. While trying( conventional ) is needed trying ( in Paramattha ) is not needed. ??? more confused? With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Dear Htoo, It takes any presently arisen dhamma as its > object. If there is akusala citta with craving, then > akusala citta with craving (or simply craving or any > other present dhamma), becomes a potential object of > vipassana. So there is need to suppress lobha. > > More to the point, there is no need to 'try' to have > right mindfulness. It arises when the conditions are > right. And those conditions do not include 'trying.' > Please correct me if I am wrong. > > Kind regards, > Ken H 28855 From: Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 1:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Space element Hi, Nina, and Htoo, and all - In a message dated 1/9/04 12:22:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > N: Space is without its own distinct nature, asabhava rupa. Its function is > delimiting the kalapas, and it is also called: pariccheda (boundary) rupa. > It arises simultaneously with the different groups of rupa it surrounds. > Space comes into being whenever the groups of rupa are produced by the four > factors, and thus, it is regarded as originating from these four factors. > ========================= Under the assumption (which I don't make) that space is a rupa rather than a concept grounded in certain relations holding among rupas, and given, in particular, that it is an asabhava rupa (a further assumption that I don't make), it would be the one and only rupa not bearing its own nature. Does not the very word 'dhamma' signify something that carries its own nature? But, assuming that space is not mere concept, the fact that space doesn't arise except simultaneously and in mutual dependence with other rupas should not, in itself, it seems to me, justify the claim that it lacks nature of its own. There are many dhammas that arise simultaneously and in mutual dependence with (and inseparably from) other rupas that are nonetheless distinguishable, and thus that have their own nature in the sense of being distinguishable. Again, presuming that space is not mere concept, it *is* distinguishable, is it not, from other rupas? In particular, space is distinguishable (but inseparable) from the rupas that it delimits or encloses. It seems to me that that is enough, given that space is a dhamma, to correctly state that space has its own characteristics, making it a *sabhava* rupa. However, it isn't clear to me that space has only *one* characteristic as all good paramattha dhammas should have. Space, it seems, can be come in various "sizes", and, in response to the presence of large objects (and their gravitational fields the physicists say), space can have varying geometric configurations as seen in how objects moving "through" the space have their trajectories affected. Moreover, space encloses, but also it *is* enclosed. Space separates, but space also connects. Frankly, it seems to me that space is really a (well grounded) concept based on certain relations holding among certain groups of rupas, and not an asabhava rupa or even a rupa at all. What it is is a rupic concept. It is similar to time in that respect. Time, both psychological and the physicists' time, can grow and shrink, depending on conditions; it encloses and is enclosed; it separates, but also connects. (Time, however, is an even more general concept than space, because, while space relates rupas, time relates events of *all* sorts, namic as well as rupic.) Yes, I know that my understanding is not what Abhidhamma maintains about space, but I have to think for myself, and I have to look and see for myself what actually appears versus what *seems* to appear. With timeless and boundless 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) 28856 From: Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 1:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] life-faculty, swimmingpool meditation Hi, Nina - In a message dated 1/9/04 12:24:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > > Hi Howard, > I was delayed. > About temperature, element of heat, see former post. > About elements: > "The dispeller of > >delusion" under the classification of elements > >"As regards pathavidhatu ("earth element") and so on, the meaning > >of the element has the meaning of "nature" (sabhava) and the meaning > >of nature has the meaning of "voidness" (sunna) and the meaning of > >voidness has the meaning of "not a being" (nissatta). Thus it is the > >element that is only earth element in the sense of nature, voidness > >and not a being that is the earth element." > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, as will not surprise you, I rather like the foregoing! ;-) ------------------------------------------------- > op 30-12-2003 20:29 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > > Moreover, "dead matter" isn't a single rupa, is it? There must be much > >here > >that I am missing. N: All rupas that are not produced by kamma, citta, nutrition. We use the> > word dead matter to denote them, in Pali mata rupa. Mata is dead. > > >>N: Life faculty is a subtle rupa, it can be known only through the > >>mind-door. It cannot be touched or seen. > > H: In what way is it known through the mind door? As a direct object of > >mano-vi~n~nana (as a paramattha dhamma), or by inference (as a concept)? > N: By insight wisdom this subtle rupa can be realized through the mind-door. > When we at this moment think about it, we know only a concept, not this > reality. > H: I find > >the notion of direct mind-door awareness (and not following upon a > sense-door > >process) perplexing, but very interesting. > N: Even if there is no awareness, there can be, without there being first a > sense-door process, a mind-door process of cittas which think of concepts. > Why would there always be a sense-door process before a mind-door process. > H:I know that awareness of the > >"water element" (i.e. fluidity/cohesion) is said to fall into this > category. > N: Only through the mind-door. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, that's what I meant. --------------------------------------------- > Nina. > ===================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 28857 From: shakti Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 6:50am Subject: Bangkok Meeting Dear Chuck, Nina, Jon and Sara, I hope to meet you all in Bangkok in January but, am still not 100% sure that I can make it by the 29th. There is a chance that I won't be able to be there until the next week. Nina and Sara will you still be there the next week for Dhamma discussion???? I believe that is Feb 7th and 8th? Hoping to see you soon. Shakti Sarah wrote: Dear Nina, Chuck & All, --- Charles Thompson wrote: > Dear Nina, et al > > A very warm thank you. > > Unfortunately, I am not that lucky Chuck. A real miss on my part. > .... ;-) I think I asked the same qu before as well, getting confused with 2 American Chucks in the group that visit Bkk. Nina, you may like to look at this helpful post Chuck T sent before: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m12421.html .... > I do look forward to meeting you and all my many virtual friends from > whom I learned so much as your "lurker" member. .... We all look forward to meeting you too. Like Nina, I hope you de-lurk more in future too, but glad you learn so much;-) We're just in the process of finalizing our plans - we're going off to a beach for a few days beforehand, but will be back for all the discussion sessions with K.Sujin, Nina and everyone. Ken O, hope your plans are working out. RobK and Azita, sorry you can't make it this time. Metta, Sarah ====== 28858 From: Michael Beisert Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 7:09am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Paññatti VS Paramattha: To Nina, Mike B And Ken O Hello Ken, I respect your point of view but just keep and open mind that you could be completely wrong. Have a look at Canki Sutta - MN 95 - How to preserve the truth. You did not answer my question, in our discussion which is the commentary you refer to? Metta Michael >From: "ashkenn2k" >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [dsg] Re: Paññatti VS Paramattha: To Nina, Mike B And Ken O >Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 01:08:24 -0000 > >Hi Michael > >I beg to differ. There is whole world of difference when we talk >about ancient commentaries and present commentaries. Are present >commentaries enlighted to make such comments. To present: No. To >ancient: Yes. The Commentaries if I am not wrong, originated either >in the 1st or 2nd or 3rd Council. Hence we have to stick to >anicent ones bc they know and not the present ones. Modern >commentators can clarify ancient commentaries but they cannot change >the substance or meaning of the commentaries. Presently some of the >modern commentaries I have so far come across either reject ancient >commentaries (partially or totally) or they interpret commentatories >on their own inclination. > >Furthermore your dispute in on the ancient commentaries comment, so >we are discussing ancient ones and not present ones. Honestly IMHO I >could not be bother about modern ones, when I read certain part of >the article, I have stopped reading bc I know this professor has also >made his own personal opinion. I only read those clarify the >meanings and not impose their own meanings. > > > >Kind rgds >Ken O > >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" > wrote: > > Hello Ken. > > > > Ken: > > In my personal opinion, let discuss this on the basis on the > > commentary text and lets not put others writings into this > > discussion. > > > > Michael: > > Which commentary are you referring to? Any writings on the tipitaka >is a > > commentary whether ancient or not. > > > > Metta > > Michael 28859 From: Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 2:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Space element Hi again, nin, Htoo, and all - In a message dated 1/9/04 9:37:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > However, it isn't clear to me that space has only *one* characteristic > as all good paramattha dhammas should have. ========================== I should have written 'distinguishing' before the word 'characteristic'. There are other characteristics that are not distinguishing - in particular the tilakkhana. 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) 28860 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 9:40am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Paññatti VS Paramattha: To Nina, Mike B And Ken O Hi Michael If we read the sutta, traditions should be broken if and only if they do not support the eradications of unwholesome roots. This is like the Kamala suttas, but both sutta should be seen in the context that traditions or teachings that do not follow the path. If we keep insisting on basing traditions can be broken, then it would mean that everyone can do what they want, everyone can change the rules of the Sangha and create one that they like and anyway this is what happening now in some places. Even Buddha in one sutta support tradition, in PariNibbana Sutta where he said why one country will never be conquered and one of the criteria is that they follow their tradition. In the commentary to the PariNibbana sutta, have the statement like "They do not abrogate the established" and also "the ancient custom of Vajjis and the kings do their duty according to their tradition" I am only talking about ancient commentaries (those compile by Buddhaghosa). I have not seen those compile by him is against the path. I would like to request you to give me an example of it. Since your stand on sabhava is based on commentary and I think it is only fair that you provide evidence in the commentary that supports sabhava has an own self and uncaused. best wishes Ken O --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello Ken, > > I respect your point of view but just keep and open mind that you > could be > completely wrong. Have a look at Canki Sutta - MN 95 - How to > preserve the > truth. > > You did not answer my question, in our discussion which is the > commentary > you refer to? > > Metta > Michael > > 28861 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 10:42am Subject: Latent tendencies 2 Latent tendencies 2 Chapter 1 Are there Latent Tendencies? Conclusion of the first Issue : there are latent tendencies: they are realities each with their own distinct characteristic. The reasons for this conclusion: I: The latent tendencies are subtle defilements which are realities each with their own characteristic. They are enumerated in the Tipiìaka and the Commentaries, where it is stated that the Buddha, the Fully Enlightened One, understood these by his perfect knowledge of beings¹ biasses and underlying tendencies (åsayånusaya ñåna). The ³Knowledge of beings¹ biases and underlying tendencies² is mentioned in the ³Path of Discrimination² , ³Patisambhidåmagga² of the Khuddaka Nikåya, in the Måtika (Table of Contents), among the seventythree kinds of knowledge. These latent tendencies are further explained in its Commentary, the ³Saddhammappakåsiní² under the Explanation (Niddesa) of Knowledge of beings¹ biasses and underlying tendencies (åsayånusaya ñåna). The ³Path of Discrimination², in the Måtika, mentions the ³Knowledge of beings¹ biases and underlying tendencies² as the sixtynineth kind of knowledge among the seventythree kinds of knowledge. This knowledge is not shared by disciples, it is only the Buddha who has this knowledge. We read in the ³Path of Discrimination²: ³There are seventythree kinds of knowledge and among these the first sixtyseven are shared by disciples. The last six are are not shared by disciples but are exclusively knowledges of the Buddha. These are: penetration of others¹ faculties, knowledge of beings¹ biases and underlying tendencies, knowledge of the twin metamorphosis, knowledge of the great compassion, omniscient knowledge and unobstructed knowledge [2] .² The Commentary to the ³Path of Discrimination² gives more explanations about the knowledge of beings¹ biases and underlying tendencies. As to the word ³beings² we read in the ³Kindred Sayings² (III, Khandhavagga, Ch XXIII, § 2, A being) that beings are involved in sensuous desire (chandha råga) with regard to the khandha of material phenomena and so on, and that they are thus called beings, sattå [3]. The text states that the Buddha said to Rådha: ³That desire, Rådha, that lust, that lure, that craving which is concerned with body,- one is entangled thereby, fast entangled thereby, therefore is one called a being. That desire, that lust, that lure, that craving which is concerned with feeling, with perception (saññå), the activities, consciousness,- one is entangled thereby, fast entangled thereby, therefore is one called a being.² Footnotes: 2. The penetration of others¹ faculties is the Buddha¹s knowledge of other people¹s capabilities or their lack of it to develop understanding which can penetrate the four noble Truths. His knowledge of the twin metamorphosis is his ability to perform the miracle of emitting water and fire from different parts of his body. His knowledge of the great compassion is the compassion which moved him to become the Sammåsambuddha and teach others to develop the wisdom leading to liberation from the cycle of birth and death. 3. Satta is derived from sant, existing. It can mean who exists in the cycle, or who is entangled. So long as one is entangled in the five khandhas there is no end to the cycle. **** Nina. 28862 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 10:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV 60 (3 of 4) note 3 a Larry, >Footnote, 3 a. Elaboration. (to be followed by 3 b, 3 c) op 09-01-2004 00:19 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: [Note 26. ' "The heart-basis ... the support for the mind-element and for the mind-consciousness element"; how is that to be known? (i) From scriptures and (ii) from logical reasoning.] Text: (ii) But the logical reasoning should be understood in this way. In the five-constituent becoming, [that is, in the sense sphere and fine-material sphere,] these two elements [mind element and mind-consciousness element] have as their support produced (nipphanna) derived matter. N: The heartbase is among the derived rupas, it is produced by kamma. The Commentator points out in the following paragraph which of the rupas do not qualify for being the heart-base, the support of the mind-element and the mind-consciousness element. Text: Herein, since the visible-data base, etc., and nutritive essence, are found to occur apart from what is bound up with faculties, to make them the support would be illogical. N: colour, sound etc. and also nutritive essence (one of the eight inseparables) are also in what we call dead matter, in what is not a living body (bound up with the faculties). Text: And since these two elements are found in a continuity that is devoid of feminity and masculinity faculties [i.e. in the Brahmaa-world], to make them the support would be illogical too. N: These do not qualify, because in the rupa brahma planes there is no sex faculty, but there are these two elements. Text:And in the case of the life faculty that would have to have another function, so to make it the support would be illogical too. So it is the heart-basis that remains to be recognized as their support. For it is possible to say that these two elements have as their support produced derived matter, since existence is bound up with matter in the five-constituent becoming. Whatever has its existence bound up with matter is found to have as its support produced derived matter, as eye-consciousness-element does. N: eye-consciousness-element has the eyebase as its support. **** Nina. 28863 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 10:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Views along the way Dear James, op 09-01-2004 00:42 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: I am too attached to > some of my defilements, they define who I am, so I am stuck in a > dilemma. What to do?? ..... I just don't > like not knowing the truth. But you can't have both, you have to > drop one to have the other. N: I think you can have both. There would be no need to make such choice. Knowing the truth includes knowing our defilements. The second noble truth, craving, is just now. It needs patience to develop, but you are not attracted to traversing many lives ;-) By the way, the expression about a penny a day is what Khun Sujin told Sarah and me years ago. It impressed me so much. J: To me dukkha is mainly ignorance: not > knowing the truth. Oh well, we will see how it goes. I take it day > by day. N: I agree, because of ignorance we were born and go on in the cycle. Day by day: I could not agree more. > James: As an educator, I know that some people learn best by details > and some learn best by understanding/seeing the big picture before > the introduction of details. N: Good tip. I want to consult Larry and Sarah. This can be taken care of by not losing the connection with daily life, and Larry is after daily life. After all, we want to know the truth about what is going on in daily life, not some abstract truth. Then we could get lost into the theory. Although, just now, we take a good plunge into conditions, and this does not harm. To me it is a help to begin to uproot that persistent self idea. With metta, Nina. 28864 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 10:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: Bangkok Meeting Dear Chuck, thank you for telling about your experience of being a monk. > > Ans: On daily life, it is the simple example of most of the life-long > Buddhist I met from Thailand. Their simple day-to-day good treatment of all > people brought me to investigate Buddhism. To me they were living the > Christian Way that I did not observe in my fellow Christians. N: Yes, we can always learn from them, they are giving, and giving and giving. And so fast in their reactions when help is needed. I noticed that during my frequent journeys with them in India. Receiving is also an art and some people feel ashamed when so much is given to them. We can receive with kusala citta: appreciating other people's generosity and that is one way of dana: anumodana dana. I hope you will unlurk more often, Nina. 28865 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 10:42am Subject: good point for Bgk Dear Sarah, This may be a good point for Bgk we can discuss among ourselves. Lodewijk looks with pleasure at his antiques, I like it too. We think, this is harmless. I just read ahead in the Latent Tendencies text that also when not prepossessed by objects, when lobha is more subtle, the accumulation of the latent tendencies continues. Just like the smell thief! I like to hear more about this way of accumulating, never enough. It gives something of a shock. But it is as it is, how to prevent this, impossible. We can also accumulate understanding. Still, I think by more understanding of the latent tendencies and how they operate, right effort (this is a sense of urgency) comes in without having to force it. This is the right effort James quoted and the Buddha spoke about. Good to discuss more, Nina. 28866 From: Eddie Lou Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 11:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Angulimala Hi, everyone, Excuse me for jumping in, Killing is indeed a big deal, but remember our life in human realm is only a short while compared with the long life span in some other realms. So much so is the difference that, murder is a big thing but not that catastrophic when you see the bigger picture. But I was told - killing one's own parents is a REALLY big deal, that negative kammic repercussion is totally inevitable. Look at Mogallana's case of matricide and patricide. He definitely had to repay them (debts?) before he went to the ultimate destination - Nirvana. I asked why so heavy a penalty ? I was told - Karuna (or closest meaning ? maybe - sincere and unconditional care, metta and love of parents. Yes, Angulimala killed 999 lives but the final one to make to his goal of 1,000 fingers was (corret me if I m incorrect) one of his own parents. At that point, Sakyamuni Buddha (still living at that time) intervened bc he knew Angulimala was this close to Arahantship and eventually - Nirvana. If Angulimala did kill his parent, Buddha knew, he would lost his big chance. I heard Buddha always helped the extreme cases, the near the edge case like Angulimala, who already has accumulated a lot of parami's mostly likely from previous lives). When Angulimala became an Arahant(the last stage to Nirvana), there is no turning back to any wrong doing. In fact, killing an Arahant, itself carries almost similar penalty as killing parents. Unfortunately, we live in a world well dominated with idea of punishment and we are more or less influenced. Metta, Eddie Lou. --- connie wrote: > Hi Christine, > > CF: A definition of "Just" is 'The rendering to ..... > CP: two thumbs up, > connie 28867 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 11:45am Subject: [dsg] Re: Angulimala Hi Christine, Rob K, Connie, and Eddie, I've been following the Angulimala thread, and I think Christine you brought up an interesting and complex point of discussion regarding justice. Rob K, Connie, and Eddie you all have some very good points. Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Eddie Lou wrote: > Hi, everyone, > > Excuse me for jumping in, > > Killing is indeed a big deal, but remember our life in [snip] 28868 From: Michael Beisert Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 1:39pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Paññatti VS Paramattha: To Nina, Mike B And Ken O Hello Ken, Ken: If we keep insisting on basing traditions can be broken, then it would mean that everyone can do what they want, everyone can change the rules of the Sangha and create one that they like and anyway this is what happening now in some places. Even Buddha in one sutta support tradition, in PariNibbana Sutta where he said why one country will never be conquered and one of the criteria is that they follow their tradition. In the commentary to the PariNibbana sutta, have the statement like "They do not abrogate the established" and also "the ancient custom of Vajjis and the kings do their duty according to their tradition" Michael: I said before and let me clarify this again, I have difficulties in accepting some teachings expressed in the commentaries to the Canon but I have never negated the teachings of the suttas, quite the contrary. But in my view some of the commentaries to the Canon negate the teachings of the suttas. I said this many times and say again, in the suttas there is no teaching about paramatha/sabhava. Did the Buddha say that the first noble truth is that there are paramatha? And that the fourth truth is the way to fully and directly understand paramatha, and that this understanding will provide an end to suffering? No, definitely not, there is no paramatha coming from the mouth of the Buddha. And in defense of the commentators it has been argued that already at the time of the Buddha his disciples were giving teachings and interpretations of brief utterances by the Buddha. This is correct but in many instances those teachings by his disciples were confirmed by the Buddha. Which is not, of course, the case with Budhaghosa. In the first years when I got in contact with Buddhism I was fully immersed and absorbed with Theravada doctrine and interesting enough I had exactly the same views in relation to paramatha/sabhava as the ones generally expressed in this list. Fortunately though I met some challenges to my beliefs which at that time I found really hard to accept. But it raised some doubts in my mind and pursuing the answers to those doubts I came across some interpretations which only brought me closer to the suttas and pointed towards the distortions in the commentaries. Ken: I am only talking about ancient commentaries (those compile by Buddhaghosa). I have not seen those compile by him is against the path. I would like to request you to give me an example of it. Since your stand on sabhava is based on commentary and I think it is only fair that you provide evidence in the commentary that supports sabhava has an own self and uncaused. Michael: In the Kaccayanagotta Sutta (SN XII.15) the Buddha talks about the world and how people view the world. He says that usually people see the world as either existing or not existing. And then he provides his view of the world which is dependent origination. It is quite clear from this sutta that the Buddha is rejecting the notion of existence/non existence in favor of conditionality. And it becomes quite clear that existence and conditionality is not the same thing. Conditionality means that the thing depends entirely upon conditions for its existence. And by extension if something depends entirely upon conditions it cannot have any form of intrinsic/inherent substance in it, in other words it has to be devoid of essence. Because by definition an essence is not subject to conditions, otherwise it would not be an essence. Now if the Buddha is favoring conditionality and rejecting existence, it can only mean that the existence he is referring to is intrinsic/inherent existence. Now, paramatha and sabhava means ultimate existence with intrinsic nature (or own unique characteristic which leads to the same conclusion as intrinsic nature). The simple fact that something is considered to be ultimate implies some form of unique, own attribute, which points towards an essence. If it doesn’t have that how can it be ultimate? So, what I see is that the commentators have led the Theravadins to believe that a phenomena can be at the same time an ultimate reality, which has to have, by definition, some form of intrinsic nature, and at the same time be subject to conditionality. The problem is that this is impossible. Either a phenomena truly exists or it is subject to conditionality, and if all phenomena are subject to conditionality then we are left with just conventional reality. The world has no ultimate realities only conventional realities. And conventional reality is the same as conditionality. That is what the Buddha said in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta. Metta Michael 28869 From: Sarah Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 2:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok Meeting Hi Shakti, --- shakti wrote: > Dear Chuck, Nina, Jon and Sara, > > I hope to meet you all in Bangkok in January but, am still not 100% sure > that I can make it by the 29th. There is a chance that I won't be able > to be there until the next week. Nina and Sara will you still be there > the next week for Dhamma discussion???? I believe that is Feb 7th and > 8th? Hoping to see you soon. .... We have to return to HK on Sunday, Feb 1st, so hope you can make it to join the first weekend with several days of discussion, esp. 29th all day.Remember to start your list of topics too or start mentioning them here for me to jot down as I am for Nina's and mine;-) Nina will be away on a trip during the week, but will be back in Bkk w'end of 6th, 7th. I don't know about any arrangements for that weekend and whether there will be English discussion. Sundays are usually Thai only and sometimes the first Saturday of the month too. You'd need to check with Betty or someone else. Do you have anything more to discuss about death or attachment to children? Metta, Sarah ======= 28870 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 2:36pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/KenH Hi Christine, --------- C: > Only one thing I don't understand in your reply to Herman - was that > Hooray! as in Hooroo! ... or was that Hooray! as in Hurrah!? > --------- I take your point: any reader who lacked mind-reading capabilities would have trouble with that remark. Herman had made an amusing comment to the effect that his signing off should not be mistaken as a rewrite of my signing off. (After rewriting most of my post, he saw no need to rewrite the sign-off.) Hoping to match his wit, I wrote, "At least I got something right!" Then I thought that might be misinterpreted as a complaint of some kind, so I tried to lighten it up with; "Hooray, I got something right!" Still not happy, I shortened it to; "Hooray!" -- which, I now concede is completely meaningless -- a classic case of over-editing. :-) Kind regards, Ken H 28871 From: Egberdina Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 3:50pm Subject: Re: Angulimala Hi Christine, What I don't like about a "just" world is that it can never come to an end. Each action must forever be met with a just reaction. And good and bad become axes that strive against each other into eternity. What would be a fair, just, merited recompense for a psychopath with 999 notches on his belt? I very much like the concepts of mercy, grace and forgiveness because they are so counter-justice, counter-kamma. I may have a rock in hand ready to hurl at the head of one who has caused me tremendous loss, grief, pain. But then out-of-the blue, there can be an undetermined choice to forgive, to suspend a judgment, and a whole eternity of kammic consequence collapses into nothingness. I think it was Connie who pointed out that the holding of a grievance, or the attribution of guilt does not hurt anyone but the person doing it. I find it rather sobering to think that notions of justice propel samsara along, rather than do anything to diminsih it. Still, I say so from the comfort of my Australian armchair, not from a Palestinian pile of rubble. All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Robert, > > A definition of "Just" is 'The rendering to every one his due or > right, just treatment, requital of desert, merited reward or > punishment, that which is due to one's conduct or motives.' The > definition of "vengeance" is 'retaliation for hurt or harm done to > oneself or to a person whom one supports.' > I am talking about 'justice', not vengeance. A country is a safe > place to live in because its citizens can rely on being treated > equally before the Law, and on being protected by the authorities. > > King Pasenadi was the head of the country of Kosala - responsible for > the welfare of all those under his rule - and he wasn't doing too > well - 999 people in a very small area had been murdered, by a person > so vicious that even groups of up to twenty or thirty men were > relentlessly killed. Whole towns had been de-populated. This is not > a person who killed impulsively out of passion - this is a person so > violent and pitiless that he could listen to the screams and begging > of his victims and continue on and on through hundreds and hundreds > of people. It is hard to kill a person, it isn't a clean, clinical > exercise. When a person is dying in pain and fear, there are horrible > sounds, sights and smells. This man wasn't deflected by anything - > gotta make the quota. > > This story is not a fantasy in a book, a jataka, a morality tale, > about a situation where people's reactions would be any different > than if the incident was transferred into this day and age. > If your children, parents, and wife had been murdered - because > someone wanted their thumbs - a really important reason, eh? - but > you were told the murderer was now 'kind', and had 'seen the light' - > and the perpetrator wasn't going to be brought to account in any way - > would you say 'Oh, he's kind now you say? bless 'im, that's all > right then'. C'mon, Robert .... > > I always wondered why, if he wasn't enjoying the thrill of the kill, > he didn't just say "Your thumb or your life?" - most people would > have been reasonable... > http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/ay/angulimaala.htm > > And Angulimala was 'accidentally' hit by people only 'accidentally' > throwing rocks and pots out the window? ... :-) > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > 28872 From: Andrew Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 3:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Extolling, disparaging & teaching Dhamma Hi Sarah Thanks for your interesting post. I had a giggle about it, actually. Whilst everyone else seems to be discussing the fine points of parramattha dhammas armed with dictionary.com definitions, poor Sarah is kind enough to reply to my less-verbally-generative posts, replete with allusions to Scandinavian history! [Not entirely irrelevant given that a Buddha statue was found in a Viking settlement in Sweden - you can see it in a Stockholm museum] As to the true nature of dhammas, I hold my views with a very loose grip - just as a blind man holding an elephant's tail perhaps has some indication that he is in the presence of something extremely powerful that should not be grasped tightly and rigidly. Anyway, back to Non- Conflict: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > > ... > I'm also reflecting now on the one about how `the speech of one who speaks > hurriedly is a state beset by suffering, vexation, despair, and fever, and > it is the wrong way.' > > So often here, like now, I write hurriedly, make mistakes (as James just > helped me with), and sometimes later can feel quite feverish if I find > there are too many typos or other errors;-( > > "Here, bhikkhus, when one speaks hurriedly, one's body grows tired and > one's mind becomes excited, one's voice is strained and one's throat > becomes hoarse, and the speech of one who speaks unhurriedly is distinct > and easy to understand." > > Yes, this is what I need to remind myself about in my work and all my > rushed activities. > It is very practical advice indeed. The quote seems to suggest that hurried speech leads to excited mind. Yet, "mind is the forerunner of all things". Is it not that excited mind leads to hurried speech leads to more excited mind? > p.s Do you also have a copy of Samyutta Nikaya, Andrew? Yes, I do - am reading it through slowly. Metta Andrew > ===== > > > 28873 From: Carl Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 4:00pm Subject: Re: Howard's tree and a little hint ..Continuation of Pannatta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > Dear Carl, > > --------snip--snip--many snips :)---------------------------------- ------------------------ >Htoo: It is wrong to say, ' the true nature of the *outside world* >is unknowable. Functions of Cittas and Cetasikas are to know both >outside world and inside world. > > Carl: Yes, I think I understand this at some level. But I remain > perplexed. If the *worldly/conventional* vision of "the tree" is > produced in the mind, as I have assumed, then there must be a gap > (time/distance) between the inside and the outside world? If there > is such a gap/separation then the outside world can never be > directly experienced even though it is really out there. But > perhaps if I come to understand "the tree" as actually appearing > directly on or about the eye, then I may understand a direct > contact of some kind with "the tree" with no gap? > ------------------------------------------------------------------- --- > Htoo : There is a gap for nearly all. Here I must ask you what do you mean by ' directly '? > 5 senses sense the outside *world* directly. Even the 6th sense can sometimes directly senses the outside *world*. >With Metta, > > Htoo Naing -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Dear Htoo, thank you again for all the good information. By "directly" I mean in the same sense you describe above;(5 senses sense the outside *world* directly.). My perplexity is found in the process of transfering visual data from outside to inside. First arriving at the eye sense-door this worldly data (color) is then transfered (via cita process)to seeing-consciousness (Cakkhuvinnana Citta). I would think that the color-data recieved by the inside seeing- consciousness is but a representation of the original outside sense- door color-data. Perhaps similar to viewing an excellent forgery of a masterpiece painting. So I am left to conclude that the color-data (rupa) originating from the outside world is not at all the same data that is experienced by seeing-consciousness. We have gone from a paramattha dhamma to pannatti. It is in this sense that I say ...."the true nature of the *outside world* is unknowable." I also rush to say (perhaps rather foolhardy :) ) that this same thinking seems to apply to all 5 senses and is even supported by modern biology. ..Now I am surely in hot water!! Please pardon any misuse of terms or my lack of understanding. And many appologies to Howard's tree. The Abhidamma is a most fertile field and grows many strange plants. I am often caught looking up instead of down and trip regularly. http://science.howstuffworks.com/eye1.htm ...The retina contains a chemical called rhodopsin, or "visual purple." This is the chemical that converts light into electrical impulses that the brain interprets as vision. The retinal nerve fibers collect at the back of the eye and form the optic nerve, which conducts the electrical impulses to the brain.... Thanks Carl 28874 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 9:01pm Subject: The Triple Happiness! Friends: The Three kinds of Happiness: When recognising the Noble Path as Freedom one gradually acquires 3 kinds of Happiness: The Happiness of Fault-Free Innocence caused by absence of regrets & remorse. The Happiness of Calmed Tranquillity caused by absence of restlessness & agitation. The Happiness of Awakened Enlightenment caused by elimination of mental fermentation by penetrative understanding. Source: The Path of Freedom. Vimuttimagga by Arahat Upatissa; 1st century AC . http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=404208 All yours in the Dhamma. Peace is Ease. Bhikkhu Samahita, Ceylon. