29600 From: christhedis Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 2:35am Subject: Mahayana: lower realms Hi everyone, It's been a while since I posted or even read postings in here, I hope no- one minds my occasional drop-in question. Also, I know this is a Theravada group but I can't find an answer to my question anywhere, so thought I'd try in here (plus I like you guys (and gals) :) So... in Mahayana, is there an equivalent to the Theravada stream- enterer, in terms of attaining a level where one does not fall back into lower realms (the stream-enterer level in Theravada)? I know Mahayanists are not looking to enter the stream in terms of guaranteed eventual nibbana, but do they have a level where they will be continually reborn into the human or higher realms? I know they have a Buddhahood level but I'm not sure what the implications of it are. Thanks, and best wishes to all. Chris. 29601 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 3:53am Subject: Re: Yet more discussion (and food) Hi Sarah, Sarah: Thx James;-) It's been great reading and it's even better to be back and able to check in from home (`just attachment', I hear KenO saying:-)). James: Good that you are both back safe and sound and that you had an enjoyable trip and meeting (the five khandhas are attachment...not easy to escape it ;-). Sarah: James, we printed our your kind comments to Nina for her and were particularly happy to see you quoting from the Visuddhimagga and Abhidammatha Sangaha and now from a Pali glossary;-) You really will have to join us all in Bkk sometime. (Hope, I wasn't dreaming). James: Glad that she will get to read them. I hope that she had a nice trip and is relaxed now that it is over. LOL! Yes, you did actually see me quoting from those sources and using Pali. As they say, "When in Rome…" ;-). Maybe I will join you sometime. I will listen to my heart in that regard. Sarah: James had given the perfect answer with a quote from the Paccaya Sutta also indicating that without an understanding of conditions there will always be a wondering about `what was I in the past....', `what will I be in the future.....' and so on. Thanks, James. I printed it out to give Ven Y the next day, but we didn't see him again. Perhaps he'll add his own impressions or answers he heard on this `funny little group' as he chose to call DSG;-) James: If this is the same Ven. Yanatharo who wrote a very inappropriate e-mail to me about how attractive I am, from my pictures, and how he might like to `deflower' me in his next lifetime since he can't now that he is a monk (the one I forwarded to you and Howard), don't give him anything from me and don't mention me to him, please. I think he has a few screws loose! ;-)) Sarah: (KenO - `You know, Howard's qu'). James: LOL! Oh, that narrows it down! ;-)) Sarah: It was never boring and the lunches and brunch together were most enjoyable too..... dhamma and catch-up James: Sounds like a grand time. I will have to seriously consider joining you sometime in the future. Metta, James 29602 From: icarofranca Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 4:11am Subject: Re: Anatta Dear Larry:- "If I may, I would like to ammend a convention. I think it might be > better to call sankhara khandha "mental fabricators" instead > of "mental fabrications". The reason for this is that the cetasikas > that are categorized in this khandha are no more fabricated than the > other mental factors. Also, this khandha is particularly associated > with the conditioning of kamma, so in that sense they are > fabricators. I wonder if they might also have something to do with > the proliferation of concepts as well." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A good remark, Larry: Khandhas are aggregates, so at the standpoint of a medium level Bhikkhu's mind doesn't matter either if they fabricate their cetasika's concomitants or are a fabricated result by them through Kamma. Both are at the same ground of reasoning and the noble Bhikkhu pays no more attention at one than at any other (of course he will keep in mind his stream-entering his consciousness if facing some defilement gross or subtile in front of his senses) ----------------------------------------------------------------- "I think (?) " ------------------------------------------------------------------ Don't fret, Larry... Mettaya, Icaro 29603 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 4:12am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Robert K, Robert K: Some passgaes from the Atthasalini (given by Nina in a past post) "The Abhidhamma, the ultimate doctrine, is the domain of omniscient Buddhas only, not the domain of others"(Atthasåliní). "He who excludes the Abhidhamma (from the Buddha-word) damages the Conquerer's Wheel of Dhamma (jina-cakkam pahåram deti). He excludes thereby the Omniscience of the Tathagata and impoverishes the grounds of the Master's Knowledge of Self-confidence (vesårajja-ñåna to which Omniscience belongs); he deceivesan audience anxious to learn; he obstructs (progress to) the Noble Paths of Holiness; he makes all the eighteen causes of discord appear at once." James: Actually, the quote from the Atthasalini goes on, you cut out the juicy stuff!: "…he makes all the eighteen causes of discord appear at once. By so doing he deserves the disciplinary punishment of temporary segregation, or the reproof of the assembly of monks.'" http://www.buddhanet.net/abhidh09.htm Hmm…that's one way to keep people quiet!! ;-)) Metta, James 29604 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 4:31am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Thanks James! In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Robert K, > > "The Abhidhamma, the ultimate doctrine, is the domain of > omniscient Buddhas only, not the domain of others"(Atthasåliní). > "He who excludes the Abhidhamma (from the Buddha-word) damages the > Conquerer's Wheel of Dhamma (jina-cakkam pahåram deti).