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ 28875 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 1:39am Subject: The Good Friend. Friends; The Noble Friend! The Buddha said: Friends, one should cultivate the Good Friend, who has the Seven Qualifications. What Seven ? He gives what is hard to give. He does what is hard to do. He bears what is hard to bear. He lay open his own secrets. He keeps other's secrets safe. When any is needed, he never fails. When one is ruined, he never despises. Even though he may drive you away, keep on following him, since such Noble one - always motivated by the welfare of all beings - is genial, pleasant, serious, refined, a revealer, of profound speech, a patient listener who never - at any occasion - guide you wrongly ... --oo0oo-- Source: The Gradual Sayings of the Buddha. Anguttara Nikaya IV 32-5 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=132552 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=204050 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/index.html All yours in the Dhamma. Peace is Ease. Bhikkhu Samahita, Ceylon. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ 28876 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 5:22pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Paññatti VS Paramattha: To Nina, Mike B And Ken O Hi Michael and all, I would like to share some reflection on the discussion/debate in this thread: It is hard to convince those who hold the Abhidhamma views as what the Buddha to discard these views. It is also hard to convince those who have discarded the Abhidhamma views as not what the Buddha taught to take up these views and hold them as what the Buddha taught. So when two people, one holds the Abhidhamma views as what the Buddha taught and one has discarded them as not what the Buddha taught, try to convince one aother, it often leads to stress, agitation, resentment, affliction....in both parties. And that defeats the very purpose of learning and practicing the Dhamma - to realize the cessation of dukkha. I came across to this discourse and thought that the Buddha's instruction Others will misapprehend according to their individual views, hold on to them tenaciously and not easily discard them;[18] we shall not misapprehend according to individual views nor hold on to them tenaciously, but shall discard them with ease -- thus effacement can be done. in Majjhima Nikaya 8 Sallekha Sutta The Discourse on Effacement http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn008.html can be helpful to both parties. Peace, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > Hello Ken, [snip] 28877 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 5:29pm Subject: Re: Angulimala Hello Robert, and all, Thank you for your post. I agree that all of us have the capacity to do the unthinkable, that lying dormant within each of us is the potential for unlimited good and evil. I know that when conditions are favourable, seemingly out-of-character thoughts and deeds can surface, astounding us and leading to the thoughts - 'what was I thinking of? how COULD I have done such a thing?' - easier to say 'the devil made me do it'. Thanks, Rob, for the link to the Dhammapada story of Angulimala - my understanding is that the Dhammapada was not preached by the Buddha in the form we currently read it. Narada says that three months after the Passing Away of the Buddha, those who assembled at the First Convovation to rehearse the Teachings of the Buddha, collected some of his poetic utterances, arranged and classified the treatise in its present form, naming it the Dhammapada. The circumstances that led to the verses (the Stories) are presented in the form of long or short stories, in the voluminous commentary written by Buddhaghosa nearly a thousand years later. I find the story attached to the verses unconvincing - if we think of the stories as slightly unreal things happening within a movie or a book, then most can be swallowed without too much difficulty - like the Jataka Tales of talking rabbits and dogs. But when looking for truth and reasons behind human behaviour, one of the tests I make is to transpose what is related to one's own city and neighbourhood (within reason, of course). Then the Angulimala story doesn't quite come up to scratch. Take his mother, for instance. Clearly she knows where he is and what he is doing. Does she and the family intervene at any stage? Say after the first, second, third or ninety-sixth murder? Only when she hears that the King is taking an army to capture him, does she make a move. She wouldn't speak up to stop her husband evicting him, but traipses into the forest by herself to warn him. A little unbelievable. What a dysfunctional cast of characters! - The class-mates get jealous and make up stories about Angulimala and the Teachers' wife. The Teacher doesn't call everyone together or even speak to his wife, just believes the slander. He expells Angulimala, and says he'll take him back if he kills a thousand people and brings back their thumbs. (A lot of highly intelligent people in this story :-)) Angulimala's father then tosses him out because he was expelled from school. Does anyone go to see the Teacher? Where was the love for Angulimala then? What were his parents and his other relatives doing when he was picking off the population one by one? Talking over the breakfast table? "Did you hear, dear, Angulimala is 497 not out? Oh, the lad is doing well isn't he?" The mother seems just a literary device meant to give a reason for the Buddha's intervention and thus the whole story. And has anyone given any thought to just how much a thousand thumbs weigh, and what amount of space they'd take up hanging round his neck? A little hard to pounce on anyone when you're bent almost double with the weight of the bones and flesh hanging in front of you. Apart from likely slipping into unconsciousness from the toxic fumes rising.... And one wonders how he handled the packs of stray dogs that surely launched attacks after following the 'interesting aroma' pervading the neighbourhood? The behaviour of just about everyone concerned doesn't ring true. Maybe Buddhaghosa, great scholar compiler and translator that he undoubtedly was, didn't know much about people and human psychology and interaction? I hear what you say about good vipaka accumulated from many past lives outweighing 999 murders - hard to conceive of such a thing though. Also - if conditions were right for Angulimala to become an arahant than nothing could have stopped it. King Pasenadi, though, had nothing to forgive. His parents, wives, children were not mentioned among the dead. But he did have a duty as 'father' of the citizens of his country. He appears to have done far too little, far too late. Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree on some of the Dhammapada stories. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > Dear Robert, > And Angulimala was 'accidentally' hit by people only 'accidentally' > > throwing rocks and pots out the window? ... :-) > ============= > Dear Christine, > I don't have access to the commentary right now but the main point > was that he was occasionally hit by objects, but not becuase they > were deliberately thrown at him. > This abbreviated version on the web explains one incident. > http://www.vipassana.info/h.htm > Then, one day, while he was on an alms-round, he came to a place > where some people were quarrelling among themselves. As they were > throwing stones at one another, some stray stones hit Thera > Angulimala on the head and he was seriously injured. Yet, he managed > to come back to the Buddha, and the Buddha said to him, "My son > Angulimala! You have done away with evil. Have patience. You are > paying in this existence for the deeds you have done. These deeds > would have made you suffer for innumerable years in niraya." > > Angulimala had in a past life been a man-eater, he had accumulations > to savagery so that when his teacher asked him to kill his brutality > had the opportunity to show itself. He also had great accumulations > of wisdom so that when the Buddha spoke to him he could become > enlightened. I think we are like him (minus the great wisdom part). > When the opportunity arises we can do bad things. This life maybe we > don't do so much, but a few lives from now we might become a > hunter, or work in an abortion clinic, or as a butcher and kill > every day? Samsara is like that. > > I think King Pasenadi was very wise to forgive Angulimala. Angulima > was a monk, an enlightened one, he had goodwill to all and should > have been given the greatest respect. If you could meet one such as > Angulimala wouldn't it be wonderful to touch the ground with your > head in front of him and worship. > > I just find the teachings on kamma and vipaka very compelling. So I > think I can say if a murderer killed my family I would try to > forgive him immediately. We don't have to look for justice or > vengence because kamma gives its result. Instead we should should > feel compassion for the killer : as they will experience the > painful result of their actions in the future. > RobertK 28878 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 5:35pm Subject: Re: Angulimala Hello Connie, Herman and all, Thanks for your posts. Connie - "Ideally, we shouldn't need to be protected by any outside human authority, but would all know that it's our own behavior and thinking that gets us. The idea of an outside agency/other, especially one as fallible as other humans, as the moral enforcer is something of a disservice in that respect." Chris: I think kamma and vipaka are often confused, and one can equate action and result, ending in determinism or fatalism. I understand that the Buddha said that if one must reap the result of all actions then there is no possibility to realise liberation. I also understand that kamma is only one of the causes of what we experience in the world, not the only cause. Happy to be corrected. Connie: "But what's the difference in how dead someone is whether it's for a thumb or a fortune or just to see them dead... or even to liberate a country? And how long is dead when the consciousness leaves the puppet? And what is is we think we're protecting, really?" Chris: I'm not sure what others might say. The infinitesimal chance of ever having another human rebirth during this aeon, and so having a chance to hear the Dhamma and win through to liberation, should be a strong motivation to protect one's own life and the lives of others. Regarding Angulimaala's real name. Bhikkhu Bodhi says MA states his given name was Ahimsaka, meaning "Harmless", but the commnentary to the Theragaathaa says his original name was Himsaka, meaning "Dangerous". Herman, Justice isn't about punishment only. Justice isn't about one action being the reaction to another action. I don't know what is. (We're not talking about a flare up of bad temper here, - there were 999 murders.) Justice is also concerned with Community, and with setting right as far as possible, much of what has been damaged by the original wrong-doing - which is one of the reasons behind my question. "What is the relationship of Buddhism to Civil Law?" This would include - in the case of the 999 murders - comforting the grief-stricken, assisting broken families who are suffering economic hardship, bringing home the families to their depopulated villages, allaying the pervasive fear of the citizens, restoring lost economic prosperity, assisting to bring back to production neglected farms, caring for the widowed and orphaned, and giving short term food and practical assistance where needed. In other words, encouraging confidence in the citizens that there is someone responsible at the helm of government, that each one of them is of valued and of equal importance and entitled to the care and protection of the State. In the commentary story, are there any indicators that Angulimala, King Pasenadi or the Sangha even gave those things a thought? But, Angulimala achieved enlightenment? - ah, well .. that's all right then. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > What I don't like about a "just" world is that it can never come to > an end. Each action must forever be met with a just reaction. And > good and bad become axes that strive against each other into > eternity. > > What would be a fair, just, merited recompense for a psychopath with > 999 notches on his belt? > > I very much like the concepts of mercy, grace and forgiveness > because they are so counter-justice, counter-kamma. I may have a > rock in hand ready to hurl at the head of one who has caused me > tremendous loss, grief, pain. But then out-of-the blue, there can be > an undetermined choice to forgive, to suspend a judgment, and a > whole eternity of kammic consequence collapses into nothingness. > > I think it was Connie who pointed out that the holding of a > grievance, or the attribution of guilt does not hurt anyone but the > person doing it. I find it rather sobering to think that notions of > justice propel samsara along, rather than do anything to diminsih > it. > > > Still, I say so from the comfort of my Australian armchair, not from > a Palestinian pile of rubble. > > > All the best > > > Herman 28879 From: Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 2:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Paññatti VS Paramattha: To Nina, Mike B And Ken O Hi, Victor - In a message dated 1/9/04 8:33:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Others will misapprehend according to their individual views, hold > on to them tenaciously and not easily discard them;[18] we shall not > misapprehend according to individual views nor hold on to them > tenaciously, but shall discard them with ease -- thus effacement can > be done. > ========================= That's beautiful, Victor! Better than being "right" is, most definitely, being FREE! :-) 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) 28880 From: Andrew Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 8:35pm Subject: Re: Angulimala Hi Christine In your job especially, you come across all sorts of dysfunctional people and families, so I was surprised to see your strong rejection of the Angulimala story. I have interspersed some comments below about the modern world. As an ex-lawyer, I do have a problem with the definition of "justice" - to most people it simply means "what I want". If I get what I want, that's justice. If I don't, then "there's no justice in the world". Justice is very much an ego thing - no wonder it finds the Dhamma challenging. You wrote: I find the story attached to the verses unconvincing - if we think > of the stories as slightly unreal things happening within a movie or > a book, then most can be swallowed without too much difficulty - like > the Jataka Tales of talking rabbits and dogs. But when looking for > truth and reasons behind human behaviour, one of the tests I make > is to transpose what is related to one's own city and neighbourhood > (within reason, of course). Then the Angulimala story doesn't quite > come up to scratch. Andrew: does it come up to scratch any more than people committing suicide to go and live in the tail of a comet? Alot of those people who perished under their purple blankets were very intelligent. > > Take his mother, for instance. Clearly she knows where he is and > what he is doing. Does she and the family intervene at any stage? > Say after the first, second, third or ninety-sixth murder? > Only when she hears that the King is taking an army to capture him, > does she make a move. > She wouldn't speak up to stop her husband evicting him, but traipses > into the forest by herself to warn him. A little unbelievable. Andrew: I can't say it is unbelievable until I know about what is expected of the mother/son relationship at the time. Certainly, during Viking/Anglo-Saxon times, a mother wouldn't be punished for supporting her murderous son - I suppose everyone expected and hoped their own mothers would do the same for them in dire situations. My point is that maybe a contemporary wouldn't bat an eyelid at what Angulimala's mum did. Witness the behaviour of parents in "honour killing" cases in Pakistan. > What a dysfunctional cast of characters! - The class-mates get > jealous and make up stories about Angulimala and the Teachers' wife. > The Teacher doesn't call everyone together or even speak to his wife, > just believes the slander. He expells Angulimala, and says he'll > take him back if he kills a thousand people and brings back their > thumbs. (A lot of highly intelligent people in this story :-)) > Angulimala's father then tosses him out because he was expelled > from school. Does anyone go to see the Teacher? Where was the love > for Angulimala then? What were his parents and his other relatives > doing when he was picking off the population one by one? Andrew: Again, perhaps they were doing the socially-accepted thing? As far as I know, there were no social workers in Pasenadi's kingdom (I'm not having a go at you, just suggesting it was a very different place to our Australia). > And has anyone given any thought to just how much a thousand thumbs > weigh, and what amount of space they'd take up hanging round his > neck? A little hard to pounce on anyone when you're bent almost > double with the weight of the bones and flesh hanging in front of > you. Apart from likely slipping into unconsciousness from the toxic > fumes rising.... And one wonders how he handled the packs of stray > dogs that surely launched attacks after following the 'interesting > aroma' pervading the neighbourhood? Andrew: Is this any more shocking than the Nazi doctor who made a lampshade out of Jewish skin? The annals of criminal history up to the present are very grisly indeed ... the bodies in the bank case in South Australia! > The behaviour of just about everyone concerned doesn't ring true. > Maybe Buddhaghosa, great scholar compiler and translator that he > undoubtedly was, didn't know much about people and human psychology > and interaction? Andrew: Not sure that you're right here. Assuming the Angulimala story is true, it is one that would be rejected by a HarperCollins publisher with the retort - "It may well be true, but nobody is going to believe it!" Fact is stranger than fiction. > > King Pasenadi, though, had nothing to forgive. His parents, wives, > children were not mentioned among the dead. But he did have a duty > as 'father' of the citizens of his country. He appears to have done > far too little, far too late. Andrew: Surely you're not in a state of disbelief over the fact of political incompetence and corruption and nepotism etc? I read somewhere once that Pasenadi's police (who wore a special hairstyle) were considered brutal and over-zealous by the people at the time. Can we blame him for thinking that the police should be able to handle the finger bandit case in the early stages? Anyway, those are my rambling thoughts on the matter. I hope they help. I think there can be real danger in judging the past by present day standards - like everything else, standards are impermanent. BTW loved the story of you "at the foot of a tree"! Can just picture the chaos and appreciate your sense of humour in sharing it. Metta Andrew 28881 From: Egberdina Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 8:44pm Subject: Re: Angulimala Hi Christine, I suspect you may also have difficulties accepting some of the parables of Jesus eg the prodigal son getting the royal treatment on his return to the father, despite having squandered his inheritance, and the master of the vineyard paying the same wage to all comers, regardless of what time of day they started. Liberation is liberation, those that have tried longer or harder or more earnestly or have strayed less don't get a better end product. I would protect my life and the life of those around me to the hilt, especially against some dropkick with a thumb-fetish. And the best advice I can give people is that there is no good way of organising the deckchairs on the Titanic. What more do you want :-) All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Connie, Herman and all, > "What is the relationship of Buddhism to Civil Law?" > This would include - in the case of the 999 murders - comforting the > grief-stricken, assisting broken families who are suffering economic > hardship, bringing home the families to their depopulated villages, > allaying the pervasive fear of the citizens, restoring lost economic > prosperity, assisting to bring back to production neglected farms, > caring for the widowed and orphaned, and giving short term food and > practical assistance where needed. In other words, encouraging > confidence in the citizens that there is someone responsible at the > helm of government, that each one of them is of valued and of equal > importance and entitled to the care and protection of the State. > > In the commentary story, are there any indicators that Angulimala, > King Pasenadi or the Sangha even gave those things a thought? > But, Angulimala achieved enlightenment? - ah, well .. that's all > right then. > > metta and peace, > Christine 28882 From: Egberdina Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 9:16pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hi Ken, I very much appreciate your good cheer and humour :-) > > All right, but what did the Buddha teach? Isn't that all > that matters? Who cares what Herman or Ken accepts or > doesn't accept? No one! (apart from Herman or Ken) > > Enough about accept/don't-accept; let's just learn what > the Buddha taught. The trouble with you, Herman, is you > think you have time. (Where have I heard that before?) :-) I do not believe that I do not understand what the Buddha or Jesus is teaching. I just do not wish to accept these teachings of the Buddha or Jesus because the inevitable rejection of the world follows. Not ready, not willing, sorry :-) I do not believe that more study will lead to finding those bits where the Buddha says, "It's all right, keep doing what you're doing, just get the latest Masefield, it's a ripper" or Jesus says "look out for more of my scrolls and she'll be right". I hope you see my problem Ken. More study will lead to more rejection of what I'm studying, not because the material presented is flawed, but because it isn't flawed. Why do you study, Ken? > > Kind regards, > > Ken H > > H: The following is not a changing of your well-wishing > or name. I quite like them :-) > > > All the best > > Herman > ---------- > > Hooray! :-) > Love it !!!! All the best Herman 28883 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 11:30pm Subject: Re: Angulimala Hello Andrew, Herman and all, Andrew: I wasn't shocked by Angulimala and his garland of fingers - nothing physical shocks me much nowadays. Any hospital or mental health worker could tell a few equally hair raising stories. It is just that the interaction of the main characters, particularly in the beginning, is not believable. And the turn of events at the end doesn't show any compassion towards a great many others. I wasn't talking about the 'shockingness' of the garland of fingers - just the huge weight, increased bodily awkwardness, and smell. Hardly of assistance to some one needing not to rattle and clang when sneaking up on someone with a knfe. Killing ONE person, accidently or in self defense, is one thing - most parents would offer help and succour under those circumstances - but this is a story of a serial killer, with very odd reasons. The man killed 999 people. It would have taken years. He was a criminal, attacking his own people. I don't know one mother or father (in real life) who would support a son who did that, in such huge numbers. {This is not a misunderstanding of cultural diversity.} I understand accumulations and kamma, and I don't dispute that Angulmala became an Arahant. The bare facts are O.K. - Murderous bandit has a meeting with the Buddha, becomes enlightened. It is the story used to flesh out the facts that is improbable. Herman: The story of the Prodigal Son is always a favourite - I had no worries about welcoming back the sinner, and I felt compassion for the aggrieved, seemingly unappreciated elder brother. Did we ever hear how the story ended a few years down the track? Hopefully, once the father's joy had settled, and the elder son's hurt and jealousy had diminished, there was love and contentment between the three. These are normal human reactions, to be expected, they ring true. Paying the day labourers the same wage no matter what time they started, would adjust itself in time - people would merely come later and later, and the boss would have to institute a different payment scale! (Just kidding Herman, I know the real underlying Teaching.) I'm not sure I agree with the Titanic metaphor. The problem with Samsara is that it is 'unsinkable' - it just keeps sailing on and on. One has to find the door out and 'hop off'. Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 28884 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 0:37am Subject: Free Will was (Two to tango .....) Hello Herman, Howard, and All, Herman's talking about Freewill, so we must be in January. :-) (I'm sure we had a discussion about Free Will once before?) I don't think there is any such thing - the very idea of free will implies the existence of a Self, when all there is is kamma, conditionality and accumulations ... is there anything else? Free Will and wanting to control, go hand in hand. "The Buddha taught that it is precisely this deep misunderstanding, the illusion of a self, that is the root cause of all human suffering. The illusion of self manifests as the ego, and the natural unstoppable function of the ego is to control. Big egos want to control the world, average egos attempt to control their immediate surroundings of home, family and workplace, and all egos strive to control what they assume to be their own bodies and minds." http://www.abhayagiri.org/dhamma/self.html Here is an excerpt about Free Will that you may find interesting: "To get a little ad hominem, denials of determinism always seem to center on a desire for something called "free will". I have yet to find anyone who can tell me what it is that the will is free of. Neither have I heard why behaving in a random, arbitrary manner is more noble than acting as the result of causes. I read Peter van Inwagen's book on free will (I forget the title), having been told that it showed that free will was compatible with determinism. I could not ever grasp the author's point. (I assume he had one.) Imagine that when we act, we have no reason for acting. We have no motivation. Our actions are totally unpredictable, even by statistics. Folk psychology is a delusion. Prophets, preachers, politicians, propagandizers, and advertisers are all wasting their time trying to cause specific kinds of behavior in an acausal system. Neither the actor nor the watcher can have any idea about what the actor will do next. The actor cannot control his actions, because they are beyond cause and effect. Neither reward nor punishment can modify behavior. We have no basis for any expectations. We have no reason for believing that a killer will ever kill again, even though he has done it 20 times in the past. Without causation, every action is uniquely isolated from every other action. We cannot reasonably apply the following terms, or any of their synonyms, to human actions: as a result, because, caused by, motivated by, if...then..., so, therefore, thus, why, how. The meaning of the physical world is in relationships. A non- deterministic world has no relationships. There are no meaningful details. If God were in the details, then he would be SOL with human free will. If one could ask "how?" about such acausal systems, one might ask how the tiny atomic and subatomic critters of which we are composed know when to go acausal. How do they tell the difference between being part of a refrigerator and being part of you or me? And how does an event know that it has ended, so that we don't get effects spilling over from one event to another? They must be cleverer than they look. Computer programs rely heavily on branching instructions. In human terms these look like choice points. The program has a choice of branching or not branching. It has other choices: it can place a 1 in a register, or it can place a 0. However, we know that programs are entirely deterministic. The apparent choice is dependent on the status of some flag, which in turn depends on some previous situation. Even if we don't understand how the computer will behave at any particular branch, I doubt that anyone would say that the computer really has a choice. How are human choices different from this, other than the fact that not all of our registers are open to examination?" http://www.coastalfog.net/buddhism/freewill.html metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina" > Hi Howard, Christine and everyone, > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > There is definitely will. I'm not clear, however, on what > exactly is > > meant by "free" will. What exactly is such willing supposed to be > free OF (or > > FROM)? When there is willing, I do believe that it is conditioned, > that it > > arises for reasons among which are desires, and these desires, in > turn, arise due > > to conditions. Do we mean that a choice is made not under duress, > without > > being forced to choose a particular way by threats? If so, then, > yes, often there > > is free will. But I don't think anyone will say that that is > exactly what they > > mean by 'free will'? Is it not possible that we really don't know > what we > > mean when we say "free will," and that it is more of a vague > feeling than a well > > understood concept? > > With metta,Howard =========================== A great debate in physics in the early 20th century revolved around > whether there could be a scientific theory that could predict any > future state of affairs given a known state of affairs. > Einstein et al firmly did not want to believe that "God could play > dice". He approached the cosmos in a deterministic way. Bohr et al > had no such predilection. Hence theories of relativity and quantum > mechanics. It seems there is evidence both for and against both of > them. > I would reckon it to be very worthwhile to examine notions such as > free-will, to find out what substance there is to them. I would > start of by making the following points: > 1] To say that something is conditioned does not mean to say that it is determined. > 2] The notion of free-will comes from the experience of > indeterminacy. > All the best >Herman 28885 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 1:14am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Dear James, Htoo and Herman, Thank you, James, for your long and thoughtful post, I genuinely appreciated it. I plan to respond to it in detail later. For now, I thought I would concentrate on a point you and Htoo have both made (and I think Herman has agreed with). Htoo wrote: ------------- > While trying( conventional ) is needed trying ( in Paramattha ) is not needed. ??? more confused? > ------------- and James wrote: ------------- > One practices from when it is a person knowing gross phenomena until it is only dhammas knowing dhammas. > -------------- You both seem to be saying the same thing, namely, that at a certain level, we can try to have right mindfulness (satipatthana). My questions remain: Did the Buddha teach us to try? Can we try? Ultimately, there are only dhammas. In conventional reality, there are people and places but conventional reality is no reality at all -- a better name for it is 'illusion.' Dhammas don't try to arise and cease; they simply depend on the laws of conditionality. (Right effort, for example, arises with, but follows after, right understanding.) Therefore, when we, conventional beings, try to have right mindfulness (or try to do anything), that is pure illusion. This leads me to believe that the Buddha would never have taught such a thing. In another post, Htoo wrote to Herman and me: ------------- > Anyway, fighting nama, welcoming nama and mindful nama have been learnt. Thanks. > ------------- :-) You are having a laugh at our expense. I'm sure we both claim poetic license. I said that right mindfulness would welcome lobha; I don't really believe 'welcoming' is one of the functions of samma-sati. (No more than is 'trying') :-) Kind regards, Ken H 28886 From: dragonwriter2 Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 3:04am Subject: Question Re: Stage Hypnotism Hi Sarah/James :) Thanks for the replies! yes 'conditions, conditions' ;) I've been reflecting on birth, ageing, sickness and death and all the different ways they are experienced by sentient beings. Too the individual the exact ripening of these occurences are unknowable/unavoidable regardless of intent and aspirations. Yet it gladdens me to know that inspite of this Buddhas of past, present and future do arise to show the way to the deathless. Metta, Simon L. 28887 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 5:21am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Paññatti VS Paramattha: To Nina, Mike B And Ken O Hi Michael Michael: I said before and let me clarify this again, I have difficulties in accepting some teachings expressed in the commentaries to the Canon but I have never negated the teachings of the suttas, quite the contrary. But in my view some of the commentaries to the Canon negate the teachings of the suttas. I said this many times and say again, in the suttas there is no teaching about paramatha/sabhava. Did the Buddha say that the first noble truth is that there are paramatha? And that the fourth truth is the way to fully and directly understand paramatha, and that this understanding will provide an end to suffering? No, definitely not, there is no paramatha coming from the mouth of the Buddha. And in defense of the commentators it has been argued that already at the time of the Buddha his disciples were giving teachings and interpretations of brief utterances by the Buddha. This is correct but in many instances those teachings by his disciples were confirmed by the Buddha. Which is not, of course, the case with Budhaghosa. K: I have to admit that I have not seen Buddha said about paramatthas in any of the suttas. The commentators classify the five khandhas as paramatthas. The first noble truth, the clinging of the five khandhas are paramatthas. If you replace the five khandhas with paramatthas, can you see any difference in the meaning? The meaning does not changed. M: In the first years when I got in contact with Buddhism I was fully immersed and absorbed with Theravada doctrine and interesting enough I had exactly the same views in relation to paramatha/sabhava as the ones generally expressed in this list. Fortunately though I met some challenges to my beliefs which at that time I found really hard to accept. But it raised some doubts in my mind and pursuing the answers to those doubts I came across some interpretations which only brought me closer to the suttas and pointed towards the distortions in the commentaries. K: Please refrain from those interpretations that comes out of people's thinking, I encourage you to look into the text yourself. Decide for yourself whether the commentaries have taken this position. Michael: In the Kaccayanagotta Sutta (SN XII.15) the Buddha talks about the world and how people view the world. He says that usually people see the world as either existing or not existing. And then he provides his view of the world which is dependent origination. It is quite clear from this sutta that the Buddha is rejecting the notion of existence/non existence in favor of conditionality. And it becomes quite clear that existence and conditionality is not the same thing. Conditionality means that the thing depends entirely upon conditions for its existence. And by extension if something depends entirely upon conditions it cannot have any form of intrinsic/inherent substance in it, in other words it has to be devoid of essence. Because by definition an essence is not subject to conditions, otherwise it would not be an essence. Now if the Buddha is favoring conditionality and rejecting existence, it can only mean that the existence he is referring to is intrinsic/inherent existence. Now, paramatha and sabhava means ultimate existence with intrinsic nature (or own unique characteristic which leads to the same conclusion as intrinsic nature). The simple fact that something is considered to be ultimate implies some form of unique, own attribute, which points towards an essence. If it doesn’t have that how can it be ultimate? So, what I see is that the commentators have led the Theravadins to believe that a phenomena can be at the same time an ultimate reality, which has to have, by definition, some form of intrinsic nature, and at the same time be subject to conditionality. The problem is that this is impossible. Either a phenomena truly exists or it is subject to conditionality, and if all phenomena are subject to conditionality then we are left with just conventional reality. The world has no ultimate realities only conventional realities. And conventional reality is the same as conditionality. That is what the Buddha said in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta. K: Let ask youself this qn, can you reject the position that the existence out of conditionality is still existence, if there it is not an existence, then how do we experience it. If it is not an existence out of conditionality at that moment of its arisen and its cessation, then it will mean a totally nihilistic position. No existence at all. At the moment when we felt pain, can we say there is no pain at all. That is the position of our paramattha/sabhava position. Pain is irreducible and it has distinct characteristic and it exist at that moment of our experience and it will also goes away. Buddha does not reject existence, he reject existence out of eternalism or nothingness viewpoint. In the dependent condition, if these Ignorance .... death do not exist, Buddha will not be able to describe it for us. IMHO Buddha does not teach no existence, he teach there is existence but this existence must be due to conditions bc an uncaused existence is eternalism. Buddha has describe the links clearly, which means each link has its own characteristics. If they do not have their own characteristics how do we differentiate that there is ignorance, there is contact. Hence this is what we meant by sabhava in the commentaries, the characteristics of a dhamma. Other interpretaton of this meaning by other writers are basically their own not the position of the commentaries. K: Furthermore, I think there is some confusion on the usage of ultimate. Ulimate is just plain irreducible not in the sense used like ulimate power (something like God). In fact, I have asked this qn why used this word in the list, why not used emphirical or basic. I think the commentarian position is that the distinction of conventional and ultimate reality is that conventional reality is not directly experience by one consciouness while ultimate reality is. This is my personal position, the reason why conventional reality is not promoted in the commenataries are bc conventional reality is subjective and not objective. Why we talk about for eg a vase, it is conventional reality, once broken there is no longer a vase, however when we used ultimate reality, a blind man will know the distinctive characteristic of hardness of the earth element of the vase be it broken or not. In this sense, ultimate reality provide a framework of standardisation of knowing the dhamma. It removes the subjectivity, it is like science. But let me emphasis all these ultimate realities are conditions. Kind regards Ken O 28888 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 5:24am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hi Ken, Ken: Thank you, James, for your long and thoughtful post, I genuinely appreciated it. I plan to respond to it in detail later. James: I'm glad that you appreciated it. You don't need to respond to it in detail, only if you want to. I think you bring up the heart of the matter in this post. Ken: Ultimately, there are only dhammas. In conventional reality, there are people and places but conventional reality is no reality at all -- a better name for it is 'illusion.' James: Here we are going to disagree. It isn't right thinking to reject the existence of conventional reality; actually, they might just put you in a mental institution for that! ;-) Conventional Reality and Ultimate Reality are both realities, at least according to Buddhism (and my way of thinking). Conventional Reality should be seen as `Superficial Reality' and Ultimate Reality should be seen as `Deeper Reality'. The existence of one doesn't negate the existence of the other; they should both be seen as actually existing. The unenlightened (worldlings) see and know just the superficial reality (and sometimes not even that!) and the enlightened (arahants) truly and more fully know both. The Abhidhamma and its system of categorizing dhammas is only for the sake of convenience; it doesn't completely describe Ultimate Reality. Ultimate Reality cannot be described in words or concepts. The Buddha taught the anatta (non-self) of entities (humans, devas, animals, etc.), the Pali Abhidhamma took this a step further and teaches the non-self of everything by classifying namas and rupas. Mahayana Buddhism took this even a step further with the teaching of `Emptiness'. Personally, I don't think that any of these teachings are wrong; they are just increases in the sophistication of the teaching of anatta. But no system of thought, no matter how sophisticated, can truly describe anatta. It must be experienced first hand. Ken: Dhammas don't try to arise and cease; they simply depend on the laws of conditionality. (Right effort, for example, arises with, but follows after, right understanding.) James: We will just have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't see the Eightfold Path as purely descriptive of perfect moments that arise spontaneously (`mini-meditations'); I see it as prescriptive and descriptive of a path of practice. Buddhism isn't just a philosophy to me; it is a religion and a way of living to me. Ken: You both seem to be saying the same thing, namely, that at a certain level, we can try to have right mindfulness (satipatthana). My questions remain: Did the Buddha teach us to try? Can we try? James: Yes did and yes we can. Don't try too hard and don't try too little, the Middle Way. Of course you aren't going to see it this way because you think the Eightfold Path is just a description or philosophy. The only thing I can say is to consider carefully the Buddha's life and the Sangha he established. He and his monks weren't just armchair philosophers waiting for perfect moments to arise. Metta, James 28889 From: abhidhammika Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 6:03am Subject: Re: Paññatti VS Paramattha: To Nina, Mike B And Ken O Dear Sarah, Jon, Michale B and all How are you, Dhamma friends? The following are an off-list discussions between me and Sarah & Jon, and my edited re-post of my previous message (28813) with corrections on this thread. I hope that the new revised post reads better and politer! :-) Suan -------------------------------------------- Dear Sarah and Jon Thank you for your invitation to Hong Kong. Even though there is no plan now, you never know these things. :-) Sara quote: "Who said that the people with the wrong views (micchaadi.t.thi) could not come up with such laughable accusations and advice?" You are spot-on again! After your message, I was wondering what passages might fit the description, and I did think about the one above. I did not have to write that type of question which was not related to the main points of the post. But, somehow, when you write something, that type of overflow slipped through unfortunately. Before I click the SEND button, I always check my posts. But, when I became tired due to sleepiness (the post was written very late night / early morning), carelessness happened. In fact, I even forgot to save the post before sending to DSG. That was very unwise because sometimes Yahoo played up and I might have lost what I wrote. I also made a syntax error in that post. (...was called.. for nothing instead of ... was not called ... for nothing) Sarah also quote: "Good luck with your second-hand Buddhist views!" Yes, the above also was out of context. I did not need to add that, either. My usual "With regards," perfectly does the job! Sarah also quote: "Your patronizing accusations.... " Yes, perhaps it was also harsh. Well, Sarah, I agree with you, and thank you for pointing those things out. I will try my best to trim unnecessary rude slips of the tongue from my future posts. Cheers! Suan (Sarah wrote:) Dear Suan, Thanks for your good wishes too. I repeat that we really appreciate your posts and the serious and well-researched Theravada content. Thanks for taking our suggestions in good faith. > How about quoting particular passages in my posts that you think > contain the wrong tones? That way, I could examine them as >reminders realistically for future posts. ... I'll add a couple of comments at the end then,which I think can easily be misconstrued and detract from your good post. ..... > How is the weather in Hong Kong? In Canberra the holidays (Christmas > and New Year period) were extremely hot, then luckily now we are having > slightly wintery days. :-) ... This is the best time if you ever think of visiting (which we'd be very glad of). Every day is sunny, clear and mild. The forecast says cooler next week, but winters are the best here. Thanks again for all your helpful posts to Michael. Many will appreciate them. Metta, Sarah (& Jon) ============ Suan: >Your patronizing accusations.... .... >Who said that the people with the wrong views (micchaadi.t.thi) could not come up with such laughable accusations and advice? >Good luck with your second-hand Buddhist views! _______________________________________ THE FOLLOWING IS AN EDITED RE-POST OF MY PREVIOUS POST (28813) WITH CORRECTIONS. _________________________________________ Dear Michael B, Nina, Howard, Htoo, Enzir, James and all How are you? Happy New Year to Howard, Htoo, Enzir and James! Michael wrote: "1. Thanks for your effort. Not that it has produced many results because you preferred to leave many questions unanswered." Suan : Perhaps, my style of answering may not be to your liking. For example, you asked me to give you an abstract definition of what truth is. I answered that truth does not exist by itself on its own. Here is my question to you. Does the thing called truth exist independently of the paramattha dhammaa (real or actual phenomena that can be observed, experienced, and experimented)? Michael wrote: "2. But don't worry in providing those answers because it is quite clear to me what is the thinking of the ancient Theravada commentators." Suan: I doubt it very much. If you haven't read (at least some of ) those ancient Theravada commentaries, you are very unlikely to know their thinking and how they never deviated from the teachings of Gotama the Buddha. They are not famously called, and accepted as, the orthodox followers of the Buddha for nothing! Michael also wrote: "3. You refrained from giving me a definition of paramatha but the article written by Karudanasa (I presume he is part of your list of trusted scholars – don't bother to answer) clearly shows what paramatha means:" Suan: No, I never refrained from giving you a definition of paramattha. Even though I did not quote from Pali sources, I did provide the qualities of paramattha dhammaa as follows. "Thus, the qualities that make something a paramattha phenomenon is 1. emergence when there are relevant conditions. 2. total disappearance when those relevant conditions disappear. Please also note that I describe anger as a phenomenon that emerges, instead of stating that anger "has" a real existence as though it were a container that contains something." So what was wrong with my definition? Do you agree with those defining qualities of a paramattha? Michael also wrote after quoting from Karunaadasa: "4. Those are quite straight forward explanations of what is a paramatha and paññatti. There are many words used in those quotes, like `own-nature,' `own-being,' `characteristic peculiar to a dhamma,' `distinctive intrinsic characteristic,' `existence,' `ontological ultimacy,' `truly existing thing,' `exists in a real and ultimate sense.' All those words only confirm to me what I knew already. Pointing to qualities that the dhammas posses that can only be explained by one attribute. If the dhammas are all that which has been described, they must have an essence, they exist from their own side, by their own power. But this interpretation is not in accordance with the suttas." Suan: So you like answers with big terms like "own-being", "ontological ultimacy" that confirm what you knew already. And then you accused Abhidhamma commentaries of not being in accordance with the Suttas. Aha! Now I know why you were disappointed with my answers. My answers did not confirm what you "knew" already, nor they allow you to accuse Abhidhamma commentaries of conflicting with the Suttas? But, my answers come from Abhidhamma commentaries! Amazing, isn't it? And then, Michael wrote as follows. "5. I said before and say again, there is no paramatha, no sabhava, in the suttas, and paññatti appears in the suttas but with a different meaning than the one used in the Abhidhamma commentaries. Those are all concepts invented by the Commentators. I am not discarding the Abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma is a good tool to understand human psychology but it is very poor in defining Buddhist philosophy." Suan: What you wrote above reminded me of an ostrich hiding its head in the sands. Assuming that you haven't read the standard Pali commentaries, those types of accuations should not be made before you have learnt to read those commentaries themselves. Hence, my previous advice to you that you do your homework! When you have adequate skills and patience and time to read the standard Theravada Pali commentaries, perhaps you might well be able and willing to revise your present position. Then Michael made further remarks as follows. "6. I have to say that from my point of view this thread is closed. I realized from recent messages that my observations have stirred up a lot of emotions. I don't want to upset people even more. For those who don't have a strong attachment to their views and want to better understand a philosophical stand which is closer to the teachings of the suttas I suggest to study the Madhyamaka philosophy. For those who have strong attachment to the views expressed by the Abhidhamma commentators, just remember that any strong attachment is a hindrance in the path." Suan: Many people on this list are Theravada Buddhists. The charactersitcs of Theravdins are their preservation, research, learning, and practicing of Pali TIPI.TAKA. Please note my emphasis on TIPI.TAKA with Capital Letters. Ti means three. Tipi.taka means the Three Collections of Gotama the Buddha's teachings, namely, Vinaya, Suttanta and Abhidhamma. What I am getting at is that Theravadins directly learn from Suttanta Pi.taka. As such, they do not need to study Madhyamaka philosophy so as to understand a philosophical standpoint which is CLOSER to the teachings of the SUTTAS. Please pay attention to CLOSER and SUTTAS. Michael, do you realize that you are advising the Theravadins who directly learn and follows Pali Suttas to opt for something that is merely CLOSER or APPROXIMATE to Suttas? With regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: Suan (and all,) May you all be happy and sorry for any disturbances that I may have caused. Metta Michael 28890 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 6:42am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Paññatti VS Paramattha: To Nina, Mike B And Ken O Hello Victor, Victor: It is hard to convince those who hold the Abhidhamma views as what the Buddha to discard these views. It is also hard to convince those who have discarded the Abhidhamma views as not what the Buddha taught to take up these views and hold them as what the Buddha taught. Michael: I have said this countless times and have to say again, I don’t discard the Abhidhamma teachings. I don’t say that the Abhidhamma are not the teachings of the Buddha. But I say that the commentaries (some of them) have misrepresented the contents of the Abhidhamma. Metta Michael _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 28891 From: ashkenn2k Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 6:59am Subject: Re: Angulimala Hi Christine Firstly the answer the part on physical strength, if you read the sutta, <<"Isn't it amazing! Isn't it astounding! In the past I've chased & seized even a swift-running elephant, a swift-running horse, a swift-running chariot, a swift-running deer. But now, even though I'm running with all my might, I can't catch up with this contemplative walking at normal pace.">> --- this show how strong he is physically. A king supposed to be the supreme chief judge in the country, isn't this make him seem that he is not doing his job. Bc it was Buddha who said that Angulimala is a change man and I think that made a lot of difference. And during that time, ascetics are highly esteem in the society, hence when Angulimala is reborn to a Noble Birth, his old actions should be considered ceased -- this can been seen further down the sutta that he is of a Noble Birth <<"Then in that case, Angulimala, go to that woman and on arrival say to her, 'Sister, since I was born in the noble birth, I do not recall intentionally killing a living being. Through this truth may there be wellbeing for you, wellbeing for your fetus.'">> Wont this affect the standing of Buddha - no bc I believe at that time I think Buddha name will have been very well known so what he said will have erase the impact of his acceptance of Angulimala. In fact by subduing Angulimala, would have increased his reputation as a teacher of Gods and Humans. <> What kind of justice is this? - Angulimala should be jailed and caned etc..... Justice in Buddhism is kamma and not justice in society laws. This can be very unhuman but it is like this. Isn't this story a but improbable - I dont think so, if you read the newspaper and especially stories about serial killers - things are not impropable. best wishes Ken O --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Andrew, Herman and all, > > Andrew: I wasn't shocked by Angulimala and his garland of fingers - > nothing physical shocks me much nowadays. Any hospital or mental > health worker could tell a few equally hair raising stories. It is > just that the interaction of the main characters, particularly in the > beginning, is not believable. And the turn of events at the end > doesn't show any compassion towards a great many others. I wasn't > talking about the 'shockingness' of the garland of fingers - just the > huge weight, increased bodily awkwardness, and smell. Hardly of > assistance to some one needing not to rattle and clang when sneaking > up on someone with a knfe. Killing ONE person, accidently or in self > defense, is one thing - most parents would offer help and succour > under those circumstances - but this is a story of a serial killer, > with very odd reasons. The man killed 999 people. It would have > taken years. He was a criminal, attacking his own people. I don't > know one mother or father (in real life) who would support a son who > did that, in such huge numbers. > {This is not a misunderstanding of cultural diversity.} > I understand accumulations and kamma, and I don't dispute that > Angulmala became an Arahant. The bare facts are O.K. - Murderous > bandit has a meeting with the Buddha, becomes enlightened. It is the > story used to flesh out the facts that is improbable. > > Herman: The story of the Prodigal Son is always a favourite - I had > no worries about welcoming back the sinner, and I felt compassion for > the aggrieved, seemingly unappreciated elder brother. Did we ever > hear how the story ended a few years down the track? Hopefully, once > the father's joy had settled, and the elder son's hurt and jealousy > had diminished, there was love and contentment between the three. > These are normal human reactions, to be expected, they ring true. > Paying the day labourers the same wage no matter what time they > started, would adjust itself in time - people would merely come later > and later, and the boss would have to institute a different payment > scale! (Just kidding Herman, I know the real underlying Teaching.) > I'm not sure I agree with the Titanic metaphor. The problem with > Samsara is that it is 'unsinkable' - it just keeps sailing on and > on. One has to find the door out and 'hop off'. > > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 28892 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 7:04am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hello James: James: The Buddha taught the anatta (non-self) of entities (humans, devas, animals, etc.), the Pali Abhidhamma took this a step further and teaches the non-self of everything by classifying namas and rupas. Mahayana Buddhism took this even a step further with the teaching of `Emptiness'. Personally, I don't think that any of these teachings are wrong; they are just increases in the sophistication of the teaching of anatta. But no system of thought, no matter how sophisticated, can truly describe anatta. It must be experienced first hand. Michael: I hope you don’t mind interfering here. The way I would describe it is that the Pali commentaries interpreted that the teaching of non-self only applies to entities (humans, devas, animals, etc.) but that the aggregates are an ultimate reality with true existence. Mahayana, specifically Nagarjuna teaches that the aggregates are empty, i.e. don’t have any form of true existence and are not an ultimate reality, because true existence is incompatible with conditionality. So from this perspective a dhamma and a being are exactly the same in nature, both are conditioned and are a conventional reality. Emptiness can be understood intelectually and be realized through direct knowledge. The Buddha taught conditionality, not any form of true existence. Metta Michael 28893 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 7:25am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Paññatti VS Paramattha: To Nina, Mike B And Ken O Hello Ken O: Ken O: I think the commentarian position is that the distinction of conventional and ultimate reality is that conventional reality is not directly experience by one consciouness while ultimate reality is. This is my personal position, the reason why conventional reality is not promoted in the commenataries are bc conventional reality is subjective and not objective. Why we talk about for eg a vase, it is conventional reality, once broken there is no longer a vase, however when we used ultimate reality, a blind man will know the distinctive characteristic of hardness of the earth element of the vase be it broken or not. Michael: A being, lets say a tiger, according to your definition is a conventional reality which is not experienced directly. So if you get close to a hungry tiger and the tiger attacks you, you will experience nothing because the tiger is just a conventional reality. I see. Now you say that hardness is an ultimate reality because it is not subjective but objective. So any human being which touches that vase will feel exactly the same characteristic of hardness since it is objective. Now what about vipaka, where does vipaka come into play? One feels in accordance with the hardness but also vipaka, so you cannot say the feeling of hardness is purely objective. Ken O: In this sense, ultimate reality provide a framework of standardization of knowing the dhamma. It removes the subjectivity, it is like science. But let me emphasis all these ultimate realities are conditions.. Michael: I can almost agree with you here with some provisos. My view is that the dhamma theory is just what is possible for us to experience, and it is just enough to dispel our basic ignorance about reality. And reality is not that the dhammas are paramatha but that the dhammas are anatta, anicca, dukkha. What we have to realize are those three characteristics and for that purpose the dhamma theory is just perfect. The inference that the dhammas are paramatha is a trick of our deluded mind which has this need to see existence/non-existence in everything. Metta Michael 28894 From: Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 3:38am Subject: Conditionality Versus Causality (Re: [dsg] Two to tango ...) Hi, Herman - In a message dated 1/8/04 5:24:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, hhofman@t... writes: > 1] To say that something is conditioned does not mean to say that it > is determined. ========================= When I use the term 'conditioned', I mean two things by it: One of these is merely "affected" by conditions (conditionality #1), but the other is 'arising entirely due to the coming together of needed conditions' (conditionality #2). I do believe that everything I know is conditioned in both of these senses. With regard to both of these, the way I distinguish the term 'conditioned' from 'caused', is that 'causality' presumes some "causal power/force," some substantial, but hidden "causative potency". My use of the term 'conditioned' assumes no such entity, but merely a regularity and predictability of preoccurrence or cooccurrence along the lines of "When this arises, that arises," and "When there is this, there is that" and "Without this arising, that doesn't arise" and "Without this, there is not that". In S II, 28, according to Kalupahana (I don't have the S. Nikaya in front of me to verify this), the four characteristics of dependent origination are given as "objectivity, necessity, invariability and conditionality," and this is what I have in mind. The preoccurrence form of conditionality that I call "conditionality #2", is the main form of conditionality #2 that corresponds to causality, but it is different from causality. The cooccurence form of conditionality #2 may be asymmetric or may involve mutual conditionality. When it is asymmetric, it also corresponds to causality, but is different from it. I see conditionality as an explanatory tool. Particularly, with regard to the preoccurrence form of conditionality #2, we may say, in talking about groups of conditions, that "Z occurred because A did," and when asked how A "caused" Z, we might reply "Well, because of A, M occurred, and so we got Z," and then questions as to how Z arose "from" M, or how M arose "from" A are similarly answered, providing an ever and ever finer chain of (groups of) conditions until the questioner feels satisfied that he/she understands how Z occurred as a result of A having occurred. (Or, the questioning may proceed backward linearly: "Why Z?" : "Well, because of Y"; "Yeah, but why Y?" : "Well, because of X"; and so on.) I believe in conditionality, but I don't believe in causality. 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) 28895 From: Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 4:50am Subject: Theravadin Emptiness [Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )] Hi, Michael (and James) - In a message dated 1/10/04 10:06:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, mbeisert@h... writes: > Hello James: > > James: > The Buddha taught the anatta (non-self) of entities (humans, devas, > animals, etc.), the Pali Abhidhamma took this a step further and > teaches the non-self of everything by classifying namas and rupas. > Mahayana Buddhism took this even a step further with the teaching > of `Emptiness'. Personally, I don't think that any of these > teachings are wrong; they are just increases in the sophistication of > the teaching of anatta. But no system of thought, no matter how > sophisticated, can truly describe anatta. It must be experienced > first hand. > > Michael: > I hope you don’t mind interfering here. The way I would describe it is that > the Pali commentaries interpreted that the teaching of non-self only applies > > to entities (humans, devas, animals, etc.) but that the aggregates are an > ultimate reality with true existence. Mahayana, specifically Nagarjuna > teaches that the aggregates are empty, i.e. don’t have any form of true > existence and are not an ultimate reality, because true existence is > incompatible with conditionality. So from this perspective a dhamma and a > being are exactly the same in nature, both are conditioned and are a > conventional reality. Emptiness can be understood intelectually and be > realized through direct knowledge. The Buddha taught conditionality, not any > > form of true existence. > > Metta > Michael > ================================= There is the following from Nyanatiloka's dictionary: _____________________________________________ > suñña (adj.), suññatá (noun): void (ness), empty (emptiness). As a > doctrinal term it refers, in Theraváda, exclusively to the anattá doctrine,.i.e. the > unsubstantiality of all phenomena: "Void is the world ... because it is void > of a self and anything belonging to a self" (suññam attena vá attaniyena vá; > S. XXXV, 85); also stated of the 5 groups of existence (khandha, q.v.) in the > same text. See also M. 43, M. 106. - In CNidd. (quoted in Vis.M. XXI, 55), > it is said: "Eye ... mind, visual objects ... mind-objects, visual > consciousness ... mind-consciousness, corporeality ... consciousness, etc., are void of > self and anything belonging to a self; void of permanency and of anything > lasting, eternal or immutable.. They are coreless: without a core of permanency, > or core of happiness or core of self." - In M. 121, the voiding of the mind > of the cankers, in the attainment of Arahatship, is regarded as the "fully > purified and incomparably highest (concept of) voidness. - See Sn. v. 1119; M. > 121; M. 122 (WHEEL 87); Pts.M. II: Suñña-kathá; Vis.M. XXI, 53ff. ------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition, in The Path of Discrimination, from the Khuddhaka Nikaya, sabhava in the sense of "essence" is denied. Moreover, there are multiple references in the Sutta Nipata that are just as emptiness-oriented as Mahayana. For example, from The Serpent sutta, there are the following paragraphs: > He who does not find core or substance > in any of the realms of being, > like flowers which are vainly sought > in fig trees that bear none, > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. and He who neither goes too far nor lags behind> > and knows about the world: "This is all unreal," > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. He who neither goes too far nor > lags behind, > greedless he knows: "This is all unreal," > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. He who neither goes too far nor > lags behind, > lust-free he knows: "This is all unreal," > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. He who neither goes too far nor > lags behind, > hate-free he knows: "This is all unreal," > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. He who neither goes too far nor > lags behind, > delusion-free he knows: "This is all unreal," > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. And, of course, the Kaccanayagotta Sutta (SN XII.15) is the primary scriptural basis for the corelessness of all conditioned dhammas. This sutta certainly *seems* to be the basis for Nagarjuna's primary work, the Mulamadhyamakakarika (Verses on the Foundation of the Middle Way). 