> ========== > James: Actually, the quote from the Atthasalini goes on, you cut out > the juicy stuff!: > > "…he makes all the eighteen causes of discord appear at once. By so > doing he deserves the disciplinary punishment of temporary > segregation, or the reproof of the assembly of monks.'" > > http://www.buddhanet.net/abhidh09.htm > > Hmm…that's one way to keep people quiet!! ;-)) > > Metta, James 29605 From: icarofranca Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 4:33am Subject: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Dear Larry: I'm getting a little zoned-out with all this abstract thinking myself. Maybe I'll go for a walk. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't worry, Larry...thinking about it is more easy than seems..:-)) Tcharararan Tcha-ra-raaan.... Mettaya, Ícaro 29606 From: robmoult Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 5:52am Subject: The Internet Sutra (a rerun) This was such a fun piece, that I needed little prompting to post it again... The Buddha was an expert teacher, who often explained the Dhamma using analogies that were familiar to the listener. If the Buddha were alive today, He would likely use today's technology in His analogies. Here is an imaginary "sutra" using a modern technology as an analogy. Thus have I heard. On one occasion, Rob the Engineer was sitting in a cyber-cafe surfing the net and the thought arose, "I do not understand the concepts of mind (nama), matter (rupa) and non-self (anatta). I shall go and ask the Buddha to explain." Rob the Engineer went to the Blessed One, and after paying homage to Him, he sat down at one side and said: "Venerable sir, please explain to me the concepts of mind (nama), matter (rupa) and non-self (anatta)." "I will explain this to you, Engineer Rob, using the Internet as an example. Before you came to me, what were you doing?" "I was typing at a computer, Venerable Sir." "What are the things that make up a computer, and what are their functions?" "A computer has both hardware and software. The function of the hardware is to provide a base of support for the software and the function of the software is to receive and process the information that is input." "Does the software operate according to fixed rules, according to its nature, or is there a being or force controlling and directing the software?" "The software operates according to fixed rules, according to its nature." "Engineer Rob, you should understand the senses as you understand the computer. The senses have both nama and rupa. Eye sensitivity, the physical eye, is rupa. Eye consciousness is nama. The function of rupa is to provide a base of support for nama. The function of nama is to receive and process the information from the visible object. Nama operates according to its nature and there is no self controlling it. There is seeing, but there is no seer. This is the view of non-self." "So in this analogy, nama corresponds to the software while rupa corresponds to the hardware. Is this correct, Venerable Sir?" "It is so. Did the computer on which you were typing work in isolation?" "No Venerable Sir, the computer was connected to the Internet." "You should understand that the senses do not operate in isolation from the mind. How would you describe the 'Internet', Engineer Rob?" "The Internet is an uncountable number of computers, all running software, working in unison. Venerable Sir, does this mean that the mind is also nama and rupa?" "Yes, Engineer Rob, the mind is a combination of nama and rupa. Now, is there any force controlling and directing the Internet?" "No, Venerable Sir, the Internet is a very complex combination of hardware and software but there is no single thing in control of the Internet." "You should understand that though the mind is a very complex combination of nama and rupa, there is no self in control of the mind. Engineer Rob, is there a single thing that you can point to and say, 'This is the Internet'?" "No Venerable Sir, it is an ever-changing grouping of hardware and software that we label as 'Internet'. The 'Internet' is a concept; the 'Internet' is not a piece of hardware or software." "This is how you should understand a person, Engineer Rob, as an ever- changing grouping of nama and rupa; a concept, not an ultimate reality. This is the view of non-self." "This analogy is most interesting to me, Venerable Sir." "Engineer Rob, what makes the Internet work?" "In addition to being governed by the laws of physics (signal degradation, etc.), the foundation of the Internet is a set of rules that define how software interacts (TCP/IP, HTTP, etc.). The Internet is almost never at