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) 28896 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 10:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV 60 (3 of 4) note 3 b Larry, note 3b. op 09-01-2004 00:19 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: Text: And the distinction "in the five-constituent becoming" is made on account of the mind-consciousness-element; in the four-constituent becoming, [that is, the immaterial sphere,] there is no mind-element. N: Because there are no sense-door processes of cittas experiencing sense-objects. Thus also no mind-element: the adverting-consciousness, the first citta of a sense-door process which adverts to the sense object that has impinged on one of the senses, and the wto types of receiving-consciousness, arising after the vipakacittas of the sense-cognitions. Text: Does there not follow contradiction of the middle term (hetu) because of establishing faculties as their support? No; because that is disproved by what is seen. For these two elements are not, as in the case of eye-consciousness, controlled by the slackness and keenness,etc., of their physical basis; and accordingly it is not said in the texts that they have the faculties as their condition. Hence their having faculties as their support, in other words, their being controlled by them, is disproved. N: Faculty, indriya: some are nama some are rupa. The five sense bases are rupa indriya: sense-faculties. They are controllers, leaders in their own field. Eyesense (cakkhuppasada ruupa) is a controller, but only in the field of seeing. Weakness or keenness influences the seeing. It conditions seeing by being its base (vatthu) and also by being a faculty. And also by prenascence: rupa is weak at its arising moment, and in order to control seeing it must have arisen before it. Thus we have this condition: by way of base-prenascence indriya. The five sense-bases are doorways for the cittas experiencing the relevant sense-objects. Heartbase could never be a doorway. Thus, it is quite different from the sense-faculties. It could never be a condition for the two elements by way of base-prenascence indriya. ***** Nina. 28897 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 10:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bangkok Meeting Dear Shakti, op 09-01-2004 15:50 schreef shakti op deannajohnsonusa@y...: > Nina and Sara will you still be there the next week for Dhamma discussion???? > I believe that is Feb 7th and 8th? Hoping to see you soon. N: Yes, I am there, but Sarah is not. Weekends A. Sujin is there, and even on Sunday when it is in Thai, we can still find moments in between. Hoping to see you, Nina. 28898 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 10:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Extolling, disparaging , slaying wrath Dear Sarah and Andrew, yes interesting post from Andrew. It is about daily life. op 09-01-2004 10:56 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: personal’. I think > it’s apparent, on DSG and in everyday life, that there’s a difference -- > and an inflammatory/non-inflammatory one as you suggest -- between saying > you are wise/unwise’ and such a pursuit or way is wise/unwise’. It would > have been helpful for me to have read and considered this before one or > two comments I made to my brother about lifestyles and so on. Still, > mostly it wasn't too personal. N: So human Sarah. S:... Yes, obviously the message is more helpful if it is in language which is > relevant to the listener. It can be difficult sometimes on DSG, I find. I > may be writing to one friend in tomato sauce’ language, but a ketchup’ > person is also reading and might object to the sauce. Sometimes I’m just > in a rush or lazy and use what’s easiest at the time, ie namas and rupas > without more ado;-) N: Now this sutta reminds me of the Anumanasutta (M I, 15,Measuring in accordance with) we discussed in the context of the perfections. As said, the monks have to recite it three times a day. It is also about exalting oneself and dsiparaging others. You have to take a close look at your own defilements before you disparage others. I made Lodewijk read this sutta and we agreed: dare you ever reproach someone else? But this needs freshening up, we forget again. Should't we recite this daily too? We say disagreeable things to each other sometimes, and then pride may be in the way to apologize. There is banner conceit: who am I, I am insulted. But how good when we can apologize, it makes the citta gentle and meek. And then the forgiving: coming from the heart. It is a kind of generosity, dana. We see how useful Vinaya is also for householders. Deva Samyutta (PTS), I, 8 slaughter suttas, § 1: What must we slay? <...so standing the deva addressed this verse to the Exalted One: what must we slay if we would happy live? what must we slay if we would weep no more? What is 't above all other things, whereof The slaluhter thou approves, Gotama? (The Exalted One:) Wrath must ye slay, if ye would happy live, Wrath must ye slay, if ye would weep no more. Of anger, deva, with its poinsoned source And fevered climax, murderously sweet, That is the slaughter by the Ariyans praised; That must ye slay in sooth, to weep no more.> Perhaps James could give us the B.B. transl. Note: Buddhaghosa writes:< Pleasure arises, in capping one angry rejoinder by another, in hitting back.>That is the fevered climax. And the poisoned source; a poisoned root, B explains, that has as its result sorrow, akusala vipaka. It is all so human. Nina. 28899 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 10:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] sabhava, asabhava, methodics. Dear Howard, You make a good point touching on the methodology of study, the general principles of studying Abhidhamma. Sabhava: there were lengthy discussions. We should not stick to one word meaning or definition. Sabhava rupas, asabhava rupas, we have to look closely. There is always more to it, not one definition suits all cases. Compare Expositor, giving one definition and then stating *or*: giving another definition. There are fine nuances and it depends on the student whether he is sensitive to these. As I said, dhammas can be seen under different headings, many angles of looking at things.This will also help us to understand the Tripartite division of the Visuddhimagga. I quote first what I wrote in my Rupas, hoping that this clarifies somewhat: Remarks: we have to remember this context, and look at the examples. In the list of 28 rupas we have not only the sabhava rupas we can call concrete matter, such as hardness or sound, but also qualities or characteristics of rupas are listed here. Such as a certain *change* of the great elements which constitute bodily intimation and verbal intimation. This is very subtle. Impermanence which is in itself a characteristic is listed here among the 28 rupas as not concrete matter, but as a quality inherent in rupa, in fact not a separate rupa: it is asabhava rupa. Asabhava does not mean: not real. It does not mean: unapprehendable. People with highly developed insight can realize the true nature of such realities. Thus, in this context sabhava and asabhava have meanings different from what we may think at first sight. There is always more to it! And compare with unproduced: space is considered to originate from the four factors. Still, it is called unproduced and asabhava: it merely functions as delimiting the groups of rupa. Though not concrete matter, it has a characteristic and it is real. To be apprehended by the wise. Thus, here we do not get very far by general definitions, we have to look at the examples given. All this will gradually become clearer, but not immediately. Nina. 28900 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 10:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Space element Dear Howard, Nina, and all, Space is a Paramattha Rupa. But it is not Nipphanna Rupa. It is Anipphanna Rupa. That means space is not conditioned by Kamma, Citta, Utu, and Ahara. If there is no Mahabhuta Rupa then there is no space. But when there are Mahabhuta Rupa, there exists space. Time and space are not real existence. Dear Howard, I sense boundless Metta but I do not know timeless Metta. Could you please explain about timeless Metta. I will be looking forward to hearing from you. With respect, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Nina, and Htoo, and all - > > In a message dated 1/9/04 12:22:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... > writes: > > > N: Space is without its own distinct nature, asabhava rupa. Its function is ] 28901 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 10:37am Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hi Michael, Michael: The Buddha taught conditionality, not any form of true existence. James: Yes, I know that. When I use the word `existence' I mean in the sense of: The purple elephant I am thinking of doesn't exist but the computer I am typing on does. Understand? I am not so strict about the use of the word `existence' as you are. It is just a word… it doesn't exist! hehehe...;-) Metta, James 28902 From: Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 5:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Space element Hi, Htoo In a message dated 1/10/04 1:31:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, htootintnaing@y... writes: > Dear Howard, I sense boundless Metta but I do > not know timeless Metta. Could you please explain about timeless > Metta. I will be looking forward to hearing from you. > ===================== I was just kidding. I wanted to bring in both space and time in my closing! ;-)) With momentary (but oft repeated) 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) 28903 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 10:46am Subject: Re: Howard's tree and a little hint ..Continuation of Pannatta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Carl" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" > wrote: > > Dear Carl, > > > > --------snip--snip--many snips :)--------------------------------- - > -- --snip--snip-snip--everything is snipped--- > Thanks > Carl ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Carl, Science is advancing. Without science, today world would have been different. But science is all Pannatta. Eye-consciousness arises at eye not at brain or occipital lobe. All body anatomy is just Pannatta. Retina, impulse, nerves are all Pannatta. The eye and the brain work as work station. Eye-consciousness arises at eye not at brain, I repeat this. Some sense outside world with 6th sense even with much more accurate data than 5 sensers. But that sense is not 5 sense. This means that vision even they know is not eye-consciousness, sound, smell, taste, touch..the same..happen. The Buddha just said Cakkhu Pasada. In His Time, there was not any scientist. No one will sense 'rhodopsin, impulse, occipital lobe and so on '. When Paramattha is well known Pannatta will also be known. Then Howard's tree is real or not will be clear to viewers. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 28904 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 0:12pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hello James, I see it differently though. To me, both your pink elephant and the computer, have both the same nature. They are not truly existent and exist only because of conditions. Both are conventional realities. Metta Michael >From: "buddhatrue" >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) >Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 18:37:06 -0000 > >Hi Michael, > >Michael: The Buddha taught conditionality, not any form of true >existence. > >James: Yes, I know that. When I use the word `existence' I mean in >the sense of: The purple elephant I am thinking of doesn't exist but >the computer I am typing on does. Understand? I am not so strict >about the use of the word `existence' as you are. It is just a word… >it doesn't exist! hehehe...;-) > >Metta, James 28905 From: Egberdina Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 1:43pm Subject: Re: Free Will was (Two to tango .....) Hi Christine and everyone, Happy January to one and all :-). I could never have believed that the results of my previous deeds could ripen into an opportunity to get on my soap box and ramble on about Free Will!!! It doesn't get any better than this:-) First of all, if the connotations of the term "free will" are problematic, I'm happy to use any other string of phonemes :-) I am only going from experience here, and am not trying to fit the experience into any specific theory. I reckon the theory comes last anyway, not first. When there is awareness of doing any sort of activity, whether discursive thinking, talking or gross bodily movements, and there is awareness of the choice of stopping that activity, then to say that there is a totally undetermined choice to either keep on doing it or stopping it is, to me, totally straightforward and uncomplicated. Being aware of typing, and being aware of the choice of not typing, I can now type the next letter, or not, and what happens next is entirely free will. There is a new universe that unfolds after each exercising of free will. I accept readily enough that action without awareness is conditioned and determined, but action with awareness is conditioned but undetermined. The outcome is just not predictable. It can go any way, Chrissie :-) (as you correctly have pointed out on a number of occasions, the precepts are only being kept when the choice to break them is there. If the outcome of such a choice is conditioned and determined then we are all wasting our time, which may be well the case anyway :-) Do you want to try a little experiment (I love little experiments :-) Think of the syllable "doh" a la Homer Simpson. Be aware that at any time you can say it. Now, after a period of time, you will have either said it or not said it. Either way, welcome to the new world of Christine, the doh-sayer, or Christine, the not-doh-sayer. It is even possible to act against prevailing conditions. Being aware of wanting to do something very strongly, and being aware only very dimly that you can also not do it, there is only one outcome. I'm not about to gamble on it, but it can go either way. With regards to computers not being able to choose, and therefore minds being unable to choose, this seems to me like fitting the experience into the theory. Every generation will explain themselves in terms of the technology they have. The Buddha explained thoughts as having roots or no roots, nibbana is likened to a fire going out. Newton's worldview is the workings of a deterministic clock, and today we liken the mind to the workings of a computer. At no point of time, however, do thoughts have roots, there are no cogs that make the planets revolve in a steady orbit, and a computer is not sentient. At no point of time is the explanation the reality, but when thinking in terms of the explanation, that is the reality. I'm about done, I have the option of hitting the send button, or not hitting the send button. Let's see what happens.... All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Herman, Howard, and All, > Herman's talking about Freewill, so we must be in January. :-) > (I'm sure we had a discussion about Free Will once before?) I don't > think there is any such thing - the very idea of free will implies > the existence of a Self, when all there is is kamma, conditionality > and accumulations ... is there anything else? Free Will and wanting > to control, go hand in hand. "The Buddha taught that it is precisely > this deep misunderstanding, the illusion of a self, that is the root > cause of all human suffering. The illusion of self manifests as the > ego, and the natural unstoppable function of the ego is to control. > Big egos want to control the world, average egos attempt to control > their immediate surroundings of home, family and workplace, and all > egos strive to control what they assume to be their own bodies and > minds." http://www.abhayagiri.org/dhamma/self.html > Here is an excerpt about Free Will that you may find > interesting: "To get a little ad hominem, denials of determinism > always seem to center on a desire for something called "free will". I > have yet to find anyone who can tell me what it is that the will is > free of. Neither have I heard why behaving in a random, arbitrary > manner is more noble than acting as the result of causes. I read > Peter van Inwagen's book on free will (I forget the title), having > been told that it showed that free will was compatible with > determinism. I could not ever grasp the author's point. (I assume he > had one.) > Imagine that when we act, we have no reason for acting. We have no > motivation. Our actions are totally unpredictable, even by > statistics. Folk psychology is a delusion. Prophets, preachers, > politicians, propagandizers, and advertisers are all wasting their > time trying to cause specific kinds of behavior in an acausal system. > Neither the actor nor the watcher can have any idea about what the > actor will do next. The actor cannot control his actions, because > they are beyond cause and effect. Neither reward nor punishment can > modify behavior. We have no basis for any expectations. We have no > reason for believing that a killer will ever kill again, even though > he has done it 20 times in the past. Without causation, every action > is uniquely isolated from every other action. We cannot reasonably > apply the following terms, or any of their synonyms, to human > actions: as a result, because, caused by, motivated by, if...then..., > so, therefore, thus, why, how. > The meaning of the physical world is in relationships. A non- > deterministic world has no relationships. There are no meaningful > details. If God were in the details, then he would be SOL with human > free will. > If one could ask "how?" about such acausal systems, one might ask how > the tiny atomic and subatomic critters of which we are composed know > when to go acausal. How do they tell the difference between being > part of a refrigerator and being part of you or me? And how does an > event know that it has ended, so that we don't get effects spilling > over from one event to another? They must be cleverer than they look. > Computer programs rely heavily on branching instructions. In human > terms these look like choice points. The program has a choice of > branching or not branching. It has other choices: it can place a 1 in > a register, or it can place a 0. However, we know that programs are > entirely deterministic. The apparent choice is dependent on the > status of some flag, which in turn depends on some previous > situation. Even if we don't understand how the computer will behave > at any particular branch, I doubt that anyone would say that the > computer really has a choice. How are human choices different from > this, other than the fact that not all of our registers are open to > examination?" http://www.coastalfog.net/buddhism/freewill.html > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina" > > Hi Howard, Christine and everyone, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > > There is definitely will. I'm not clear, however, on what > > exactly is > > > meant by "free" will. What exactly is such willing supposed to be > > free OF (or > > > FROM)? When there is willing, I do believe that it is > conditioned, > > that it > > > arises for reasons among which are desires, and these desires, in > > turn, arise due > > > to conditions. Do we mean that a choice is made not under duress, > > without > > > being forced to choose a particular way by threats? If so, then, > > yes, often there > > > is free will. But I don't think anyone will say that that is > > exactly what they > > > mean by 'free will'? Is it not possible that we really don't know > > what we > > > mean when we say "free will," and that it is more of a vague > > feeling than a well > > > understood concept? > > > With metta,Howard > =========================== > A great debate in physics in the early 20th century revolved around > > whether there could be a scientific theory that could predict any > > future state of affairs given a known state of affairs. > > Einstein et al firmly did not want to believe that "God could play > > dice". He approached the cosmos in a deterministic way. Bohr et al > > had no such predilection. Hence theories of relativity and quantum > > mechanics. It seems there is evidence both for and against both of > > them. > > I would reckon it to be very worthwhile to examine notions such as > > free-will, to find out what substance there is to them. I would > > start of by making the following points: > > 1] To say that something is conditioned does not mean to say that > it is determined. > > 2] The notion of free-will comes from the experience of > > indeterminacy. > > All the best > >Herman 28906 From: Egberdina Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 1:59pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hi Michael, I like little experiments. Touch your computer. Touch the pink elephant. What is same-natured about the computer and the pink elephant? All the best Bishop Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > Hello James, > > I see it differently though. To me, both your pink elephant and the > computer, have both the same nature. They are not truly existent and exist > only because of conditions. Both are conventional realities. > > Metta > Michael > > > > >From: "buddhatrue" > >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > >Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) > >Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 18:37:06 -0000 > > > >Hi Michael, > > > >Michael: The Buddha taught conditionality, not any form of true > >existence. > > > >James: Yes, I know that. When I use the word `existence' I mean in > >the sense of: The purple elephant I am thinking of doesn't exist but > >the computer I am typing on does. Understand? I am not so strict > >about the use of the word `existence' as you are. It is just a word… > >it doesn't exist! hehehe...;-) > > > >Metta, James 28907 From: Htoo Naing Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 2:00pm Subject: Contemplation On Own Body ( 02 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, When the Dhamma practitioner is striving in his Mahasatipatthana practise, he may be distracted frequently. As soon as he gets concentration, enemies arise. This enemies ( Mara ) have to arise to destroy all the concentration that have been achieved to prevent achieving of higher Nana ( wisdom ). These hindrances are sensual thoughts, evil thoughts or hatred-thoughts, distracted thoughts-repentent thoughts, sloth and torpor, and indicisive thoughts or suspicions in the present practice whether the practice is genuine and really help get through the Samsara or help freeing all sufferings or not. Even though all five hindrances equally hinder the practitioner, sensual thoughts make the worst as it is linked with Tahna, Samudaya, Upadana and craving. All these are strong unwholesome dhamma and they always expand the Samsara. Even the whole practice may be abandoned if the enemies are strong enough in their strength. To crack down all these sensual thoughts, sex thoughts, pleasure thoughts, it is advisable to contemplate on own body. There are different methods of contemplation on own body. One of them is to contemplate on each part of the body. This comes out as Kayagatasati which is one of ten Anussati Kammatthana. Our body is nothing but just a collection of parts as in case of a bike which is fitted by using different parts like frame, pedals, handle,bell, gears, chain,lock, brake, tyres, spokes, seat, lights and so on. The whole body is actually covered with skin. But the skin again is modified at some areas. On the head there is a collection of hair. Hair in isolation is to be disgusted and nothing to be attached ( leave that for mad people who need particular medication ). There are other body hairs like nose hairs,mouthstache, beard, arm-pit hairs, chest hairs, pubic hairs and others. All these in isolation are to be disgusted and nothing to be attached. At the end of fingers and toes are nails. A collection of nails are disgusting. Teeth, some loose, some broken, some discoloured and teeth are actually disgusting. Once a man was smiled by a lady. He saw her teeth. He contemplated that it was just bone ( Atthika or corpse meditation of skeleton ) and he attained a wisdom. Dentures are to be disgusted if they are seen. The skin is the covering sheet. The core is skeleton which is made up of different bones, inside of which is marrows. Marrow and bones are to be disgusted. Some related bones are binded together by ligments and sinews. That skeleton is covered by flesh. If human flesh is seen, the viewer will be sick. There are crushed flesh at accident sites. In side the breast bone is the heart. The heart in isolation is nothing but disgusting and will be sick if see such scene. Besides are lungs which are also disgusting. The chest and tummy is boardered by a muscle( flesh ) called diaphragm. Under it, lies the liver. This is a disgusting organ. In the tummy are spleen, intestines, kidneys, mesentry, gorge, feces in rectum, bile in gall bladder and these organs are bounded by membranes. All are really disgusting. In the skull box is the brain, in isolation of which is very sickling and disgusting. There is nothing to be attached regarding the body. Moreover, there are phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, solid fat, liquit fat, tear, saliva, mucus, synovial fluid in joints and urine all of which are disgusting. This contemplation shoud be practised frequently. When each part has been contemplated then the origional breath concentration should be resumed as the object of meditation. May you all well control your sensual thoughts. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 28908 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 2:02pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hi Michael, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > Hello James, > > I see it differently though. To me, both your pink elephant and the > computer, have both the same nature. They are not truly existent and exist > only because of conditions. Both are conventional realities. > > Metta > Michael > >From: "buddhatrue" > >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > >Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) > >Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 18:37:06 -0000 > > > >Hi Michael, > > > >Michael: The Buddha taught conditionality, not any form of true > >existence. > > > >James: Yes, I know that. When I use the word `existence' I mean in > >the sense of: The purple elephant I am thinking of doesn't exist but > >the computer I am typing on does. Understand? I am not so strict > >about the use of the word `existence' as you are. It is just a word… > >it doesn't exist! hehehe...;-) > > > >Metta, James Okay, then you are predominately a Mahayana Buddhist. No big deal. This is predominately a Theravada list but Mahayana thinking runs very deep in many regards. You will feel very much at home most of the time and yet also cause a lot of agitation at other times (as you have noticed). Me, I think I am more a pure Theravada Buddhist (with Zen influences [which I don't consider very Mahayana]): no frills, no deep philosophies, no Abhidhamma, no extensive scholarship, no Pali, no anything that isn't related to dukkha and the release from dukkha. Just give me the plain, simple, honest, path and the means to follow the path and I respond. I don't really know jack squat about anatta yet and I don't confess or pretend to. Metta, James Ps. I only think of purple elephants, never pink!! Are you trying to ruin my reputation?? ;-))) 28909 From: Egberdina Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 2:15pm Subject: Re: Satipatthana Hi Htoo, Thank you very much for your reply. If I water a plant a little each week, I could think, this plant is accumulating much water. But still, I could come back to it one day and find it totally withered because it had been 40 degrees every day since the last time I watered it. Does momentary Satipatthana accumulate into something liberating? If there is a mindful moment, and then I go and watch TV for an hour and become totally absorbed in the changing colours on the screen, and rejoice with the victorious, cry with the sad, smile with the happy, totally oblivious to my own story-telling for a whole hour, is that one moment of mindfullness of any consequence? All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > Dear Herman, > > Very good question. > > Satipatthana is for all those who want to get through the Samsara. > They include worldlt people as well. But if worldly people become > very serious on the practice, they will join the order of Sangha, > which is better for them for their seriousness. > > For worldly people, Satipatthana does work to cut down unwholesome > series of Citta to a considerable extent. > > When choosing fruit at a shop, if mindful Satipatthana works. > At ATM, if mindful, Satipatthana works. > Even at the time of having sex leaving the climax which is a long > long series of Moha and Lobha mixed Cittas, Satipatthana may ( MAY ) > work at least partly. Here Satipatthana need to be redefined. If > Kayagata Sati is included then having sex will be no way to involve. > If Sampajanna works, each stage of pleasure will be noticed leaving > orgasm. > > As Satipatthana is aimed to avoid unwholesome things, choosing will > behave differently from without Satipatthana. And so do in other > examples that you have put up. > > With Unlimited Metta, > > Htoo Naing > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- --- > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina" > wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > > > A serious question to all, if I may. No need to reply if not > > inclined to do so, but please consider the question if inclined to > > do so. > > > > Is the intended audience for the satipatthana sutta the wordling as > > found on this list? Are the foundations of mindfulness cultivated > > while choosing the choicest fruit in the shops, getting cash out of > > the ATM, navigating through traffic on the streets, talking to > > friends, working for the boss, being involved involved in loving > > relationships etc. > > > > Or is the sattipatthana sutta intended for one withdrawn from the > > world? > > > > All the best > > > > > > Herman 28910 From: Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 9:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will was (Two to tango .....) In a message dated 1/10/2004 1:45:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, hhofman@t... writes: > I'm about done, I have the option of hitting the send button, or not > hitting the send button. Let's see what happens.... > > All the best > > > Herman > Hi Herman The send button and your so called "option" are all conditionally arisen. The Buddha stated in essence: that if thrown together with unwholesome people, one would become unwholesome. If put together with wholesome, one would become wholesome. Why? ... because those influences are conditions that lead the mind in that direction. Based on past conditions and present influences (conditions), the mind "bends" according to those forces. When the Buddha was alive, he generated the most wholesome conditions available and, by no coincidence, it was at that time that most people attained the highest states of spiritual freedom. There are far more Buddhists in the world today than there were in the Buddha's day; yet, if there are any arahats, it would be news to me. (Athough I have one or two people suspected by some to be.) Why so few if any? ... because the conditions are not favorable enough. If it was simply a matter of free will, there would be millions of arahats around today. I would suggest, that when you think that you are making your own decisions, that you have not looked deeply enough into the conditions that are motivating intentions. The mind is a very complicated set of conditional interactivity. Due to not being able to fully 'see' kamma, we can never fully know the exact motivations behind our actions. Yet I believe that mindfulness can be developed strongly enough to be convensed that it is conditions that are interacting...not a self. For there is no way to have a belief of free will and not have the belief of a self as an 'actor' or 'agent' behind it. TG 28911 From: Egberdina Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 3:11pm Subject: Conditionality Versus Causality (Re: [dsg] Two to tango ...) Hi Howard, Thank you for your very clear and precise explanation of your take on conditionality. I see your usage as being internally coherent and consistent. No probs there at all :-) I think that coming to an understanding of all that notions of causation and conditionality entail, requires a great deal of mental gymnastics (as in artistic effort, not contortion). The pagecount of the Abhidhamma bears witness to that. I know I am preaching to the converted but happily, understanding conditionality is not a prerequisite for following the curriculum of the Buddha :-) "Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how your should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress." I still reckon you can choose to train yourself or choose to not train yourself :-) All the best Herman 28912 From: connie Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 3:29pm Subject: Re: Angulimala Hi Christine, Just to say you're right and right again and thank you. Not enough to be a dysfunctional, talking animal. connie Chris: I think kamma and vipaka are often confused, and one can equate action and result, ending in determinism or fatalism. I understand that the Buddha said that if one must reap the result of all actions then there is no possibility to realise liberation. I also understand that kamma is only one of the causes of what we experience in the world, not the only cause. Happy to be corrected. Chris: I'm not sure what others might say. The infinitesimal chance of ever having another human rebirth during this aeon, and so having a chance to hear the Dhamma and win through to liberation, should be a strong motivation to protect one's own life and the lives of others. 28913 From: Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 10:49am Subject: Re: Conditionality Versus Causality (Re: [dsg] Two to tango ...) Hi, Herman - In a message dated 1/10/04 6:13:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, hhofman@t... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Thank you for your very clear and precise explanation of your take > on conditionality. I see your usage as being internally coherent and > consistent. No probs there at all :-) > --------------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks. :-) -------------------------------------------- > > I think that coming to an understanding of all that notions of > causation and conditionality entail, requires a great deal of mental > gymnastics (as in artistic effort, not contortion). The pagecount of > the Abhidhamma bears witness to that. > > I know I am preaching to the converted but happily, understanding > conditionality is not a prerequisite for following the curriculum of > the Buddha :-) > > "Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the > seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only > the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference > to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how your should train > yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to > the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed > in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the > cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there > is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no > you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. > This, just this, is the end of stress." > > I still reckon you can choose to train yourself or choose to not > train yourself :-) --------------------------------------------- Howard: Yep!! I so choose. (But not for no reason at all! ;-) --------------------------------------------- > > > All the best > > Herman > ========================= 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) 28914 From: Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 4:27pm Subject: XIV 61 (3/4) 'If just the apprehension of the alteration is the reason for the apprehension of the intention, why is there no apprehension of intention in unapprehended communication (sa.nketa)? It is not only just the apprehension of the alteration that is the reason for the apprehension of the intention; but rather it should be taken that the apprehension of the previously-established connexion is the decisive support for this. The stiffening, upholding, and movement are due to the air element associated with the alteration belonging to the intimation, is what is said. What, is it all the air-element that does all those things? It is not like that. For it is the air-element given rise to by the seventh impulsion that, by acquiring as its reinforcing conditions the air elements given rise to by the preceding impulsions, moves consciousness-originated matter by acting as cause for its successive arisings in adjacent locations (desantaruppatti--cf. Ch. VIII, n.54), not the others. The others, however, help it by doing the stiffening and upholding, the successive arising in adjacent locations being itself the movement. So the instrumentality should be taken as attributed when there is the sign [of movement]; otherwise there would not be uninterestedness and momentariness of dhammas. And here the cart to be drawn by seven yokes is given as simile in the commentary. But when consciousness-born matter moves, the kinds of matter born of temperature, kamma, and nutriment move too because they are bound up with it, like a piece of dry cow-dung thrown into a river's current. 28915 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 5:43pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hello Herman, Both are conventional realities. I can smell that. Metta Michael >From: "Egberdina" >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) >Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:59:39 -0000 > >Hi Michael, > >I like little experiments. > >Touch your computer. > >Touch the pink elephant. > >What is same-natured about the computer and the pink elephant? > >All the best > >Bishop Herman > >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" > wrote: > > Hello James, > > > > I see it differently though. To me, both your pink elephant and >the > > computer, have both the same nature. They are not truly existent >and exist > > only because of conditions. Both are conventional realities. > > > > Metta > > Michael > > > > > > > > >From: "buddhatrue" > > >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > >Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) > > >Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 18:37:06 -0000 > > > > > >Hi Michael, > > > > > >Michael: The Buddha taught conditionality, not any form of true > > >existence. > > > > > >James: Yes, I know that. When I use the word `existence' I mean >in > > >the sense of: The purple elephant I am thinking of doesn't exist >but > > >the computer I am typing on does. Understand? I am not so strict > > >about the use of the word `existence' as you are. It is just a >word… > > >it doesn't exist! hehehe...;-) > > > > > >Metta, James 28916 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 5:50pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hello James, James: Okay, then you are predominately a Mahayana Buddhist. No big deal. This is predominately a Theravada list but Mahayana thinking runs very deep in many regards. You will feel very much at home most of the time and yet also cause a lot of agitation at other times (as you have noticed). Me, I think I am more a pure Theravada Buddhist (with Zen influences [which I don't consider very Mahayana]): no frills, no deep philosophies, no Abhidhamma, no extensive scholarship, no Pali, no anything that isn't related to dukkha and the release from dukkha. Just give me the plain, simple, honest, path and the means to follow the path and I respond. I don't really know jack squat about anatta yet and I don't confess or pretend to. Ps. I only think of purple elephants, never pink!! Are you trying to ruin my reputation?? ;-))) Michael: I don’t see myself as a follower of Mahayna Buddhism. I have not taken any Bodhisatta vows nor intend to. I don’t practice the Mahayna path but the Noble Eightfold Path. I don’t see the ideas expressed by Nagarjuna as really Mahayana but a reaffirmation of the teachings of the Buddha found in the Canon. Sorry about the pink elephant. My mistake. Metta Michael 28917 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 7:18pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Paññatti VS Paramattha: To Nina, Mike B And Ken O Hi Michael > Michael: > A being, lets say a tiger, according to your definition is a > conventional reality which is not experienced directly. So if you get close to a hungry tiger and the tiger attacks you, you will experience nothing because the tiger is just a conventional reality. I see. k: I will not definitely do that ;-). Tiger is a concept hence not experience directly but the pain inflicted by a tiger is reality. So I don't think I will go there to be attacked bc of the pain that arise (that conditioned aversion to arise) not bc of the tiger. If the tiger is a baby tiger, we will approached it bc we known it will not inflicted that kind of pain that an adult tiger will do. A tiger can mean different things to different pple, in ancient Rome they are used in games, in modern days a few rare pple keep them as pets. So a tiger does exhibit different characteristics and they are not distinct and tiger is still reducible, hence still a conventional reality. To me an ultimate reality must be distinct and must be irreducible. M: Now you say that hardness is an ultimate reality because it is not subjective but objective. So any human being which touches that vase will feel exactly the same characteristic of hardness since it is objective. Now what about vipaka, where does vipaka come into play? One feels in accordance with the hardness but also vipaka, so you cannot say the feeling of hardness is purely objective. k: In our body vipaka, there can be pleasant and unpleasant but these are feelings and not hardness. Hardness is still felt, no matter the type of feelings we have. So it is still objective. Anyway objective and subjective are coined by me to explain not by the commentators, so I could be wrong :-). > Michael: > I can almost agree with you here with some provisos. My view is > that the dhamma theory is just what is possible for us to experience, and it is just enough to dispel our basic ignorance about reality. And reality is not that the dhammas are paramatha but that the dhammas are anatta, anicca, dukkha. k: I agreed with you. And not all conditioned dhammas are paramatha only those five khandhas are paramatthas. M: What we have to realize are those three characteristics and for that purpose the dhamma theory is just perfect. The inference that the dhammas are paramatha is a trick of our deluded mind which has this need to see existence/non-existence in everything. k: it is true that we are so used to existence and I belive this induces the viewpoint of existence of self by arammaùúpanissaya-paccaya. I like your statement that paramattha can be a trick and I think this is applicable when we think they are uncaused or without conditions. Hence I always believe that a correct perspective of paramattha must be understood. Best wishes Ken O 28918 From: Egberdina Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 7:31pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Free Will was (Two to tango .....) Hi TG, I have interspersed my comments below. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > In a message dated 1/10/2004 1:45:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, > hhofman@t... writes: > > > I'm about done, I have the option of hitting the send button, or not > > hitting the send button. Let's see what happens.... > > > > All the best > > > > > > Herman > > > > Hi Herman > > The send button and your so called "option" are all conditionally arisen. It is a frequent occurrence on this list that within the same post, within the same paragraph even, people speak absolutely and then conventionally and then back again. Often, there is no unity of presentation, no unity of perspective, no unity of understanding. So what happens in a discussion that is being carried out in conventional speak, someone comes along and addresses it from an absolute viewpoint, believing that to be a refutation. I don't think this gets one anywhere. You start of with an absolute statement above, but then proceed to tell me about the Buddha. Now, have you switched to conventional speak here? What exactly is a Buddha, absolutely? I think it more profitable to relate at the level at which things are being experienced. If it is your ongoing experience that all phenomena are conditioned, which includes that there is no TG who has ever made a choice, then good and well. To me, the Buddha spoke to people at the level at which they experienced things. I have not read the suttas where, as the Buddha was teaching, the Arahants interjected and said "What about anatta, Lord, what about anicca, Lord, how can there be trying, Lord, how can there be choosing, Lord" > The Buddha stated in essence: that if thrown together with unwholesome people, > one would become unwholesome. If put together with wholesome, one would become > wholesome. Why? ... because those influences are conditions that lead the > mind in that direction. Based on past conditions and present influences > (conditions), the mind "bends" according to those forces. > > When the Buddha was alive, he generated the most wholesome conditions > available and, by no coincidence, it was at that time that most people attained the > highest states of spiritual freedom. There are far more Buddhists in the world > today than there were in the Buddha's day; yet, if there are any arahats, it > would be news to me. (Athough I have one or two people suspected by some to > be.) Why so few if any? ... because the conditions are not favorable enough. > If it was simply a matter of free will, there would be millions of arahats > around today. I disagree strongly. It is precisely because of free will that people do not become arahats. Noone becomes enlightened against their will. To become enlightened one needs to see suffering in all reality. All day and all night the choices being made are to not see all the negative aspects of being. If you are waiting for conditions to ripen you might as well give up now, cause it ain't going to happen without your willingness. We have the books, we have the methods, we have the recipes, we have the ingredients, we just don't have the cakes cuz we're not baking. > > I would suggest, that when you think that you are making your own decisions, > that you have not looked deeply enough into the conditions that are motivating > intentions. The mind is a very complicated set of conditional interactivity. > Due to not being able to fully 'see' kamma, we can never fully know the > exact motivations behind our actions. Yet I believe that mindfulness can be > developed strongly enough to be convensed that it is conditions that are > interacting...not a self. For there is no way to have a belief of free will and not > have the belief of a self as an 'actor' or 'agent' behind it. > Your last statement is an absolute, again. I disagree with it. If you do not know enlightenment, the Buddha says that it would expedite matters if you chose to pursue that state more avidly than before. There is wise reflection, but none that reflects. There are choices, but none that chooses. Choose accordingly. All the best Herman > TG > 28919 From: Egberdina Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 7:41pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hello, Michael, I am sorry, but I do not understand how what you say relates to my little experiment. I'll rephrase the instructions for my little experiment. Touch your computer. What are the sensations? Touch the pink elephant. What are the sensations? Is anything the same about the sensations? Is anything different? What is different? If there are differences, would same-natured still apply to the computer and the pink elephant? Why? All the best Bishop Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > Hello Herman, > > Both are conventional realities. I can smell that. > > Metta > Michael > > > > >From: "Egberdina" > >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > >Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) > >Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 21:59:39 -0000 > > > >Hi Michael, > > > >I like little experiments. > > > >Touch your computer. > > > >Touch the pink elephant. > > > >What is same-natured about the computer and the pink elephant? > > > >All the best > > > >Bishop Herman > > > >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" > > wrote: > > > Hello James, > > > > > > I see it differently though. To me, both your pink elephant and > >the > > > computer, have both the same nature. They are not truly existent > >and exist > > > only because of conditions. Both are conventional realities. > > > > > > Metta > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: "buddhatrue" > > > >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > > >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > > >Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) > > > >Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 18:37:06 -0000 > > > > > > > >Hi Michael, > > > > > > > >Michael: The Buddha taught conditionality, not any form of true > > > >existence. > > > > > > > >James: Yes, I know that. When I use the word `existence' I mean > >in > > > >the sense of: The purple elephant I am thinking of doesn't exist > >but > > > >the computer I am typing on does. Understand? I am not so strict > > > >about the use of the word `existence' as you are. It is just a > >word… > > > >it doesn't exist! hehehe...;-) > > > > > > > >Metta, James 28920 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 8:14pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Paññatti VS Paramattha: To Nina, Mike B And Ken O Dear Michael, The hardness (or softness. Softness is only a different degree of the same element) is paramattha dhamama. Through knowing about paramattha dhamma the 'world' is gradually analysed and broken up to its component parts. One time I was on the subway in rush hour Tokyo. Everyone was jammaed against each other. They have 'pushermen' who politely force you in the doors. At one station an attractive young woman got on and was pushed up against me. Or so I thought. I couldn't see because my head was stuck btween another person and a door. Anyway I was enjoying the sensation of this woman being pressed against my back. That is until the train stopped at the next station and I saw the woman was actually in a different place and it was an old man (who was wearing a bulky coat)that was beside me all the time. Suddenly the pleasure disappeared. What had really happened? There was thinking - comprised of many paramattha dhammas (grouped as sanna and sankhara khandha), There was feeling. Pleasant feeling that arose in association with lobha - another paramattha dhamma. There was the experience of softness. the experience is vipaka - completely different from the softness which is rupa, but both are paramattha - ultimate reality. The softness didn't change to hardness once I realised it was a man. But the thinking, which was taking concept as object did. A new concept ('ehh, a man!) was the object of thinking. And this is the way life is: we are absorbed in concepts; avijja (ignorance) runs among pannati(concepts) continually. The true teachings of the Buddha - as expressed in the Tipitaka and ancient commentaries - show us what life really is so that the whole, this conceptual world, is broken down to evanescent and conditioned parts. This is the path to the ending of self view. RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Michael > > > Michael: > > A being, lets say a tiger, according to your definition is a > > conventional reality which is not experienced directly. So if you > get close to a hungry tiger and the tiger attacks you, you will > experience nothing because the tiger is just a conventional reality. > I see. > > k: I will not definitely do that ;-). Tiger is a concept hence not > experience directly but the pain inflicted by a tiger is reality. So > I don't think I will go there to be attacked bc of the pain that > arise (that conditioned aversion to arise) not bc of the tiger. If > the tiger is a baby tiger, we will approached it bc we known it will > not inflicted that kind of pain that an adult tiger will do. A > tiger can mean different things to different pple, in ancient Rome > they are used in games, in modern days a few rare pple keep them as > pets. So a tiger does exhibit different characteristics and they are > not distinct and tiger is still reducible, hence still a conventional > reality. To me an ultimate reality must be distinct and must be > irreducible. > > .html 28921 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 9:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Paññatti VS Paramattha: To Nina, Mike B And Ken O Dear Suan, I really appreciate your corrected post, and your coming out so frankly and openly with your exchange with Sarah and Jon. Looking forward to the continuation of your dialogue with Michael, Nina. op 10-01-2004 15:03 schreef abhidhammika op suanluzaw@b...: > > The following are an off-list discussions between me and Sarah & Jon, > and my edited re-post of my previous message (28813) with corrections > on this thread. > > I hope that the new revised post reads better and politer! :-) 28922 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 9:25pm Subject: Re: Theravadin Emptiness [Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )] Hi Howard, I like the serpent sutta, appreciate it, Nina. op 10-01-2004 18:50 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > >> He who does not find core or substance >> in any of the realms of being, >> like flowers which are vainly sought >> in fig trees that bear none, >> -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, >> just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 28923 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 10:13pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hi Herman, -------------- H: > I do not believe that I do not understand what the Buddha or Jesus is teaching. I just do not wish to accept these teachings of the Buddha or Jesus because the inevitable rejection of the world follows. Not ready, not willing, sorry :-) -------------- What do we mean when we say 'accept?' Understanding and confidence, I suppose. Without these, 'accept' is just a hollow word. Do we change anything just by deciding to accept the Dhamma? I think not. We are attached to the world and we prefer pleasure of the senses to renunciation, but that is due to ignorance, not to non- acceptance. When there is right understanding, I think renunciation will follow effortlessly. There will be no regret, no hard decisions, no painful acceptance. --------------- H: > I do not believe that more study will lead to finding those bits where the Buddha says, "It's all right, keep doing what you're doing, just get the latest Masefield, it's a ripper" or Jesus says "look out for more of my scrolls and she'll be right". ---------------- We've already found those bits. One of them, quoted on dsg by RobK, reads; "'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." That's good enough for me -- she'll be right! ------------- H: > I hope you see my problem Ken. More study will lead to more rejection of what I'm studying, not because the material presented is flawed, but because it isn't flawed. Why do you study, Ken? ------------ I'm sorry, but I don't think I do see your problem. (But I've never been a good listener.) I've had a few problems of my own, lately -- being anxious about every little thing. The best advice I've received is to see accumulations the way they are, not to try to change. I'm sure it's the best advice for you too. Kind regards, Ken H PS Before you exercised your free will to hit the send button (to Christine), did you trim your post? Why not, no free will? :-) 28924 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 10:44pm Subject: Story of Maliyadeva - attainment of insight while studying. Dear Group, A Dhamma friend, Joyce Short (whom a few of you will know), posted this on Insightpractice Group. I think it is from the Anguttara Co. but not sure. Can anyone tell me? (Slightly) apropos the discussion KenH and Herman are having. Must have been a great sermon too! metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- Story of Maliyadeva - attainment of insight while studying. "Once upon a time, a monk named Maliyadeva, who reached his third Vassa(rains retreat), went to the newly established Mandalarama monastery to study the scriptures. While studying there, he also practiced Vipassana during whatever time was available. Once a day, he went on his alms round to the village of Kalla and was offered gruel by an Upasika. His countenance and bearing inspired such great devotion in her that she felt as if he were her own son, so she respectfully invited him to her house. After offering him excellent alms food, she inquired, "At which monastery do you reside?" The monk replied, "In order to study, I reside at the Mandalarama monastery." Whereupon she submitted respectfully, "Throughout the period of your studies at the monastery, make I take responsibility for your alms food?" So, the monk Maliyadeva who was regarded as a son by the Upasika, went to her house daily for alms food. After receiving the offerings, he would pronounce blessings, "May you be happy. May you be free from sorrow and suffering", and he would then leave. Throughout the three months of Vassa, these two phrases were his only blessings. By studying scriptures, the Venerable Maliyadeva was able to discard defilements such as greed and anger. He practiced Vipassana wherever time was available and thereby gained Patisambhidha (analytical knowledge) and became an Arahant on the Full Moon day of Thadingyut (Pavarana Day) - a ceremony at the termination of the Vassa. He gained the Noblest fruition of Arahantship and also became a Patisambhidha Patta Arahanta (an Arahant learned in the scriptures). Knowing that he had attained Arahantship, the Abbot of Mandalarama monastery called for Venerable Maliyadeva and said, "There is a large audience assembled today as it is Pavarana Day, so could you deliver the sermon in the evening". Venerable Maliyadeva consented to the Abbot's order. The young Samaneras (novices) heard about it and went to inform the Upasika who had been offering alms food daily to Venerable Maliyadeva. They asked her to be present at the monastery in the evening to listen to the sermon, but the Upasika said with disbelief, "Samaneras, please do not tease me. This monk does not know how to deliver a sermon. Throughout the three months of Vassa, the only two phrases that he would say were: "May you be happy. May you be free from sorrow and suffering." The Samaneras replied that they did not know whether or not he was capable of delivering a sermon, but as he had been ordered to do so by the Abbot, she should be at the monastery in the evening to listen to his sermon. In the evening, the Upasika went to the monastery taking flowers and incense with her to pay homage and listened to the sermon from the back of the congregation. She chose the furtherest place as she was afraid that Venerable Maliyadeva would be incapable of delivering the sermon correctly and well, that he would become confused and disgrace himself in front of the large congregation. When the time arrived for the Venerable Maliyadeva to deliver his sermon, with fan in hand, he expounded at length from the Tipitaka on the meaning of the two phrases, "May you be happy. May you be free from suffering", until dawn. On hearing this discourse the Upasika was completely rid of wrong view and doubt. Thus, closing the doors to Apaya, (the lower realms) she became a Sotapanna (Stream-winner." From: Sayadaw U Kundalabhivamsa (Yangon) 28925 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 0:33am Subject: SN 3, Kosalasamyutta 14 (4) Battle (1) Dear Group, Samyutta Nikaya 1. The Book with Verses (Sagaathaavagga) 3. Kosalamyutta p. 177 (Bodhi) 14 (4) Battle (1) "At Saavatthi. Then King Ajaatasattu of Magadha, the Videhan son, mobilized a four-division army and marched in the direction of Kaasi against King Pasenadi of Kosala. King Pasenadi heard this report, mobilized a four-division army, and launched a counter-march in the direction of Kaasi against King Ajaatasattu. Then King Ajaatasattu of Magadha and King Pasenadi of Kosala fought a battle. In that battle King Ajaatsattu defeated King Pasenadi, and King Pasenadi, defeated, retreated to his own capital of Saavatthi. Then, in the morning, a number of bhikkhus dressed and, taking their bowls and robes, entered Saavatthi for alms. When they had walked for alms in Saavatthi and had returned from their alms round, after the meal they approached the Blessed One, paid homage to him, sat down to one side, and reported what had happened. [The Blessed One said:] "Bhikkhus, King Ajaatasattu of Magadha has evil friends, evil companions, evil comrades. King Pasenadi of Kosala has good friends, good companions, good comrades. Yet for this day, bhikkhus, King Pasenadi, having been defeated, will sleep badly tonight. "Victory breeds enmity, The defeated one sleeps badly. The peaceful one sleeps at ease, Having abandoned victory and defeat." ===================== A four division (fourlimbed) army, in the Pali Canon, consists of chariots, elephants, horses, and foot soldiers. Could one, perhaps, call the elephants the Kosalan and Magadhan equivalent of Weapons of Mass Destruction? :-) (Plus ca change, plus c-est la meme chose). ... "the Pali Canon indeed forms an explicit opinion on the military. The Canon recognizes that, in a mundane perspective, the military is ever present, of high prestige, and even necessary in some circumstances for the protection of Buddhism. But, ultimately it must be judged from the higher insight of the transcendental, the lokuttara, where it becomes evident that the military is not conducive to Buddhist ethics and thus not conducive to performing Path actions. From this point of view, the military even loses its value in the mundane, where military pursuits are seen as prideful, destructive, and in vain, engendering a cycle of revenge which only leads to more suffering." http://www.unites.uqam.ca/religiologiques/no16/16kosuta.html Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 28926 From: Egberdina Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 2:23am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hi Ken, Thanks for your reply. More comments below. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi Herman, > > -------------- > H: > I do not believe that I do not understand what the > Buddha or Jesus is teaching. I just do not wish to accept > these teachings of the Buddha or Jesus because the > inevitable rejection of the world follows. Not ready, not > willing, sorry :-) > -------------- > > What do we mean when we say 'accept?' Understanding and > confidence, I suppose. Without these, 'accept' is just a > hollow word. Do we change anything just by deciding to > accept the Dhamma? I think not. We are attached to the > world and we prefer pleasure of the senses to > renunciation, but that is due to ignorance, not to non- > acceptance. > > When there is right understanding, I think renunciation > will follow effortlessly. There will be no regret, no > hard decisions, no painful acceptance. > I accept that you see things how you see them, and I'm sure you've noticed that I see them how I see them. I wish you all the best until or while right understanding is hatching. > > I'm sorry, but I don't think I do see your problem. (But > I've never been a good listener.) I've had a few problems > of my own, lately -- being anxious about every little > thing. The following link is not from the Canon, but I find Monty Python songs a hoot, maybe the one entitled "I'm so worried" will put a smile on your dial :-) http://www.math-inf.uni-greifswald.de/~fricke/cds/pa.mp.html The best advice I've received is to see > accumulations the way they are, not to try to change. > I'm sure it's the best advice for you too. Thank you for the pointer, Ken. > > Kind regards, > Ken H > > PS Before you exercised your free will to hit the send button > (to Christine), did you trim your post? Why not, no free will? > :-) There is no free will without awareness of choices. I wasn't aware of trimming or not-trimming when I chose to hit the post button. I've already forgiven myself, even though the option to be remorseful was there :-) All the best Herman 28927 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 2:54am Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hi Michael, Michael: I don't see myself as a follower of Mahayna Buddhism. I have not taken any Bodhisatta vows nor intend to. I don't practice the Mahayna path but the Noble Eightfold Path. I don't see the ideas expressed by Nagarjuna as really Mahayana but a reaffirmation of the teachings of the Buddha found in the Canon. James: I didn't say that you are completely a Mahayana Buddhist, I said that you are predominately one. I was just going on what you had written and recognized Mahayana thinking. I was not familiar with Nagarjuna so I just now did a bit of Internet research. From my research I see that his writings and thinking formed the vast majority of the Mahayana Canon. How can you say that his ideas aren't Mahayana? Is my research mistaken? Anyway, the difference between the two is in emphasis, not in result. They will both lead to Nibbana, I believe. Theravada emphases knowledge of the impermanence of the Five Aggregates which will lead to less desire and subsequently Nibbana. Mahayana emphases the void or empty nature of all conditioned phenomena, listening, contemplation, and direct knowledge of such nature (prajna) which will lead to Nibbana. So, in simple terms, Theravada is the path of non-attachment and Mahayana is the path of wisdom. I am pretty much a pure Theravadan. When I consider the computer I am typing on now I don't really care about its "empty nature", its combination of rupas processed by cittas, etc., I care about unhealthy attachment to it. When I consider myself I don't focus on my ultimate anatta nature, I focus on attachment to that which is impermanent and causes dukkha. This is why I say that this list has a very strong Mahayana current. The majority of the people here don't focus on eliminating desire and attachment; they want to have the power of wisdom (panna) bring them to enlightenment. But, to each their own. Metta, James 28928 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristics Michael, Michael: Yes, I agree that a characteristic cannot be separated or arise independently of the characterized. But the argument that the characteristic is intrinsic to the characterized is substantialism and this contradicts the principle of dependent origination. If there is an essence in a thing, that thing will not be subject to conditions, an essence is not affected by conditions. To avoid this fall into substantialism it makes more sense to think of characteristic and characterized as being mutually interdependent. Jon: At the risk of merely confirming my hopelessly strong attachment to wrong views ;-)), may I point out that much of the above is not directly from the Pitakas or commentaries but is based on certain assumptions or reasoning. I refer particularly to the statements that: - "the argument that the characteristic is intrinsic to the characterized is substantialism" - "If there is an essence in a thing, that thing will not be subject to conditions" - "it makes more sense to think of characteristic and characterized as being mutually interdependent". Now your reasoning relies on assumed meanings of the terms you have used. Therein lies the problem. You are saying in effect that 'sabhava' necessarily implies 'substantialism'. Well that is so only if those 2 terms are defined in a certain way. That's why no amount of 'reasoning' is going to get this discussion anywhere. To consider whether the 'charge' of substantialism has merit one needs to go back to the actual texts and look at the detailed explanations. The same applies to your argument concerning 'paramattha' (in other threads). You say in effect that 'ultimate' means 'X', and to say that dhammas are X is a substantialist/eternalist view. May I suggest that this misses the point of the paramattha/samutti/pannatti classification. The commentators did not begin by asking, What is ultimate? and giving the answer 'Dhammas are ultimate'. These terms were introduced, it seems to me, to help explain the important distinction between dhammas/the five khandhas and truths about them (on the one hand) and things that are true in a conventional sense (on the other hand). To make this distinction the label 'paramattha' was chosen for the former and 'samutti'/'pannatti' for the latter. Now you may take issue with the choice of labels, but that choice in itself proves nothing. And in any event, as I said above, if the allegation of substantialism/eternalism has merit, it will surely manifest in the detailed explanations given in the texts (hence Ken O's request for you to provide actual examples). To base an argument on the assumed meaning of the labels assigned is a non-starter, no matter how 'contradictory' the choice of label may seem. What matters is the meaning intended to be conveyed by the label, and that can only be found from a careful reading of the texts. Jon 28929 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:30am Subject: Re: A Semantic Analysis (Re: [dsg] Re: characteristics) Howard Thanks for taking the trouble. I agree that there's a lot of semantics goin on here! Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon and Michael - ... > I think that much of this discussion is merely semantic. > Please look > at the following: 28930 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] the 8 inseparables Larry --- Larry wrote: > Hi Jon, ... > Larry: What is the way [to relate Abhidhamma terms to daily life]? As I went on to say, there may not be a way every time. No expectations; and patience required. > Larry: We seem to be forgetting that these rupas are inseparable. > Where else would we find them if not on the dinner table and as > parts > of our body and in the world (plants etc.)? They arise apart from > any consciousness that may cognize them, even the consciousness > produced ones (I think?). Inseparable, yes; arising apart from consciousness, yes. But I just wanted to point out that, as 1 of the 8 inseparables, nutritive essence is to be found everywhere and not *especially* in 'food items' (this may not have been clear from my last post). > That I, and perhaps you, don't have the wisdom to > directly experience nutritional essence is a different matter all > together. We can still recognize the 8 inseparables in daily life > and be mindful of them to the limit of our abilities. If you mean by somehow 'imagining' them there in the salt on the dinner table, that would be just thinking, I believe. Jon 28931 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] author's rights, etc. Ken (and Nina) --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Ken Ong, ... > K:Was you or Jon who asked for all these anapanasati posts into one > single document and I have save them all in one document. J: It was me. I would be very happy to have a copy of the document, either now or when the series is finished. Jon PS Looking forward very much to meeting you in Bangkok this time. 28932 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] tanha and intention Ben --- Benjamin Jerome wrote: > > Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > >Satipatthana is not something to be 'done', but then that > > is true of other kusala mindstates too (in fact it's true of any > > mindstate). > > I don't understand. Why is "doing" a problem? Another of your questions getting right to the meat of the issue! It's not that "doing" is a problem. It's just that "doing" something is not a necessary part of the development of understanding/insight into the true nature of dhammas, at least on my reading of the teachings. It is more subtle than that. There are certain necessary prerequisites, but it is not a case of having to "do" anything. As I said, the same applies in fact to any kind of kusala. Dana (giving), for example, is not to be developed by 'practising giving' or any other kind of 'doing'. Dana is not the outward bodily act but is the kusala mind-state that accompanies that act. The bodily act of giving can be accompanied by greater or lesser doses of akusala of different kinds, including dosa and wrong view, so in those cases akusala is also being developed. Insight/panna is a kind of mental development, that is, it needs no accompanying action through body or speech. While it's true that the Buddha praised the monk's life, and also at times praised a certain form of the monk's life, he was not thereby laying down necessary conditions for the development of the path. Would you care to share with us your own thoughts on "doing"? Jon 28933 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The present moment Herman Yes, there could indeed be a lessening of the sense-door experiences (it is these expereinces that you mean by the 'flood of intention to act', I think?). That I believe is the aim of the development of samatha/jhana. The aim of vipassana, however, is the understanding of all dhammas as they truly are and in particular, of their nature as anicca/dukkha/anatta, and this understanding is to be developed as regards the sense-door objects as much as it is of the mind-door objects. If the sense-door objects are not seen as they truly are then the latent tendency to take them for 'self' cannot be eradicated. There are sense-door objects arising all the time. They are 'to be known', not 'to be lessened'. There can be a start to this at any time ;-)). Jon --- Egberdina wrote: > Hi Jon, ... > I understand the following to be so. Seeing, hearing, feeling, > smelling, tasting, thinking are all known through their changing or > absence. By closing the eyelid, seeing is established as different > to all the other things that could be happening. By turning the > head, the change in hearing establishes hearing as different to all > the other things. Touching hands is different to hands not > touching, > and so touching is established. And so on, and so on. The six > senses > come to be known by their negation. Negation is action. The senses > come to be known through action. > > How does one come to know intention? By non-intention. Easier said > then done. For me, the limpet state of attachment to the senses > that > is the waking state (which is the foundation for the conducting of > the affairs of daily life) totally prevents even a dim realising > that the waking state is created by intention towards it. > > Happily, all intention is followed by action, and action is easier > to apprehend. When one ceases the gross movements of the body, the > interaction with other bodies, and prevents the senses from feeding > themselves, one becomes aware of a flood of intention to act. By a > continuation of the regime of inactivity, the flood becomes a > stream > becomes a trickle. By extrapolation, I imagine the trickle will > become a drip etc etc. When intention towards "the present moment", > which has actually been called into existence by that very > intention, dries up, the opportunity arises to experience the > present moment in terms of itself. 28934 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:49am Subject: Re: [dsg]process cittas Nina --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Jon, ... > This was a quote from Nyanatiloka (below). In in Pts.M there are > not all the > terms, but, very specifically there are the cittas performing their > functions in a process. Classified as dhatus. > Nina. Thanks for pointing this out. I remember now that you have mentioned this before, and it comes up in a post of yours just after this one also. (Howard, please note! ;-)). Jon 28935 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 5:55am Subject: [dsg] Re: Paññatti VS Paramattha: To Nina, Mike B And Ken O Hi Rob K and all, Thank you, Rob K, for sharing the subway incident. I would like to share some reflection regarding your message: The teaching of the Buddha is about dukkha and the cessation of dukkha. Desire and passion to pleasant feeling, like what you experienced and enjoyed on the subway, gives rise to sensuality as sustenance - pleasant feeling from senses fueling and sustaining desire and passion, and desire and passion clinging to the pleasant feeling from senses. This kind of sustaining/clinging in turn gives rise to becoming, which inevitably leads to birth, aging, and death, the whole aggregate of dukkha. Craving, the desire and passion to various experiences, is the origin of dukkha. The cessation of dukkha is the relinquishment, fading away, cessation of that very craving, the desire and passion. The pleasant feeling you experienced on the subway, as it arose, was to be seen as it actually is: inconstant, dukkha, and not self (In other words, it is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self.") Seeing thus with discernment, you would grow dispassionate, disenchanted with that pleasant feeling. That is the path to the cessation of dukkha [1], a path of eight factors of practice: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. Not seeing the pleasant feeling experienced on the subway as it actually is gave rise to passion and desire left unchecked, resulting in the proliferation of thinking about the attractive young woman with regard to that pleasant feeling. That proliferation was eventually checked by the "ultimate reality" that it was an old man being pressed against you, not that young attractive woman. Peace Victor [1] Dhammapada XX, The Path http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka/dhp/20.html 277-279 When you see with discernment, 'All fabrications are inconstant' -- you grow disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity. When you see with discernment, 'All fabrications are stressful' -- you grow disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity. When you see with discernment, 'All phenomena are not-self' -- you grow disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Dear Michael, > The hardness (or softness. Softness is only a different degree of > the same element) is paramattha dhamama. Through knowing about > paramattha dhamma the 'world' is gradually analysed and broken up to > its component parts. > One time I was on the subway in rush hour Tokyo. Everyone was > jammaed against each other. They have 'pushermen' who politely force > you in the doors. At one station an attractive young woman got on > and was pushed up against me. Or so I thought. > I couldn't see because my head was stuck btween another person and > a door. Anyway I was enjoying the sensation of this woman being > pressed against my back. That is until the train stopped at the next > station and I saw the woman was actually in a different place and it > was an old man (who was wearing a bulky coat)that was beside me all > the time. Suddenly the pleasure disappeared. > What had really happened? There was thinking - comprised of many > paramattha dhammas (grouped as sanna and sankhara khandha), There > was feeling. Pleasant feeling that arose in association with lobha - > another paramattha dhamma. There was the experience of softness. the > experience is vipaka - completely different from the softness which > is rupa, but both are paramattha - ultimate reality. > The softness didn't change to hardness once I realised it was a > man. But the thinking, which was taking concept as object did. A new > concept ('ehh, a man!) was the object of thinking. > And this is the way life is: we are absorbed in concepts; avijja > (ignorance) runs among pannati(concepts) continually. The true > teachings of the Buddha - as expressed in the Tipitaka and ancient > commentaries - show us what life really is so that the whole, this > conceptual world, is broken down to evanescent and conditioned > parts. This is the path to the ending of self view. > RobertK 28936 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 6:47am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hello Herman, Herman: If there are differences, would same-natured still apply to the computer and the pink elephant? Why? Michael: Of course you can touch the computer but not an idea and therefore they will be different. Also the sensations produced by each will be different and perceptions and so on. But what I mean by same nature, and maybe my choice of words can be confusing here. I am not saying they are the same thing but that both share something in common in that they are conditioned and compounded phenomena. In that sense they are both a conventional reality, they lack anything intrinsic or inherent, they are fabricated. Metta Michael 28937 From: abhidhammika Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 7:03am Subject: Buddhist Revolution Is Against Samsaaro, Not Against Brahminism Dear Dhamma friends The following is my reply to Stephen on another list. I posted it here for your perusal. With regards, Suan ----------------------------------------------------- Dear Stephen and all How are you? And Happy New Year! Thank you for the website link. http://paganizingfaithofyeshua.netfirms.com/no_9_buddhism.htm The argument seems to be only superficially and socialistically true, but it is very simplistic spiritually. 1. Gotama was the crown prince with many young wives and girlfriends who were themselves princesses whose parents were kings (i.e, they were wealthy women). 2. As a prince, he did not have any economic issues faced by the poor masses. 3. Bodhisattas (bodhisattvas) were always born into the highest caste of the time, and the Royal caste was the highest during the Gotama's era. If the Brahmin caste had been the highest caste, the bodhisatta would have been born into the Brahmin caste. What I am getting at is that the notion of Buddhism being revolution against Brahminism was misconceived. The teachings of the Buddha and their aims were outside the concerns of social revolutions and civil disobedience. Spiritually enthusiatic sections of the Brahmin caste were also very much into renuciation of secular lifestyles before and after the Buddha's enlightenment. One of the ascetics with worldly Jhaana attainments who taught Gotama the practice of Jhaana (ultimate concentration) was Uddaka who came from the Brahmin caste while Aa.laara, the other ascetic, came from the Royal caste. But, Gotama discovered that the pre-Buddhist Jhaana practices were powerless to get out of Samsaaro (the cycle of death and rebirth). So he had to leave his Jhaana teachers after having attained the highest Jhaana levels available in search of real awakening capable of attaining genuine nibbaana. In short, the Jhaana practices offerred by the pre-Buddhist Brahmin ascetics can lead one to the heavens of the Jhaana gods which are within Samsaaro in the eyes of Gotama the Buddha. That is to say, the pre-Buddhist Brahmin ascetics fell short of genuine awakening (maggañaa.na). It was Gotama the Buddha who discovered the practice leading to genuine awakening and genuine nibbaana. The practice is called the Noble Eightfold Path that is the Middle Way containing the Right Behaviors, the Right Concentration, and the Right Insight in their balanced proportions. Thus, Buddhism is a Samsaara Breaker while Brahminism is incapable of getting out of Samsaaro due to their attachment to self-view of all kinds. That is all there is to it! If one were to describe Buddhism in terms of revolution, then the Buddha's revolution was against Samsaaro, not anything else. With regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org 28938 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 7:10am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hello James, James: I was not familiar with Nagarjuna so I just now did a bit of Internet research. From my research I see that his writings and thinking formed the vast majority of the Mahayana Canon. How can you say that his ideas aren't Mahayana? Is my research mistaken? Michael: In probably his most important writing Mulamadhyamakakarika (Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way), Nagarjuna not even once mentions the word Mahayana. He also refers to arahants and paccekabuddhas not with the disparaging words often found in the Mahayana literature. But he put forth with great emphasis that emptiness was the key teaching of the Buddha. Emptiness being a synonym for dependent origination. Now since emptiness is a key Mahayana teaching, that is how he is more often identified. But based on the Mulamadhyamakakarika my view is that he unmistakably being truthful to the teachings of the suttas. James: Theravada emphases knowledge of the impermanence of the Five Aggregates which will lead to less desire and subsequently Nibbana. Mahayana emphases the void or empty nature of all conditioned phenomena. Michael: I don’t agree with you. Theravada, in the commentaries, emphasizes the impermanence, non self nature of beings but considers the aggregates as ultimate realities, as truly existing. Nagarjuna in the Mulamadhyamakakarika focuses on the empty nature or lack of any sort of self, inherent or intrinsic nature, of the five aggregates, which is the same found in the suttas. They are not ultimate realities. The emptiness of all conditioned phenomena is also found in Mahayna but that is not the focus of the Mulamadhyamakakarika. Metta Michael 28939 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 7:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristics Hello Jon Jon: May I suggest that this misses the point of the paramattha/samutti/pannatti classification. The commentators did not begin by asking, What is ultimate? and giving the answer 'Dhammas are ultimate'. These terms were introduced, it seems to me, to help explain the important distinction between dhammas/the five khandhas and truths about them (on the one hand) and things that are true in a conventional sense (on the other hand). To make this distinction the label 'paramattha' was chosen for the former and 'samutti'/'pannatti' for the latter. Michael: To begin with, the Buddha never felt the need to make this distinction between paramatha and pannatti. Why? Because the khandhas do not represent the ‘truth,’ meaning a truth in an ultimate sense. There is no ultimate truth in the conditioned world. There is only conventional truth. Everything in the conditioned world is conventional truth. The reason the Buddha used the five aggregates is because they are the basis for clinging and his teaching was focused on elimination of suffering. No point in going into metaphysical speculations. In my view the khandhas are also compounded phenomena. But as you say, that is based on reasoning, and I concede that I could be wrong. But in my view, viewing the aggregates as completely empty, devoid of any characteristic of paramatha is more conducive to detachment. Metta Michael 28940 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 7:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristics Hello Jon Jon: Now your reasoning relies on assumed meanings of the terms you have used.Therein lies the problem. You are saying in effect that 'sabhava' necessarily implies 'substantialism'. Well that is so only if those 2 terms are defined in a certain way. That's why no amount of 'reasoning' is going to get this discussion anywhere. To consider whether the 'charge' of substantialism has merit one needs to go back to the actual texts and look at the detailed explanations. The same applies to your argument concerning 'paramattha' (in other threads). You say in effect that 'ultimate' means 'X', and to say that dhammas are X is a substantialist/eternalist view. To base an argument on the assumed meaning of the labels assigned is a non-starter, no matter how 'contradictory' the choice of label may seem. What matters is the meaning intended to be conveyed by the label, and that can only be found from a careful reading of the texts. Michael: I have been hearing this argument a lot. The dictionary has an unmistakable definition of sabhava and paramatha. I have also said before, that the Mulamadhyamakakarika is directed as a response to the believers in true existence, which is unmistakably the followers of the abhidhamma philosophy. To me it is similar to look at a green object, and everybody agrees that it is green, but then someone comes along saying that the maker of that object has used the green color but that his intention was to view it as red. Doesn’t make any sense. But anyway, I have an open mind, and was given the Kathavathu as a reference to find those ‘detailed explanations,’ as you say, of sabhava and paramatha. I was not given though clear directions where to look. I will be at the BCBS early in February and plan to check their library. If worthwhile I will buy the book. Apart from the Kathavathu I was not given any other pointers, just vague remarks, I would be happy to have clearer indications where I can find relevant material in the commentaries on those ‘detailed explanations.’ Metta Michael 28941 From: Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 2:57am Subject: Re: Theravadin Emptiness [Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )] Hi, Nina - In a message dated 1/11/04 12:26:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > Hi Howard, > I like the serpent sutta, appreciate it, > Nina. > ==================== Me, too! It's one of my favorites. (The Zen folks warn one, of course, not to have preferences, however! ;-) 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) 28942 From: Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Story of Maliyadeva - attainment of insight while studying. Hi, Christine - In a message dated 1/11/04 1:46:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > Dear Group, > A Dhamma friend, Joyce Short (whom a few of you will know), posted > this on Insightpractice Group. I think it is from the Anguttara Co. > but not sure. Can anyone tell me? (Slightly) apropos the discussion > KenH and Herman are having. Must have been a great sermon too! > > metta and peace, > Christine > =========================== Thanks for sending this on. What a lovely story! I see it as the story of how a person can achieve the ultimate through a combination of three things: Study of the Dhamma, practice of the Dhamma, and the heartfelt support of a person who loves others as the Buddha recommended - to love younger men and women as one's sons and daughters, similar-age men and women as one's brothers and sisters, older men and women as one's parents, and much older men and women as one's grandparents. With the 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) 28943 From: Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:57am Subject: Re: [dsg]process cittas Hi, Jon - In a message dated 1/11/04 6:49:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Nina > > --- nina van gorkom wrote: >Dear Jon, > ... > >This was a quote from Nyanatiloka (below). In in Pts.M there are > >not all the > >terms, but, very specifically there are the cittas performing their > >functions in a process. Classified as dhatus. > >Nina. > > Thanks for pointing this out. I remember now that you have mentioned > this before, and it comes up in a post of yours just after this one > also. > > (Howard, please note! ;-)). ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes ... well, I'm not surprised that material foreshadowing process-of-cittas concepts would appear in the Pts.M. While there is plenty of material in this work that I find of value, particularly the material on anapanasati and the comments on sabhava, I certainly doubt the (direct) source of origin of this work being the Buddha. --------------------------------------------------- > > Jon > ========================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 28944 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 11:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV 60 (3 of 4), note 3 c Larry, note 3c op 09-01-2004 00:19 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: U Narada, p. 61: Why heartbase is never a conditioning state:( as base-prenascence indriya) As shown above, five of the six bases are the conditioning states of base-prenascence-faculty condition, but the remaining base, heart-base, is never so. The reasons for this are; 1. Heart-base arises before mind-element and mind-consciousness element which are dependent on it. In this respect it is similar to the other five bases. But unlike them, the strength or weakness of the consciousness is not dependent on it. Because whether the heartbase is clear or not, mind-element and mind-consciousness element are not affected accordingly [N: but in the case of seeing, this is affected by it]. Thus heart-base does not control the consciousness dependent on it. 2. The five bases and the five corresponding sense-objects are respectively the receivers and impingers. But this is not so with heart-base and cognizable object. Instead, cognizable object impinges on the mind-door (life-continuum *) and appears in it. Hence, heart-base is not a door and so it can never be a conditioning state of base-prenascence-faculty condition.> U. Narada, p. 175: Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 11:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] HTOO: Space element Dear Htoo, Thank you for your post. I am glad you mention anipphanna and nipphana. I do understand that this is a difficult subject. I would like to add a few things. See below. op 10-01-2004 19:29 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > Space is a Paramattha Rupa. N: Sometimes we have to go back to the beginning so that we, in the middle of studying details, do not lose the big picture! Rupa is among the three conditioned paramattha dhammas. This means: it arises from the appropriate conditions and then it falls away. There are several conditioning factors that come together so that a particular dhamma arises. But since these conditions do not last and fall apart, also the conditioned dhamma has to fall away again. Rupas are listed as 28 kinds. That means, they are not concepts or productions of the mind.They are included in rupakkhandha. Except the four rupas which are characteristics inherent in rupa, they arise and fall away. Also space arises and falls away together with the groups of rupa it surrounds. H: But it is not Nipphanna Rupa. It is > Anipphanna Rupa. N: Yes. H:That means space is not conditioned by Kamma, Citta, > Utu, and Ahara. N: Let me repeat what I wrote before: < Space is considered to originate from the four factors. Still, it is called unproduced and asabhava: it merely functions as delimiting the groups of rupa. Though not concrete matter (thus unproduced, anipphanna, only in this sense), it has a characteristic and it is real. > Space is rupa paramattha, it is not nibbana paramattha, the unconditioned element. Now we have the word nipphanna, translated as produced. This creates confusion. The dictionary (PED) says: from nippajjati or nipphajjati: nipphanna: produced, accomplished, determined, conditioned. We should not confuse this term with: originated from: samu.t.thaana: origination. Thus now we have: space, is anipphanna rupa, not 'determined', meaning, not concrete matter. And it is conditioned, it originates from one of the four factors. It arises and falls away together with the groups (kalapas) originating from these factors. This is all from the Visuddhimagga (XVIII, 13) and later on when we come to it, I like to study quietly the Tiika which also explains about the term nipphanna. H: If there is no Mahabhuta Rupa then there is no space. > But when there are Mahabhuta Rupa, there exists space. N: Yes. Space is a derived rupa, and thus it is dependent on the four Great Elements, these are its foundation. H:Time and space > are not real existence. N: The rupa space is real, it is rupa paramattha dhamma or rupa kkhandha as you also agree. Usually people think only of outer space, and then there is the danger that they go way out. Time is a concept, it is not rupa paramattha dhamma. But, it still indicates relations as to the duration of rupa and the duration of nama. Ven. Nyanaponika describes very carefully the many aspects of time in his Abh Studies. I find this a good book, very thorough. *Originating from* is very intricate. Let me add a little from the Expositor (Atthasalini, II, 342): < In the Table of Contects we have matter (1) born of kamma, (2) caused by kamma, (3) originating in the caloric order [N: the element of heat], caused by kamma, (4) originating in nutriment, (5) caused by nutriment, etc, etc. This is just to show how many factors are involved, different conditions operating at the same time. Where is a self or person who takes these all in his hands? That is the lesson we can learn. Thank you Htoo, I like talking to you, with appreciation, Nina. 28946 From: Carl Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 0:37pm Subject: Re: Howard's tree and a little hint ..Continuation of Pannatta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > Dear Carl, > > Science is advancing. Without science, today world would have been > different. > > But science is all Pannatta. > > Eye-consciousness arises at eye not at brain or occipital lobe. All body anatomy is just Pannatta. > > Retina, impulse, nerves are all Pannatta. The eye and the brain >work as work station. > > Eye-consciousness arises at eye not at brain, I repeat this. > > Some sense outside world with 6th sense even with much more >accurate data than 5 sensers. But that sense is not 5 sense. This >means that vision even they know is not eye-consciousness, sound, >smell, taste, touch..the same..happen. > > The Buddha just said Cakkhu Pasada. In His Time, there was not any > scientist. No one will sense 'rhodopsin, impulse, occipital lobe >and so on '. > > When Paramattha is well known Pannatta will also be known. Then > Howard's tree is real or not will be clear to viewers. > > With Unlimited Metta, > > Htoo Naing -------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you Htoo Naing, Thanks for putting up with me. I will stop pestering you.. (for now.. :) ) I look foreward to reading all your postings. Your writing is very vivid and helpful. Thanks Carl 28947 From: Herman Hofman Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 1:43pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Thanks, Michael, I appreciate the clarification. I think I am starting to understand where you are coming from. Going on from what you say here, is there anything, then, which is not conventional, compounded, fabricated? All the best Herman -----Original Message----- From: Michael Beisert [mailto:mbeisert@h...] Sent: Monday, 12 January 2004 1:47 AM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hello Herman, Herman: If there are differences, would same-natured still apply to the computer and the pink elephant? Why? Michael: Of course you can touch the computer but not an idea and therefore they will be different. Also the sensations produced by each will be different and perceptions and so on. But what I mean by same nature, and maybe my choice of words can be confusing here. I am not saying they are the same thing but that both share something in common in that they are conditioned and compounded phenomena. In that sense they are both a conventional reality, they lack anything intrinsic or inherent, they are fabricated. Metta Michael 28948 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:23pm Subject: Re: Vism.XIV 60 (3 of 4), note 3 c Hi Nina (Larry) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Larry, note 3c > op 09-01-2004 00:19 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > > U Narada, p. 61: > Why heartbase is never a conditioning state I am extremely fascinated with the `heart-base', don't ask me why— call it instinct (I think it is very important). What you have quoted here from the Vism doesn't specify the conditioning dhamma(s) for heart-base, how it is strengthened or weakened by pre- conditioning and post-conditioning dhammas, or how it relates to insight/dependent origination/samsara/nibbana. (I want to know more of the `Big Picture' in this regard ;-). Please, if you have any more details about `heart-base', I would appreciate them. Thank you so much for your efforts!! :-))). Metta, James Ps. Here is a related quote as to why I think/feel heart-base is important: ""Having seen the drawback of sensual pleasures, I pursued that theme; having understood the reward of renunciation, I familiarized myself with it. My heart leaped up at renunciation, grew confident, steadfast, & firm, seeing it as peace." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an09- 041.html#renunciation 28949 From: nordwest Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 0:10pm Subject: ANIMALS - reality check ANIMALS are not our personal slaves, or minor beings. The treatment of animals gets worse and worse. Instead of being grateful to the services of domestic animals, we exploit them. - It is our buddhist duty and great karmic merit to release beings from suffering. Please take your time and learn more about the suffering of our sentien brothers and sisters in the animal realm. Find out, how you can help to stop the reckless exploitation of nature and the brutal killing of animals. Maybe next time you eat this chicken sandwich or hamburger, you may be mindful of the years in pain the animal had to go through so you can still your cravings for flesh for just a few hours. -- My deepest bows to all strict vegetarians. May you be blessed with instant enlightenment. http://www.animalsvoice.com/ http://www.sentientbeings.org/ http://www.animalsentience.com/ http://www.ethologicalethics.org/ Metta, Thomas 28950 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 9:52pm Subject: Base 1 & 3 steps Friends; Morality arises Concentration arises Understanding: how ? Morality leads to => Non-Regret Non-regret leads to => Joy Joy leads to => Happiness Happiness leads to => Tranquillity Tranquillity leads to => Pleasure Pleasure leads to => Concentration Concentration leads to => Vision Vision leads to => Understanding Understanding leads to => Knowledge Knowledge leads to => Dispassion Dispassion leads to => Disillusion Disillusion leads to => Detachment Detachment leads to => Release Release leads to => Freedom Freedom leads to => Bliss ... Freedom leads to => Ease ... Freedom leads to => Peace ... Morality is therefore a prerequisite for Freedom & Bliss !!! Morality is therefore the foundation of all Advantage ... --00Ooo-- Source: The Middle Length Sayings of the Buddha. Majjhima Nikaya [ii 17-22] http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=25072X http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/ All yours in the Dhamma. Peace is Ease. Bhikkhu Samahita, Ceylon. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ 28951 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 8:35pm Subject: Direct Experience! Friends; Insistence on Direct Experience is Essential: The Buddha invites you to come & see for yourself! Not to come & believe anything not observable. Only Direct Experience can eliminate all uncertainty! The Buddha explains: This world with it's divinities, it's devils & it's Brahmas; This generation with it's people, recluses, princes & priests. All this is based on what he himself directly have experienced. He teaches a Dhamma that is good in the beginning, middle & good in the end, perfectly formulated & correct in meaning. He reveals the Noble Life, that is utterly perfect & pure. Absolute is the Buddha's teaching of Dhamma, timeless, immediately effective, to be seen here & now, inviting to inspection & verification, leading to progress, to be directly experienced by every intelligence. Worthy, honourable & Perfectly self-Enlightened is the Blessed Buddha. Yeah !!! All yours in the Dhamma. Peace is Ease. Bhikkhu Samahita, Ceylon. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ 28952 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:42pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hi Michael, Michael: I don't agree with you. Theravada, in the commentaries, emphasizes the impermanence, non self nature of beings but considers the aggregates as ultimate realities, as truly existing. James: I really don't completely doubt you; I have seen how the commentaries can say just about anything a person wants them to say (especially during my online debates with Sarah AKA `Commentary Queen'! [just teasing] ;-)). But I would like to know specifically what commentaries you are referring to since there are quite a few. I would also like some examples and/or quotes of what you mean. I get the impression that you think I should just take you at your word in this regard and I'm not having any of that! Talk is cheap…put up or shut up! ;-))) Now, I am not an expert on the commentaries but from what I read in this group, and to use the same broad generalizations you are using, I don't believe they say what you are claiming they say. They don't say that the aggregates actually exist but living entities don't; they strongly and emphatically state that the aggregates are impermanent, non-self, and suffering. This doesn't mean or even imply independent existence of the type you are stating. How could something that is impermanent exist? One second it is there and the next second it is gone, that means it doesn't independently exist. How could something that is non-self exist? It has no `self-same' essence that belongs to it therefore it doesn't independently exist. I suspect that you are inferring that the commentaries claim `independent existence' because they don't go to the level of sophistication that you expect, want, or need. If this is true, then the fault lies in your weak understanding of the commentaries not in the commentaries themselves. Metta, James 28953 From: gazita2002 Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV 60 - elements Dear Nina and Larry, My time at the computor is so limited, but have been following a little of this thread and have a query about the elements [dhatus]. I require clarification on mind-element [manodhatu], is this the same as heart base? mind object [dhamma] does this include concepts? I'm thinking here of 'thinking', e.g. i'm thinking of how to put this question to you - that sort of thinking ??!! mind consciousness [mano vinnana] are these the cittas which arise somewhere other than the 5 sense doors e.g. eye etc.? When I wrote about my limited time, it was a condition to remember comments from Ven. Dhammadharo regarding listening to the Dhamma. We can have all types of excuses - too hot, too cold, too tired, too hungry. As I sat at the computor this morning, turned the fan on, had to rearrange that a few times to get it 'just right'; then the mozzie began to bite and it looked like a dengue one so had to go find the mozzie repellant, now I'm uncomfortable in this chair........is this behaviour familiar to anyone else???? I put it all down to Kilesa. Patience, mmmmm, courage mmmmm again, and good cheer - sigh! Azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Larry, note 3b. > op 09-01-2004 00:19 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > > > Text: And the distinction "in the five-constituent becoming" is made on > account of the mind-consciousness-element; in the four-constituent becoming, > [that is, > the immaterial sphere,] there is no mind-element. > N: Because there are no sense-door processes of cittas experiencing > sense-objects. Thus also no mind-element: the adverting- consciousness, the > first citta of a sense-door process which adverts to the sense object that > has impinged on one of the senses, and the wto types of > receiving-consciousness, arising after the vipakacittas of the > sense-cognitions. . - snip- > ***** > Nina. 28954 From: Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 4:31pm Subject: XIV 61,(4/4) 'Since it has been said that the apprehension of intimation is next to the apprehension of the appearance of motion, how then, is the air element itself as the maker of the movement accompanied by the alteration consisting in the intimation? It is not like that. It is the air elements given rise to by the first impulsion, etc., and which are unable to cause movement in that way and perform only the stiffening and upholding, that should be taken as only accompanied by the alteration belonging to intimation. For it is the alteration coexistent with the intention that is the intimation, because of giving rise to alteration in whatever direction it wishes to cause the occurrence of moving forward and so on. Taking it in this way, it is perfectly logical to say that the origination of intimation belongs to mind-door adverting. Since the intention possessed of the aforesaid alteration is intimated through the apprehension of that alteration, it is said that "Its function is to display intention". The air element being the cause of the motion of the body intimation, is figuratively said, as a state of alteration, to be "manifested as the cause of bodily motion". "Its proximate cause is the consciousness-originated air-element" is said since the air element's excessive function is the cause of intimating intention by movement of the body' (Pm. 450-52). Cf. DhsA. 83f. 28955 From: Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 4:36pm Subject: Vism.XIV 60 (4 of 4) Note 26 cont.: 'Granted that these two elements [mind-element and mind-consciousness element] have as their support the derived matter consisting of the heart-basis, how is it to be known that it is kamma-originated, has an invariable function, and is to be found located in the heart? It may be said to be kamma-originated because, like the eye, it is the materiality of a physical basis; and because of that it has an invariable function; because it is the materiality of a physical basis and because it is a support for consciousness, is the meaning. It is known that its location is there because of the heart's exhaustion (khijjana) in one who thinks of anything, bringing it to mind intently and directing his whole mind to it' (Pm. 449-50). The word "hadaya" (heart), used in a purely mental and not physical sense, occurs in the definitions of the mind-element and mind-consciousness-element in the Vibha.nga (Vbh. 88-89). The brain (matthalu.nga), which seems to have been first added as the 32nd part of the body in the Pa.tisambhidaa (Ps.i,7), was ignored, and the Visuddhimagga is hard put to it to find a use for it. The Pi.takas (e.g. P.tn.1,4 quoted above) connect the mind with the matter of the body without specifying. 28958 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 5:52pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hello Herman, In the conditioned world no. Everything is compounded and conditioned. Metta Michael >From: "Herman Hofman" >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: >Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) >Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 08:43:23 +1100 > >Thanks, Michael, > >I appreciate the clarification. I think I am starting to understand >where you are coming from. Going on from what you say here, is there >anything, then, which is not conventional, compounded, fabricated? > >All the best > >Herman > >-----Original Message----- >From: Michael Beisert [mailto:mbeisert@h...] >Sent: Monday, 12 January 2004 1:47 AM >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) > >Hello Herman, > >Herman: >If there are differences, would same-natured still apply to the >computer and the pink elephant? Why? > >Michael: >Of course you can touch the computer but not an idea and therefore they >will >be different. Also the sensations produced by each will be different and > >perceptions and so on. But what I mean by same nature, and maybe my >choice >of words can be confusing here. I am not saying they are the same thing >but >that both share something in common in that they are conditioned and >compounded phenomena. In that sense they are both a conventional >reality, >they lack anything intrinsic or inherent, they are fabricated. > >Metta >Michael > 28960 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 6:07pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hello James, James: But I would like to know specifically what commentaries you are referring to since there are quite a few. I would also like some examples and/or quotes of what you mean. I get the impression that you think I should just take you at your word in this regard and I'm not having any of that! Talk is cheap…put up or shut up! ;-))) Michael: Paramatha and sabhava are used abundantly in this list to qualify dhammas, I don’t have to search for specific quotes from the commentaries. And those words mean what they mean. Some people may pretend differently but those words mean ultimate reality and inherent nature. James: Now, I am not an expert on the commentaries but from what I read in this group, and to use the same broad generalizations you are using, I don't believe they say what you are claiming they say. They don't say that the aggregates actually exist but living entities don't; they strongly and emphatically state that the aggregates are impermanent, non-self, and suffering. This doesn't mean or even imply independent existence of the type you are stating. How could something that is impermanent exist? One second it is there and the next second it is gone, that means it doesn't independently exist. How could something that is non-self exist? It has no `self-same' essence that belongs to it therefore it doesn't independently exist. Michael: You are right, it is contradictory. But explain to me what in your understanding are the characterisitcs that make a phenomena qualify as an ultimate reality with inherent nature? Metta Michael 28961 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 8:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristics Hi Michael You are right to say all conditioned dhammas are empty and conditioned. After a few more discussions, I think answering these basic qns will help a lot in our dicussions Fabricated - can we experience when fabrication arise? What are your notion of experience, when we experience a fabrication, does it exist or not during that moment of experience? Distinct - does distinct mean an unique characteristics Dhamma and distinct - do you think a charactertics of a distinct dhamma can arise on its own. Can a dhamma possess characterstic? Or the characteristic is the Dhamma, or are they separated? Just like can aggregates possessed clinging, can clinging be the aggregates, are they separated? best wishes Ken O 28962 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 9:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] author's rights, etc. Dear Jon, Yes, it is finished, but the Pali accents are not correct I think. And sending it to Zolag first is another problem. As mentioned, the quotes from Ven. Nanamoli, allowed percentage? Nina. op 11-01-2004 12:38 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jonoabb@y...: > J: It was me. I would be very happy to have a copy of the document, > either now or when the series is finished. 28963 From: Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 4:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] HTOO: Space element Hi, Nina (and Htoo) - In a message dated 1/11/04 2:52:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > N: Sometimes we have to go back to the beginning so that we, in the middle > of studying details, do not lose the big picture! > Rupa is among the three conditioned paramattha dhammas. This means: it > arises from the appropriate conditions and then it falls away. There are > several conditioning factors that come together so that a particular dhamma > arises. But since these conditions do not last and fall apart, also the > conditioned dhamma has to fall away again. Rupas are listed as 28 kinds. > That means, they are not concepts or productions of the mind.They are > included in rupakkhandha. Except the four rupas which are characteristics > inherent in rupa, they arise and fall away. Also space arises and falls away > together with the groups of rupa it surrounds. > ========================== Space, if it is a rupa, is an odd sort of rupa. Hardness is experienced through the body door - only, visual objects through the eye door - only, odors through the nose door - only, tastes through the tongue door only, sounds through the ear door - only, water element through the mind door (so it is said) - only. But space seems to be experienced both through the body door, the eye door, and the ear door. Could such a thing be a rupa? I think not. I think that space is mere (well grounded) concept designating a particular category of relations among rupas. 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) 28964 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 9:23pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hi Michael, Michael: Paramatha and sabhava are used abundantly in this list to qualify dhammas, I don't have to search for specific quotes from the commentaries. James: This list and the commentaries are not the same or comparable. If you make a claim about the commentaries you should provide evidence from the commentaries, not references to this list. Of course you don't really HAVE to do anything, it is up to you. But to me your position is pretty shaky at this point. Michael: And those words mean what they mean. Some people may pretend differently but those words mean ultimate reality and inherent nature. James: Words don't mean anything independent of the meaning we give to them. Pali words are especially tricky because they are very unspecific in most cases and have multiple meanings. As far as `ultimate reality' and `inherent nature', my understanding of the Abhidhamma thus far is that `ultimate reality' is a way to differentiate from conventional reality and `inherent nature' means the most basic characteristic of a phenomena. What's the problem? Michael: But explain to me what in your understanding are the characterisitcs that make a phenomena qualify as an ultimate reality with inherent nature? James: With your implied meaning there are none, everything is conditioned except Nibbana the unconditioned. In terms of the Abhidhamma model, color would be an example. Red is red is red. Metta, James 28965 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 9:26pm Subject: to Larry, the program, heartbase Dear Larry, You are posting now at the same time as heartbase also the next one, 2 notes, on bodily intimation. Do you have a reason? I would like to go more into heartbase, and James also likes that. He wants the big picture. Also, I cannot manage now to unraffle at the same time bodily intimation, thus, 61, 4/3, and 61, 4/4. Before that we should study the Vis. no 61, the text and the notes 61/ 4/1 and 4/2 which we do not have yet. These are long footnotes containing the Tiika, difficult compact language, and thus they have to be unraffled bit by bit. Moreover, I am afraid that before Thailand I may not come to this topic of intimation yet. I am leaving Jan 27 (but closing down 26) and back Febr. 12. I try to do what I can before, but cannot promise anything. Anyway, I first proceed with 60, 4/4 and I like to add more on heartbase after this note. Nina. 28966 From: Eznir Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 9:48pm Subject: Re: Views along the way Dear Nina, 28818\Nina: Understandable that you were put off with Abhidhamma. Especially if you follow details as Larry and I study now. Details about rupa, AND A WAY OF REASONING which must seem complicated, with those dyads. How far can one go by way of reasoning? Can the Dhamma be comprehended in this way? May you be happy! eznir 28967 From: Eznir Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 9:51pm Subject: Re: Direct Experience! Dear Ven. Bhante Direct seeing is when one perceives things as they are, but before conceiving things and conceptualizing into Namarupa as in Dhammachakkapavatthana Sutta.... am I right Bhante? May you be Happy! eznir 28968 From: Eznir Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 10:03pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Dear Jame, Micheal and Friends! I hope James and Micheal don't mind me barging in to this discussion. There are some observations that need be pointed out to understand the Dhamma in its correct perspective. 28952\James: Now, I am not an expert on the commentaries but from what I read in this group, and to use the same broad generalizations you are using, I don't believe they say what you are claiming they say. They don'tsay that the aggregates actually exist but living entities don't; they strongly and emphatically state that the aggregates are impermanent, non-self, and suffering. This doesn't mean or even imply independent existence of the type you are stating. How could something that is impermanent exist? One second it is there and the next second it is gone, that means it doesn't independently exist. How could something that is non-self exist? It has no `self-same' essence that belongs to it therefore it doesn't independently exist. eznir: First, The Commentaries! They are, as the word Commentaries mean, comments on what Lord Buddha and his Noble Disciples said so that those of lesser intelligence would understand what was said, under what circumstances and in what context. The commentaries are made by ordinary people if not intellectuals in the Dhamma and not by Arahats of those times! Therefore these commentaries should be taken with a pinch of salt! These type of clarifications were made even during Lord Buddha's times by Venerables Sariputta, Ananda, etc. Fortunately Lord Buddha himself was there to give his stamp of assurance to its credibility! They are therefore included in the main body of the tripitaka. Secondly, the word Existence has no significance if not for the person to whom that thing in question exists! This fact is clearly seen in the ancient cities and artifacts of our times. The societies that built and used these things are no more in existence. And therefore the things that they used decays for lack of conscious attention of those to whom they are of significance. The same can be said of the skeletons discovered of the Neanderthal Man! And the countless number of skeletons found in the cemetries today! A thing can exist as long as it is significant to me, as long as I take it as mine and hence I am! Therefore even an impermanent thing too exists as long as one pays constant attention to it and so does a non-self thing like this body! The only fuel needed for such existence is Ignorance! Not realizing the non-self nature of things we grasp at it and give it existence. Not realizing the impermanence of things we pay constant attention to it, maintain it (unlike the ancient cities) and give it some significance (advertisements thrive on this idea!). Resulting in suffering! Isn't it suffering to maintain some thing that doesn't Be as you want it to be! Finally, just as a man whose fallen into a well can only come out from inside the well, no matter how much we theorize and reason things out and seem to understand things, true knowledge will arise only through constant observation of your own world (the limited vision one has when one is in the well), i.e., your 5 aggregates (Rupa, Vedana, Sanna, Sanskara and vinnana)! Be Happy! eznir 28969 From: Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 10:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] to Larry, the program, heartbase oops, sorry everyone, I meant to send the two XIV 61's to myself only, for storage. trying to get ahead. please ignore for now. we can begin paragraph 61 on bodily intimation when everyone gets back from Thailand. Larry 28970 From: Herman Hofman Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 10:42pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Direct Experience! Hi Eznir, I would very much like to read the sutta you refer to, but get no hits on a number of search engines. Do you have a link to where I could read this sutta online? Thanks and Regards Herman -----Original Message----- From: Eznir [mailto:eznir2003@y...] Sent: Monday, 12 January 2004 4:51 PM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Re: Direct Experience! Dear Ven. Bhante Direct seeing is when one perceives things as they are, but before conceiving things and conceptualizing into Namarupa as in Dhammachakkapavatthana Sutta.... am I right Bhante? May you be Happy! eznir 28971 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 11:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Extolling, disparaging , slaying wrath Dear Nina, --- nina van gorkom wrote: > N: > Now this sutta reminds me of the Anumanasutta (M I, 15,Measuring in > accordance with) we discussed in the context of the perfections. <...> >We say > disagreeable > things to each other sometimes, and then pride may be in the way to > apologize. There is banner conceit: who am I, I am insulted. But how > good > when we can apologize, it makes the citta gentle and meek. And then the > forgiving: coming from the heart. It is a kind of generosity, dana. We > see > how useful Vinaya is also for householders. .... Agreed and well said! .... > Deva Samyutta (PTS), I, 8 slaughter suttas, § 1: What must we slay? > Perhaps James could give us the B.B. transl. .... You may have missed the following post I wrote recently: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m24423.html At the end I gave the BB translation of SN2:3 ‘Maagha’. The verses are identical with SN1:71 ‘Having Slain’, except for the name of the deva addressed. I’ll give the latter here with ‘O devataa’, replacing ‘O Vatrabhuu’: ****** SN1:71 Having Slain, B.Bodhi transl: At Saavatthi. Standing to one side,the devataa addressed the Blessed One in verse: “Having slain what does one sleep soundly? Having slain what does one not sorrow? What is the one thing, O Gotama, Whose killing you approve?”[1] “Having slain anger, one sleeps soundly; Having slain anger, one does not sorrow; The killing of anger, O devataa, With its poisoned root and honeyed tip: This is the killing the noble ones praise, For having slain that, one does not sorrow.”[2] [1]jhatvaa [2]Spk: Anger has a poisoned root (visamuula) because it results in suffering. It has a honeyed tip (madhuragga) becaue pleasure arises when one returns anger with anger, abuse with abuse, or a blow with a blow. ****** N:> Note: Buddhaghosa writes:< Pleasure arises, in capping one angry > rejoinder > by another, in hitting back.>That is the fevered climax. And the > poisoned > source; a poisoned root, B explains, that has as its result sorrow, > akusala > vipaka. > It is all so human. > Nina. .... When I posted it last time, I checked and found the word for anger was kodha which I’m not familiar with. Metta, Sarah ======= 28972 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 11:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will was (Two to tango .....) HI TG & All, --- TGrand458@a... wrote: Yet I believe that mindfulness > can be > developed strongly enough to be convensed that it is conditions that are > > interacting...not a self. For there is no way to have a belief of free > will and not > have the belief of a self as an 'actor' or 'agent' behind it. .... I think you put this very well (which means it's just how I see it too;-)) Metta, Sarah RobM has also written some clear, big picture posts on Freewill, Space and maybe Heart (hadaya rupa). Herman, James, Htoo and all, you may find it helpful to check under these same subject headings in UP: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts RobM, after announcing you were back, I've been waiting for your posts in anticipation...;-) ================== 28973 From: Herman Hofman Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 11:24pm Subject: RE: [dsg] HTOO: Space element Hi Howard, Agreeing with you is becoming predictable :-) Just as an aside, Nyanatiloka has bounded space as dhatu and as object of kasina meditation, and unbounded space as concept and object of the first immaterial jhana. All the best Herman -----Original Message----- From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] Sent: Monday, 12 January 2004 4:22 PM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [dsg] HTOO: Space element Hi, Nina (and Htoo) - In a message dated 1/11/04 2:52:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > N: Sometimes we have to go back to the beginning so that we, in the middle > of studying details, do not lose the big picture! > Rupa is among the three conditioned paramattha dhammas. This means: it > arises from the appropriate conditions and then it falls away. There are > several conditioning factors that come together so that a particular dhamma > arises. But since these conditions do not last and fall apart, also the > conditioned dhamma has to fall away again. Rupas are listed as 28 kinds. > That means, they are not concepts or productions of the mind.They are > included in rupakkhandha. Except the four rupas which are characteristics > inherent in rupa, they arise and fall away. Also space arises and falls away > together with the groups of rupa it surrounds. > ========================== Space, if it is a rupa, is an odd sort of rupa. Hardness is experienced through the body door - only, visual objects through the eye door - only, odors through the nose door - only, tastes through the tongue door only, sounds through the ear door - only, water element through the mind door (so it is said) - only. But space seems to be experienced both through the body door, the eye door, and the ear door. Could such a thing be a rupa? I think not. I think that space is mere (well grounded) concept designating a particular category of relations among rupas. 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) 28974 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 0:39am Subject: [dsg] Re: Direct Experience! Hello Herman, I'll bet a quid you have read it :-) - it's the Buddha's first sermon http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn56-011.html metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > Hi Eznir, > > I would very much like to read the sutta you refer to, but get no hits > on a number of search engines. Do you have a link to where I could read > this sutta online? > > Thanks and Regards > > > Herman > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eznir [mailto:eznir2003@y...] > Sent: Monday, 12 January 2004 4:51 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Re: Direct Experience! > > Dear Ven. Bhante > > Direct seeing is when one perceives things as they are, but before > conceiving things and conceptualizing into Namarupa as in > Dhammachakkapavatthana Sutta.... am I right Bhante? > > May you be Happy! > > eznir 28975 From: Eznir Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 0:44am Subject: Re: Direct Experience! Hello Herman, Thankyou very much for drawing my attention to this Sutta. In fact I have inadvertently given the wrong sutta!@%&* The correct one is Mulapariyaya Sutta MN 01 and the link is: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn001.html But nevertheless Herman, the Dhammachakkapavatthana Sutta is also a very good one. I think it's Lord Buddha's first sermon to his 5 former friends. The link to this sutta is: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn56-011.html I wonder how I could correct my earlier post now....! Ven. Bhante I hope this message catches your attention! Thanks Metta eznir 28976 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 1:41am Subject: Abhidhamma Ripley's show <>(Hi KenO;-)) Hi Michael & All, I hope you don’t mind me picking up on a few of your main contentions, quoting brief comments from some recent posts of yours to different people. ..... M: >I said this many times and say again, in the suttas there is no teaching about paramatha/sabhava. Did the Buddha say that the first noble truth is that there are paramatha? ..... S: The words paramattha and sabhava may not be used but the meaning and distinction from conventional or worldly truths or realities is apparent. SN1:25 The Arahant “Though the wise one has transcended the conceived, He still might say, ‘I speak,’ He might say too, ‘they speak to me.’ Skilful, knowing the world’s parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions.” The Buddha said concerning the first noble truth of Dukkha that in short this refers to the 5 khandhas of grasping (sankhittena pa~ncupaaanakkhandhaa dukkhaa),D 11,305. The khandhas refer to paramattha dhammas (realities) only, not to pannatti (concepts) as KenO pointed out, ‘the commentators classify the five khandhas as paramatthas. The first noble truth, the clinging of the five khandhas are paramatthas.’ They refer to rupas, cittas and cetasikas only. When we read that all conditioned or formed dhammas are impermanent and unsatisfactory (sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe sankhara dukkha), again it is referring only to the khandhas or paramattha dhammas. As Suan indicated, only these realities have the characteristics of “1. emergence when there are relevant conditions. 2. total disappearance when those relevant conditions disappear. “ When it comes to anatta, nibbana, the unconditioned dhamma is included as well. Back to the drawing board or rather the suttas to check further. For this I hope the Samyutta corner won’t mind me relying on SN, Khandhavagga, Bodhi translations, which we’ll get to eventually and I'll then be happy to repeat them;-). [all notes in brackets are mine]. ***** 1) SN22:79 Being Devoured “What do you think, bhikkhus, is form [i.e rupa khandha] permanent or impermanent?.....is feeling [i.e vedana khandha]......perception [sanna khandha]......volitional formations [sankhara khandha, i.e the 50 cetasikas apart from vedana and sanna]....consciousness [vinnana khandha, aka all cittas] permanent or impermanent? “Impermanent, venerable sir.” - “Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?” - “Suffering, venerable sir.” - “Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self?” - “No, venerable sir.” [Note: computers, vases and purple (or pink!) elephants are not included in the khandhas] as KenO has been indicating. ***** 2) SN22:21 Ananda “Venerable sir, it is said, ‘cessation, cessation.’ Through the cessation of what things is cessation spoken of?” “Form [rupa], Ananda, is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, to vanishing, to fading away, to cessation. Through its cessation, cessation is spoken of. “Feeling is impermanent....Perception is impermanent....Volitional formations [sankhara khandhas,i.e the 50 cetasikas other than vedana and sanna] are impermanent.....consciousness is impermanent, conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, to vanishing, to fading away, to cessation. Through its cessation, cessation is spoken of. “It is through the cessation of these things, [i.e not of other things], Ananda, that cessation is spoken of.” [Note: again, no computers, elephants or what the commentaries refer to as pannatti are included as being impermanent, conditioned and so on.] ***** 3) 22:50 Sona (2) “But, Sona, those ascetics and brahmins who understand form, its origin, its cessation, and the way leading to its cessation; who understand feeling...perception....volitional formations...consciousness, its origin, its cessation, and the way leading to its cessation: these I consider to be ascetics and brahmins among brahmins, and these venerable ones, by realizing it for themselves with direct knowledge, in this very life enter and dwell in the goal of asceticism and the goal of brahminhood.” [i.e It is these same khandhas or paramattha dhammas that have to be known by more and more highly developed panna (wisdom/understanding). Pannatti can never be known by the development of insight (vipassana).] ***** contd -> 28977 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 1:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show (2) <>(Hi KenO;-)) Cont: S: From Samyutta Nikaya cont. 4) 22:122 Virtuous “...Friend Sariputta, what are the things that a virtuous bhikkhu should carefully attend to?” “Friend Kotthita, a virtuous bhikkhu should carefully attend to the five aggregates subject to clinging as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as empty, as nonself. What five? The form aggregate [rupa khandha].......etc... When friend, a virtuous bhikkhu carefully attends thus to these five aggregates subject to clinging, it is possible that he may realize the fruit of stream-entry.” “But, friend Sariputta, what are the things that a bhikkhu who is a stream-enterer...... .....a once-returner.... .....a non-returner....... ......an arahant should carefully attend to?” “Friend, Kothita, a bhikkhu who is an arahant should carefully attend to these five aggregates subject to clinging as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as empty, as nonself. For the arahant, friend, there is nothing further that has to be done and no repetition of what he has already done. However, when these things are developed and cultivated, they lead to a pleasant dwelling in this very life and to mindfulness and clear comprehension.” [In other words, the 5 khandhas or paramattha dhammas are the objects of sati sampajanna (mindfulness and wisdom) from beginning to end. This is consistent with what is explained throughout the Tipitaka and ancient commentaries. It also accords with any direct experience of what can actually be known. As Htoo summarised: ‘When Paramattha is well known Pannatta will also be known. then Howard’s tree is real or not will be clear to viewers.”] ***** 5) 22:85 Yamaka For full sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn22-085.html From Bodhi transl: “What do you think, friend, Yamaka, do you regard form as the Tathagata?” “No friend.” - “Do you regard feeling.......etc” “No friend”. “What do you think, friend, Yamaka, do you regard the Tathagata as in form?........as apart from form?............” “No, friend.” “What do you think, friend, Yamaka, do you regard form,....etc as the Tathagata?” - “No, friend,” “What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathagata as one who is without form, without feeling, without perception, without volitional formations, without consciousness?” - “No, friend.” “But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life is it fitting for you to declare: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death?” [So we find that what the commentaries refer to as paramattha sacca (truth in the highest sense) is referred to in various ways in the suttas such as here as saccato thetato (as real and actual), i.e there is no Tathagata to be found as being, in, apart from, without the khandhas. S:In just the same way, what the commentaries refer to as pannatti or sammuti sacca (conventional truth) is referred to in the suttas as worldly usage (lokavohaara), worldly convention (lokapannatti) and so on. The various wrong ways of conceiving the khandhas here correlate to the 20 kinds of sakkaya ditthi (wrong view of self).] ***** Finally you wrote M:> The way I would describe it is that the Pali commentaries interpreted that the teaching of non-self only applies to entities (humans, devas, animals, etc) but that the aggregates are an ultimate reality with true existence. ..... S: On the contrary, the suttas, the Abhidhamma and the Pali commentaries all clearly indicate that the teaching of the ti-lakkhana including non-self apply to the aggregates, to ultimate realities with characteristics or qualities which can be directly known by insight wisdom. Indeed the first controverted point I posted from the Kathavatthu with a summary from the commentary, clearly indicated the fallacy of the argument that “a ‘person’ is known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact”. ..... M: >I have said this countless times and have to say again, I don’t discard the Abhidhamma teachings. I don’t say that the Abhidhamma are not the teachings of the Buddha. ..... M: >five aggregates......They are not ultimate realities. ..... S: From CMA (Abhidammattha Sangaha, transl by Bodhi) “Tattha vutt’aabhidhammatthaa Catudhaa paramatthato Citta’m cetasika’m ruupa’m Nibbaanam iti sabbathaa” “The things contained in the Abhidhamma, spoken of therein, are altogether fourfold from the standpoint of ultimate reality: consciousness, mental factors, matter, and Nibbana.” In other words, the five aggregates are the ultimate realities (paramattha dhammas) precisely to be known. Metta, Sarah p.s apologies for the length of this post! ====== 28978 From: Herman Hofman Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:26am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Free Will was (Two to tango .....) Hi Sarah and everyone, My wife has just picked me up of the floor, and resuscitated me. I followed your link to useful posts, then went to free will and in post 18891 found a straw man believing in absolute free will, with a bloody nose. For the record, I regularly observe faith in the notion of absolutes on this site, but do not subscribe to it myself. Thus anything that represents me as believing or having believed in absolute free will is very very incorrect. I would rather that you remove that post than try and correct the perception. (Actually I would prefer to never go into useful posts at all, either as sage or straw man. I do not subscribe to any belief that anything can be useful of itself, absolutely, so to speak. Why are there no photos of rotting corpses under useful posts? I can send plenty if the selection panel wants) All the best Herman -----Original Message----- From: Sarah [mailto:sarahdhhk@y...] Sent: Monday, 12 January 2004 6:18 PM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Free Will was (Two to tango .....) HI TG & All, --- TGrand458@a... wrote: Yet I believe that mindfulness > can be > developed strongly enough to be convensed that it is conditions that are > > interacting...not a self. For there is no way to have a belief of free > will and not > have the belief of a self as an 'actor' or 'agent' behind it. .... I think you put this very well (which means it's just how I see it too;-)) Metta, Sarah RobM has also written some clear, big picture posts on Freewill, Space and maybe Heart (hadaya rupa). Herman, James, Htoo and all, you may find it helpful to check under these same subject headings in UP: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts RobM, after announcing you were back, I've been waiting for your posts in anticipation...;-) ================== 28979 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 4:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] HTOO: Space element Dear Nina, Thanks for your more information on space and the references you listed. We need a bird-eye view. We need to explore from forest to tree. While we are exploring individual tree, we should not forget forest. I do like your discussion on this topic 'space'. I assume you are also a Vipassana practitioner not only a writer. May you see Dhamma directly with your own wisdom. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Htoo, > Thank you for your post. I am glad you mention anipphanna and nipphana. I do > understand that this is a difficult subject. > op 10-01-2004 19:29 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > > Space is a Paramattha Rupa. > N: Rupa is among the three conditioned paramattha dhammas. This means: Rupas are listed as 28 kinds. > H: But it is not Nipphanna Rupa. It is > > Anipphanna Rupa. > N: Yes. > H:That means space is not conditioned by Kamma, Citta, > > Utu, and Ahara. Where is a self or person who takes these all in > his hands? That is the lesson we can learn. > Thank you Htoo, I like talking to you, > with appreciation, > Nina. 28980 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 4:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] HTOO: Space element Dear Howard, Do you mean space is object of eye, object of ear, and object of body? I am not clear what you meaned in your post regarding space while Nina's post made sense. I am looking forword to hearing from you. Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Nina (and Htoo ).. ========================== Space, if it is a rupa, is an odd sort of rupa. But space seems to be experienced both through the body door, the eye door, and the ear door. Could such a thing be a rupa? I think not. I think that space is mere (well grounded) concept designating a particular category of relations among rupas. With metta, Howard 28981 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 4:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] HTOO: Space element Dear Herman, The object of the 1st immaterial jhana is a concept that is the concept of space and that space is unbounded space. Yes. I agree with you with that. The bounded space which is the object of kasina is also a concept. There are 18 Dhatu and Akasa or space is not included. Htoo Naing -------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > Hi Howard, >Agreeing with you is becoming predictable :-) Just as an aside, Nyanatiloka has bounded space as dhatu and as object of kasina meditation, and unbounded space as concept and object of the first immaterial jhana. > All the best > Herman 28982 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 5:07am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Free Will was (Two to tango .....) Hi Herman & All, --- Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Sarah and everyone, > > My wife has just picked me up of the floor, and resuscitated me. I > followed your link to useful posts, then went to free will and in post > 18891 found a straw man believing in absolute free will, with a bloody > nose. ..... Oh no! Blame Christine's writing skills;-) What about the other Free Will posts there? Hope they weren’t so bloody. .... > For the record, I regularly observe faith in the notion of absolutes on > this site, but do not subscribe to it myself. Thus anything that > represents me as believing or having believed in absolute free will is > very very incorrect. .... Perhaps you should add a disclaimer for your signature sign-off - something like: Herman: “Absolutely nothing in what has been written reflects absolutely anything about what I believe to be correct, especially if’s about absolute free will.” ..... > I would rather that you remove that post than try and correct the > perception. .... I’ll forward your appeal to the next UP prevarication meeting. Meanwhile, it might be quicker for you to make your own appeals and representations on list concerning any mis-perceptions about your views;-) .... (Actually I would prefer to never go into useful posts at > all, either as sage or straw man. I do not subscribe to any belief that > anything can be useful of itself, absolutely, so to speak. Why are there > no photos of rotting corpses under useful posts? I can send plenty if > the selection panel wants) .... That would be fine. As they don’t fit in UP (blame yahoo!), why not send a pic of yourself being resuscitated (hopefully not quite in rotting corpse mode) to the photo album? On that subject, Victor, hope your cheery pic returns after its holiday, Mike, I believe you were given permission to add a youthful-looking update with a good friend?? KenO, we’ll wait for Bkk;-)) Michael, Htoo, Eznir and anyone else, we’d all be (well, I can’t absolutely guarantee Herman) grateful for your pic in the album..... http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/lst Metta, Sarah ====== 28983 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 9:44pm Subject: Concentration (samadhi) Friends: What is Concentration (Samadhi) ? That which is Stability, Fixed Focus, Steadiness of Consciousness, non-Distraction, non-Wavering, non-Scattering & non-Drifting, Imperturbability, Detached & Calmed Tranquillity, Solid Stillness, Ability to control & keep mind remaining on very same single object, One-pointedness, centring of attention, convergence of thought, Well directed, established & maintained Unified Mental Absorption. An even balance of Awareness & effort like the hand who holds a pair of scales equally balanced. There is the level of initial access concentration. There is the level of unified fixed absorption. By concentration one produces Joy from Quietude, acquires calm & cool tranquillity & gradually becomes perfected. That is called Concentration. --ooOoo-- Source: The Book of Analysis & Definition. Vibhanga 218 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=130304 All yours in the Dhamma. Peace is Ease. Bhikkhu Samahita, Ceylon. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ 28984 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 11:25pm Subject: Absorption Friends: What is Right Concentration (samma-samadhi) ? Here the Noble Friend, detached from sense-desire, secluded from all detrimental mental states, enters & remains in the first absorption of directed & sustained thought which is accompanied by joy & pleasure born of solitude. By the stilling of both directed & sustained thought, assured & mentally unified, the Noble Friend enters & maintains the second absorption in absence of both directed & sustained thought yet still associated with joy & pleasure now born of concentration. By the fading away of joy yet still experiencing bodily pleasure, fully aware & clearly comprehending, the Noble Friend enters & sustains the third absorption of imperturbable indifference of which the Nobles say: 'In Aware Equanimity one dwells in Pleasure'. By finally leaving behind both pleasure & pain as the prior overcoming of both gladness & sadness, the Noble Friend enters & remains in the fourth absorption of Awareness purified by Equanimity beyond pleasure & pain. That is called Right Concentration. This, friends, is the Method to Cease Suffering! --00O00-- Source: The Long Discourses of the Buddha. Digha Nikaya [ii 313] http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=251033 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/ All yours in the Dhamma. Peace is Ease. Bhikkhu Samahita, Ceylon. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ 28985 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 0:46am Subject: Clever Company! Friends: Advantageous Acquaintance: Who follows mean companions soon decays. He never fails who with his equal mates. Who leans toward the Noble rises soon. So one should always serve one better the oneself. AN i 25 As if one wraps up perfume in a common leaf that leaf will soon smell sweet too. Exactly so with one who follows the Wise. As if one strings rotten fish on a straw of grass, that grass will soon smell putrid too. Exactly so with one who follows fools. It 68 Follow only the Good Ones, Associate only with the Clever Ones, To learn the Truth from these Nobles gives an advantage like nothing else. SN I, 17 To follow the fools & thereby copy & choose the bad ways, to know no Good Friends, is causing only Misery. Sn 94 --ooO00-- Sources: Books: AN Anguttara Nikaya http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=132552 It Itivuttaka http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=404215 SN Samyutta Nikaya http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 Sn Sutta Nipata http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=201818 Web: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/index.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka/iti/iti-a.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/index.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka/suttanipata/ All yours in the Dhamma. Peace is Ease. Bhikkhu Samahita, Ceylon. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ 28986 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 6:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] HTOO: Space element --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > Dear Nina, > We need a bird-eye view. We need to explore from forest to tree. > While we are exploring individual tree, we should not forget forest. > > I do like your discussion on this topic 'space'. I assume you are > also a Vipassana practitioner not only a writer. > > May you see Dhamma directly with your own wisdom. ----------------------------------------- Dear Htoo, Sometimes we might be proud because conceit imagines WE practice vipassana or jhana, or have great understanding of Dhamma. I think one like Nina does not try to pretend or even want people to think they are anything special: what they see within is defilement and impurity, so they are concerned with developing insight into anatta, not becoming a 'vipassana practioner'. James quoted this a while back 'The Anguttara Nikaya, 70. A Superior Person: "Further: even unasked, a superior person reveals his own faults, how much more so when asked. When asked, however, and obligated to reply to questions, he speaks of his own faults without omitting anything, without holding back, fully and in detail. He should be considered a superior person. Further: even when asked, a superior person does not reveal his own praiseworthy qualities, still less so when not asked. When asked, however, and obliged to reply to questions, he speaks of his own praiseworthy qualities with omissions and hesitatingly, incompletely and not in detail. He should be considered a superior person." RobertK 28987 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] HTOO: Space element Dear Robert K, I learn from the quoted message that you made. I hope one day, we will be that kind of person. In Myanmar sayings there is a verse that approximately states the person that you quoted in your message. 'The drum does not sound when it is not beaten'. This means that the person will not say anything when he is not asked. But this sentence does not represent the whole message quoted in your post. Anyway thanks for your message and I want to read more as once I told you that I might ask you when I have queries. May you be free from suffering. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Dear Htoo, > Sometimes we might be proud because conceit imagines WE practice > vipassana or jhana, or have great understanding of Dhamma. > I think one like Nina does not try to pretend or even want people to think they are anything special: what they see within is defilement and impurity, so they are concerned with developing insight into anatta, not becoming a 'vipassana practioner'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > James quoted this a while back > 'The Anguttara Nikaya, 70. A Superior Person: "Further: even unasked, a superior person reveals his own faults, how much more so when asked. When asked, however, and obligated to reply to questions, he speaks of his own faults without omitting anything, without holding back, fully and in detail. He should be considered a superior person. Further: even when asked, a superior person does not reveal his own praiseworthy qualities, still less so when not asked. When asked, however, and obliged to reply to questions, he speaks of his own praiseworthy qualities with omissions and hesitatingly, incompletely and not in detail. He should be considered a superior person." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > RobertK 28988 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:14am Subject: Re: Concentration (samadhi) Dear Bhikkhu Samahita, Thank you very much for your kind post on Samadhi. May I ask you a question regarding the post? Are 'an even balance and effort ' concentration? You have been posting a lot of messages. Here in this post I would like to hear from you your comment on concentration. I will be looking forward to hearing from you. With much respect, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Bhikkhu Samahita wrote: What is Concentration (Samadhi) ? > That which is Stability, Fixed Focus, Steadiness of Consciousness....An even balance of Awareness & effort like the hand who holds a pair of scales equally balanced. > Source:The Book of Analysis & Definition. Vibhanga 218 http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=130304 28989 From: Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] HTOO: Space element Hi, Htoo - In a message dated 1/12/04 7:44:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, htootintnaing@y... writes: > Dear Howard, > > Do you mean space is object of eye, object of ear, and object of > body? I am not clear what you meaned in your post regarding space > while Nina's post made sense. I am looking forword to hearing from > you. > > Htoo Naing > ========================== Yes, that's what I mean. Space seems to be object of eye, ear, and body. I seem to see spaces between and around the lamp, computer monitor, printer, and the various other "objects" sitting on my desk. I also seem to hear distant sounds and nearby sounds and the space between them, and can often even place "where" a sound is coming from and how "far away" it is. Finally, I can move my hand, experiencing through that the space between "objects". I seem to experience space visually, auditorily (is that a legitimate adverb?), and bodily (much as I seem to be able to experience a tree as both eye object and touch object), and this is one reason for my doubting that space is a paramattha dhamma. 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) 28990 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:23am Subject: Re: Absorption Dear Bhikkhu Samahita, May I humbly ask you a question? After reading up your message ' Right Concentration', I understood that Right Concentration is concentration of 1st Jhana or 2nd Jhana or 3rd Jhana or 4th Jhana. Is that right your venerable? I am seriously asking you as you are a well-learned Bhikkhu. Right concentration has many implications and I think we lay people need to learn Sammasamadhi in detail. I will be looking forward to hearing your generous reply on Sammasamadhi with quotation. With much respect, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Bhikkhu Samahita wrote: What is Right Concentration (samma-samadhi) ? Here the Noble Friend, detached from sense-desire, secluded from all detrimental mental states, enters & remains in the first absorption of directed & sustained thought which is accompanied by joy & pleasure born of solitude. 28991 From: Michael Beisert Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:38am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Direct Experience! Hello Herman, There you go ... Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn56-011.html Metta Michael >From: "Herman Hofman" >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: >Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Direct Experience! >Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:42:07 +1100 > >Hi Eznir, > >I would very much like to read the sutta you refer to, but get no hits >on a number of search engines. Do you have a link to where I could read >this sutta online? > >Thanks and Regards > > >Herman > >-----Original Message----- >From: Eznir [mailto:eznir2003@y...] >Sent: Monday, 12 January 2004 4:51 PM >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [dsg] Re: Direct Experience! > >Dear Ven. Bhante > >Direct seeing is when one perceives things as they are, but before >conceiving things and conceptualizing into Namarupa as in >Dhammachakkapavatthana Sutta.... am I right Bhante? > >May you be Happy! > >eznir 28992 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] HTOO: Space element Dear Howard, You said you see space. You said you hear space. You said you touch space. To my knowledge, I cannot see space. I cannot hear space. I cannot touch space. When I see the space as you said, I can see the space but not space. I mean ultimate reality space. I can sense and see the conventional space as all can see well. Here, I am sitting and typing tik-tak-tik-tak. When i stop and think for a while I see the space between PC and the wall. I do see the space. But I cannot see space or Pariccheda Rupa or Akasa. What I actually see is colour. There are the colour of PC and the colour of the wall. They have boundries. The object of eye is colour. Not any other thing. Not space, I believe. I have not heard someone who heard space or the space of any kind conventional or Paramattha Rupa Pariccheda Rupa or Akasa or space. Regarding sound and perception of it, there have been sounds different sounds even before we were born. I could have heard our mom's voice before we were born. Since born, there have been continuous flow of sounds. Whether we hear them or not is the matter of our attention, our ear-sense organ, air as medium or other medium. I have never heard of hearing space. I cannot touch space. But I can sense and touch the space which is conventional. I touch this table. I touch this wall. I touch in between where there is nothing but air. Actually we do not notice that we are touching with air not the space. When you actually touched the space that we all known ( the space between the earth and the moon or other planets ), you are not touching anything. The object for touch are 3 of 4 Mahabhuta Rupa. Apo cannot be touched. Nor can space be. There are 18 Dhatu. All these are Rupa and Nama. But there is no space in 18 Dhatu. I do not have any idea how you can see space, hear space and touch space. Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Htoo - ====================================================================== Howard :Yes, that's what I mean. Space seems to be object of eye, ear, and body. I seem to see spaces between and around the lamp, computer monitor, printer, and the various other "objects" sitting on my desk. I also seem to hear distant sounds and nearby sounds and the space between them, and can often even place "where" a sound is coming from and how "far away" it is. Finally, I can move my hand, experiencing through that the space between "objects". I seem to experience space visually, auditorily (is that a legitimate adverb?), and bodily (much as I seem to be able to experience a tree as both eye object and touch object), and this is one reason for my doubting that space is a paramattha dhamma. ====================================================================== 28993 From: Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 3:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] HTOO: Space element Hi, Htoo - In a message dated 1/12/04 10:48:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, htootintnaing@y... writes: > Dear Howard, > > You said you see space. You said you hear space. You said you touch > space. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Actually, what I believe I said was that I *seem* to see space, I *seem* to experience space through ear sense (I didn't say I seem to "hear" space), and I *seem* to experience space through body sense (I didn't say I seem to "touch" space). Now, in fact, I do NOT believe that space is something actually experienced through eye door, ear door, or body door! Likewise, I don't believe that a tree is something actually experienced through eye door or body door. In both cases, there are direct sense door experiences that underly the pa~n~natti constructed by the mind. When we *say* we touch a tree, what is actually happening is that there are a multitude of experiences of varieties of hardness and textures involved and immediately processed by sa~n~na, and when we say we see a tree, what is actually happening is that there are a multitude of visual objects experienced and immediately processed by sa~n~na, and, in each case, with these being followed upon by higher and higher levels of sa~n~nic processing along with reifying operations carried out by sankharic functions based on our defiling tendency to create apparently self-existent "things". I see much the same thing happening with regard to our "seeing" of space, our "detecting" the space between sounds, and our "bodily experiencing" the space between "objects" and between "points in space". What is actually happening is that we experience physical events (both paramatthic [rupas] and pa~n~natic) and relations among them of the corresponding type, these are processed by ever higher and higher levels of sa~n~nic operation, and, further, by sankharic operations, constructing space pa~n~nattis. ----------------------------------------------------- > > To my knowledge, I cannot see space. I cannot hear space. I cannot > touch space. > > When I see the space as you said, I can see the space but not space. > I mean ultimate reality space. I can sense and see the conventional > space as all can see well. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Htoo, doesn't this strike you as a bit ironic, with the space that is experienced being "unreal," but the allegedly "real" space being unobservable? Hardness that is real is actually observed! Sounds that are real are actually observed! But "real" space - that's the sort of space we *cannot* observe!! (Something's wrooong here! ;-)) --------------------------------------------- > > Here, I am sitting and typing tik-tak-tik-tak. When i stop and think > for a while I see the space between PC and the wall. I do see the > space. But I cannot see space or Pariccheda Rupa or Akasa. What I > actually see is colour. There are the colour of PC and the colour of > the wall. They have boundries. The object of eye is colour. Not any > other thing. Not space, I believe. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, you are right. While we *seem* to see space, we actually do not. Space is a well-grounded mind construct. ------------------------------------------------ > > I have not heard someone who heard space or the space of any kind > conventional or Paramattha Rupa Pariccheda Rupa or Akasa or space. > Regarding sound and perception of it, there have been sounds > different sounds even before we were born. I could have heard our > mom's voice before we were born. Since born, there have been > continuous flow of sounds. Whether we hear them or not is the matter > of our attention, our ear-sense organ, air as medium or other medium. > I have never heard of hearing space. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: Me either. That's why I never used the expression "hearing space". Space cannot be heard, seen, tasted, touched, or smelled. Spaces are pa~n~natti - just like points in time and intervals of time. ---------------------------------------------- > > I cannot touch space. But I can sense and touch the space which is > conventional. I touch this table. I touch this wall. I touch in > between where there is nothing but air. Actually we do not notice > that we are touching with air not the space. When you actually > touched the space that we all known ( the space between the earth and > the moon or other planets ), you are not touching anything. The > object for touch are 3 of 4 Mahabhuta Rupa. Apo cannot be touched. > Nor can space be. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: The apparent sensing of space via the body sense is not a matter of *touching* space, but is a matter of detecting spatial intervals (pa~n~natti) constructed from bodily motion and *internal* touch sensations resulting from that motion. ------------------------------------------------- > > There are 18 Dhatu. All these are Rupa and Nama. But there is no > space in 18 Dhatu. > > I do not have any idea how you can see space, hear space and touch > space. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Me either, Htoo! ----------------------------------------------- > > Htoo Naing > ======================== 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) 28994 From: Michael Beisert Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:32am Subject: RE: [dsg] Abhidhamma Ripley's show <>(Hi KenO;-)) Hello Sarah, Thank you for your lengthy research but as you probably know I don’t have qualms with the suttas. Quite the opposite. I will only comment on one thing you wrote: “In other words, the five aggregates are the ultimate realities (paramattha dhammas) precisely to be known.” Yes, the aggregates are to be known for what they are. And they are an object of clinging and have the three characteristics: dukkha, anatta, anicca. When viewed as they are, clinging will cease. And that is in brief the objective of the path. The aggregates are not ultimate realities, and they are not supposed to be seen as ultimate realities through insight. I know we will not agree, but I don’t feel any need to convince you or anyone else. If what I say rings a bell, thats OK, if not, thats OK also. Metta Michael 28995 From: Michael Beisert Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:40am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 ) Hello James, James: Of course you don't really HAVE to do anything, it is up to you. But to me your position is pretty shaky at this point. Michael: You are right. I won’t do anything and let myself fall to the ground. James: As far as `ultimate reality' and `inherent nature', my understanding of the Abhidhamma thus far is that `ultimate reality' is a way to differentiate from conventional reality and `inherent nature' means the most basic characteristic of a phenomena. What's the problem? Michael: I have already written abundantly about that. Lots of repetitions I concede but if by now you don’t see any problem then it’s all good. Don’t worry and be happy. Metta Michael 28996 From: Htoo Naing Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 9:42am Subject: Contemplation On Own Body ( 03 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, The Dhamma practitioner has been practising Mahasatipatthana. At time, he practises on his own body. He sees his body parts and contemplates on each in turn. He becomes realized that there is nothing to be attached to his own body. When he is not attached to his own body, there is no way to become attached to others' body. In real term, there are just Rupa ( material ) and Nama ( mind ). In these matters, Citta and Cetasikas ( mental factor) are sometimes inconspicuous and very hard to see or realize their existence. For example existence of Vicara, Manasikara. Rupa ( material ) on the other hand is readily recognizable. Rupa is so vivid and recognizable that some totally believe in materiality. They do not accept Citta, Cetasika and so on. They will think that mind is just an output of the brain activities. Anyway, as Rupa or material is readily recognizable, it will be very helpful to view on Rupa. As the meditator is practising Mahasatipatthana, there is no need to go and search for Rupa as his body is made up of Rupa. Then he starts to contemplate on his own body. He recognizes that his body is made up of different body parts. These body parts again are made up of subconstituents and they all are finally four Mahabhuta Rupa or 4 basic elements. This method of meditation is also known as Dhatumanasikara. Dhatu is element. Mana is mind and Manasikara is attention. So Dhatumanasikara is attention on elements of own body. This Kammatthana is also known as Catudhatuvavatthana that is contemplation of 4 elements. May you all contemplate on your own body. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 28997 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 10:55am Subject: Latent tendencies, Ch 1, no 3. Latent tendencies, Ch 1, no 3. With regard to the expression ³biases and underlying tendencies², åsayånusaya, some teachers who pay attention only to the letter and do not investigate the meaning, wrongly assume that this expression is only a name. However, other teachers investigate the meaning of the terms that are used. They define the meaning of the term satta, being, as someone who is endowed with all kinds of properties. As to the term åsaya [4], bias, they explain this as dependence, abode or support on which beings depend. This term denotes the disposition to wrong view or to right view that has been accumulated. It denotes the disposition to all that is unwholesome, such as clinging to sense objects, or the disposition to all that is good, such as renunciation that has been accumulated. The defilements that lie persisting in the continuum of beings are called anusaya, latent tendencies. This term denotes the defilements such as clinging to sense objects that is strong. The terms åsaya and anusaya are joined together as åsayånusaya: biases and latent tendencies. It has become one word, which is actually a twin compound, formed by two words. The words disposition (adhimutti) and conduct (carita)[5] are in the text of the ³Path of Discrimination²combined with the expression åsayånusaya: biases and latent tendencies. In the text, after he (Såriputta) has used the expression ³knowledge of people¹s biases and latent tendencies², åsayånusaya ñåna, he speaks of the knowledge of people¹s behaviour (carita) and resolutions or dispositions (adhimutti). We read (Ch 69, 585): ³Here the Perfect One knows beings¹ biasses, he knows their underlying tendencies (åsayånusaya ñåna), he knows their behaviour (carita), he knows their dispositions(adhimutti), he knows beings as capable and incapable. 586. What is the bias which is latent in beings? Beings are supported by the wrong view of existence or supported by the wrong view of non-existence [7] thus: ŒThe world is eternal¹ or ŒThe world is not eternal¹ or ŒThe world is finite¹ or ŒThe world is infinite¹ or ŒThe soul and the body are the same¹ or ŒThe soul is one, the body another¹ or ŒA Perfect One is not after death¹ or ³A Perfect One both is and is not after death¹ or ŒA Perfect One neither is nor is not after death.¹ Or else, avoiding these extremes, they have Œacceptance in conformity¹ 8 with respect to dhammas that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality. He also knows them as pursuing sensual-desires thus: ŒThis person gives importance to sensual desires, is biassed to sensual desires, is inclined to sensual desires. He also knows them as pursuing renunciation thus: This person gives importance to renunciation, is biassed to renunciation, is inclined to renunciation. He also knows them as pursuing ill-will thus: ŒThis person gives importance to ill-will, is biassed to ill-will, is inclined to ill-will. He also knows them as pursuing non-ill-will thus: ŒThis person gives importance to non-ill-will, is biassed to non-ill-will, is inclined to non-ill-will. He also knows them as pursuing stiffness-and-torpor thus: ŒThis person gives importance to stiffness-and-torpor, is biassed to stiffness-and-torpor, is inclined to stiffness-and-torpor. He also knows them as pursuing perception of light thus: ŒThis person gives importance to perception of light, is biassed to perception of light, is inclined to perception of light [9]. These are the biasses (chanda) that become underlying tendencies in beings." Footnotes: 4. Asaya means: abode, support, disposition or inclination. 5. Adhimutti means resolution, intention, disposition or inclination. The Commentary to the ³Path of Discrimination² explains that conduct, carita, refers to kusala kamma and akusala kamma of past lives and that disposition, adhimutti, refers to the present life. The text of the Path of Discrimination uses the word chanda, desire, wish-to-do, referring to inclination or bias. It may be akusala or kusala. 7. Beings who believe in eternalism or in annihilation. 8. Anulomika khanti is patience or acceptance accompanying conformity-knowledge or adaptation-knowledge. Insight is developed in several stages and conformity-knowledge arises during the process during which enlightenment is attained. This insight conforms to the preceding stages that have been developed and to the succeeding insight. It is succeeded by adoption knowledge (gotrabhú) which experiences nibbåna but is not lokuttara citta. Adoption knowledge is succeeded by the Path-consciousness which is lokuttara. When conformity-knowledge arises, one understands the conditionality of phenomena with right view. The Commentary states that the word khanti, patience or acceptance is used to designate this kind of insight, because it is accompanied by patience and forbearance. See also the ³Dispeller of Delusion², II, Ch 16, 459. 9. When someone has sloth and torpor, he is drowsy. In order to dispel it, he can apply himself to the meditation on the ³perception of light², loka saññå. 28998 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 10:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Paññatti : in love with illusions. Dear Robert K, Ken H, Htoo and all, Robert, I am delighted with your example, it is so daily. Please, more of the same! (We shall miss you in Bgk, hope conditions change) . For long term meditators and Mini meditators: here is material for study handed to us in daily life. We can all profit. It is all about the four satipatthanas of body, feeling, citta (don't forget akusala citta) and dhammas. We are infatuated by our own stories, illusions: the girl and the old man. U. Narada analyses being in love: you have certain ideas about the other person and you believe you are in love with that person, but actually, you are in love with your own ideas about her/him, and, I could add, with yourself. Leaving aside being in love, it can also pertain to expectations we have about someone else and being disappointed. U. Narada explains that such projections end up in sorrow and disappointment. I liked Htoo's vivid, direct way of describing the body parts. Sometimes it is the right time for citta to contemplate these. One of the mini meditations suitable for every occasion. Not all the time, citta travels far in a day. We can always learn, even in a crowded place like a metro. And I liked hearing this from Ken H to Herman:< I've had a few problems of my own, lately -- being anxious about every little thing. The best advice I've received is to see accumulations the way they are, not to try to change. I'm sure it's the best advice for you too.> Yes, and it really helps doesn't it? Trying to change makes one tense and then we forget about the four satipatthanas. We, ordinary, unenlightened people, are at times anxious about every little thing. Forgetting that these are just stories created by our own citta. Think of the speck of dust on the telescope, when you, Aussie friends, were looking with excitement to planets and taking that dust for something great and important. Later on we can laugh. I was worried about Larry's computer just now, but there was no ground for it. op 11-01-2004 05:14 schreef rjkjp1 op rjkjp1@y...: > The softness didn't change to hardness once I realised it was a > man. But the thinking, which was taking concept as object did. A new > concept ('ehh, a man!) was the object of thinking. > And this is the way life is: we are absorbed in concepts; avijja > (ignorance) runs among pannati(concepts) continually. The true > teachings of the Buddha - as expressed in the Tipitaka and ancient > commentaries - show us what life really is so that the whole, this > conceptual world, is broken down to evanescent and conditioned > parts. This is the path to the ending of self view. 28999 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 12, 2004 10:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV 60 (4 of 4)note 4a Vism.XIV 60 (4 of 4)note 4a Note no. 4a to Heartbase: Note 26 cont.: 4 a: 'Granted that these two elements [mind-element and mind-consciousness element] have as their support the derived matter consisting of the heart-basis, how is it to be known that it is kamma-originated, has an invariable function, and is to be found located in the heart? It may be said to be kamma-originated because, like the eye, it is the materiality of a physical basis; N: Eyebase or the rupa that is eyesense is produced by kamma. Evenso for the other sense-organs. Text: and because of that it has an invariable function; N: The Pali uses pa.tiniyatakicca.m: kicca is function. Niyata: we have to think of something fixed, according to a fixed order (niyama). Eyebase always serves as physical base and door for seeing. This is fixed, invariable. Text: because it is the materiality of a physical basis and because it is a support for consciousness, is the meaning. N: Eyebase is rupa and a base or support for seeing. Evenso the heartbase: it is rupa and it is a support for mind-element and mind-consciousness element. Text: It is known that its location is there because of the heart's exhaustion (khijjana) in one who thinks of anything, bringing it to mind intently and directing his whole mind to it' (Pm. 449-50). N: Here the Tiika commentator wants to make understandable in conventional terms why the heart-base is the physical support of citta. (More about this later on. To be continued) Nina.