rest as there are almost always inputs arriving from one of the clients." "Even so, In addition to being governed by the laws of utu-niyama (we all must age), the foundation of a being is a set of rules that define how nama interacts (citta-niyama, kamma-niyama). A being is almost never at rest as there are almost always external objects being apprehended by the five senses." "Please continue, Venerable Sir." "Engineer Rob, imagine that your student wished to have a better understanding of the Internet. Would you advise that student to focus their attention on the hardware or the software?" "Venerable Sir, Though hardware is necessary for the Internet to exist, it is best to treat hardware as a platform for software and focus on how hardware impacts the software (speed, capacity, etc.) rather than the technical details of the hardware (processors, etc.). What makes the Internet interesting and powerful is the interaction between software. One can never truly understand the internet looking at the macro-level (appearance of web pages, etc.). To truly understand the Internet, one must understand how the underlying hardware, software and rules work." "Exactly, Engineer Rob. Though rupa is necessary for a person to exist, it is best to treat rupa as a platform for nama and focus on how nama experiences rupa (solidity, temperature, motion) rather than the technical details of rupa (protons, neutrons, electrons). What makes a person interesting and powerful is the interaction of nama. One can never truly understand a person looking at the macro-level (personality, etc.). To truly understand a person, one must understand how the underlying rupa, nama and niyama work." Engineer Rob was satisfied and delighted with what he had heard from the Blessed One. Metta, Rob M :-) PS: No, Engineer Rob did not become enlightened... I am not MANA enough for that ! :-) 29607 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 6:28am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hi Michael I have been through with you with this before so I do not wish to restate myself. With your stream of thoughts and argument, there will be no end to anything. Since everything exist do have essence, we might as well dont have any thing exist at all in the first place. I think you should look up in the sutta whether things exist or not before a fruitful dicussion can be continue or I think this is not going to benefit you or me. If your line of thinking you might as well define anatta which is an essential characteristics of Buddha as a being or an independent entity. best wishes Ken O 29608 From: abhidhammika Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 6:36am Subject: Re: Mahayana: lower realms Dear Chris and all How are you? Chris wrote and asked: "Also, I know this is a Theravada group but I can't find an answer to my question anywhere, ... So... in Mahayana, is there an equivalent to the Theravada stream- enterer, in terms of attaining a level where one does not fall back into lower realms (the stream-enterer level in Theravada)?" The question you asked is rather difficult against the backdrop of many forms of Mahayana schools. As far as Theravada is concerned, a bodhisatta / bodhisattva may be reborn in the lower realms including the hell realms. Examples are many in the Jaataka stories where the former lives of Gotama the Buddha as the lower lifeforms such as animals as well as higher lifeforms such as humans and gods are recorded. There is a large Mahayana group called BuddhistWellnessGroup (Yahoo). Perhaps some of co-owners may be able to answer your question from the Mahayana perspective. Please ask Dr Desmond Chiong or Yick Keng Hang. By the way, I am also a co-owner of BuddhistWellnessGroup who represents Theravada and Pali scholarship and, as such, can answer your questions only from the Theravada perspective. Good luck! :-) With regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christhedis" wrote: Hi everyone, It's been a while since I posted or even read postings in here, I hope no- one minds my occasional drop-in question. Also, I know this is a Theravada group but I can't find an answer to my question anywhere, so thought I'd try in here (plus I like you guys (and gals) :) So... in Mahayana, is there an equivalent to the Theravada stream- enterer, in terms of attaining a level where one does not fall back into lower realms (the stream-enterer level in Theravada)? I know Mahayanists are not looking to enter the stream in terms of guaranteed eventual nibbana, but do they have a level where they will be continually reborn into the human or higher realms? I know they have a Buddhahood level but I'm not sure what the implications of it are. Thanks, and best wishes to all. Chris. 29609 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 7:19am Subject: Re: The Internet Sutra (a rerun) Hi Rob M, Even though the discourse you wrote is obviously imaginary, I think you are still putting your own ideas in the Buddha's mouth. Some might find the imaginary discourse a fun and interesting piece of writing. However, regarding what the Buddha taught, I think the discourses in the Pali Canon is much more reliable source of the teaching of the Buddha than the imaginary discourse. I would be interested to see if the Buddha actually taught the view of non-self like the ideas in the following passages Nama operates according to its nature and there is no self controlling it. There is seeing, but there is no seer. This is the view of non-self." "This is how you should understand a person, Engineer Rob, as an ever- changing grouping of nama and rupa; a concept, not an ultimate reality. This is the view of non-self." If you could, please provide some passage from the discourse in the Pali Canon to support the ideas in the above passages from the imaginary discourse. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > This was such a fun piece, that I needed little prompting to post it > again... [snip] > > Thus have I heard. On one occasion, Rob the Engineer was sitting in a > cyber-cafe surfing the net and the thought arose, "I do not > understand the concepts of mind (nama), matter (rupa) and non-self > (anatta). I shall go and ask the Buddha to explain." > > Rob the Engineer went to the Blessed One, and after paying homage to > Him, he sat down at one side and said: > > "Venerable sir, please explain to me the concepts of mind (nama), > matter (rupa) and non-self (anatta)." > > "I will explain this to you, Engineer Rob, using the Internet as an > example. Before you came to me, what were you doing?" > > "I was typing at a computer, Venerable Sir." > > "What are the things that make up a computer, and what are their > functions?" > > "A computer has both hardware and software. The function of the > hardware is to provide a base of support for the software and the > function of the software is to receive and process the information > that is input." > > "Does the software operate according to fixed rules, according to its > nature, or is there a being or force controlling and directing the > software?" > > "The software operates according to fixed rules, according to its > nature." > > "Engineer Rob, you should understand the senses as you understand the > computer. The senses have both nama and rupa. Eye sensitivity, the > physical eye, is rupa. Eye consciousness is nama. The function of > rupa is to provide a base of support for nama. The function of nama > is to receive and process the information from the visible object. > Nama operates according to its nature and there is no self > controlling it. There is seeing, but there is no seer. This is the > view of non-self." > > "So in this analogy, nama corresponds to the software while rupa > corresponds to the hardware. Is this correct, Venerable Sir?" > > "It is so. Did the computer on which you were typing work in > isolation?" > > "No Venerable Sir, the computer was connected to the Internet." > > "You should understand that the senses do not operate in isolation > from the mind. How would you describe the 'Internet', Engineer Rob?" > > "The Internet is an uncountable number of computers, all running > software, working in unison. Venerable Sir, does this mean that the > mind is also nama and rupa?" > > "Yes, Engineer Rob, the mind is a combination of nama and rupa. Now, > is there any force controlling and directing the Internet?" > > "No, Venerable Sir, the Internet is a very complex combination of > hardware and software but there is no single thing in control of the > Internet." > > > "You should understand that though the mind is a very complex > combination of nama and rupa, there is no self in control of the > mind. Engineer Rob, is there a single thing that you can point to and > say, 'This is the Internet'?" > > "No Venerable Sir, it is an ever-changing grouping of hardware and > software that we label as 'Internet'. The 'Internet' is a concept; > the 'Internet' is not a piece of hardware or software." > > "This is how you should understand a person, Engineer Rob, as an ever- > changing grouping of nama and rupa; a concept, not an ultimate > reality. This is the view of non-self." > > "This analogy is most interesting to me, Venerable Sir." > > "Engineer Rob, what makes the Internet work?" > > "In addition to being governed by the laws of physics (signal > degradation, etc.), the foundation of the Internet is a set of rules > that define how software interacts (TCP/IP, HTTP, etc.). The Internet > is almost never at rest as there are almost always inputs arriving > from one of the clients." > > "Even so, In addition to being governed by the laws of utu-niyama (we > all must age), the foundation of a being is a set of rules that > define how nama interacts (citta-niyama, kamma-niyama). A being is > almost never at rest as there are almost always external objects > being apprehended by the five senses." > > "Please continue, Venerable Sir." > > "Engineer Rob, imagine that your student wished to have a better > understanding of the Internet. Would you advise that student to focus > their attention on the hardware or the software?" > > "Venerable Sir, Though hardware is necessary for the Internet to > exist, it is best to treat hardware as a platform for software and > focus on how hardware impacts the software (speed, capacity, etc.) > rather than the technical details of the hardware (processors, etc.). > What makes the Internet interesting and powerful is the interaction > between software. One can never truly understand the internet looking > at the macro-level (appearance of web pages, etc.). To truly > understand the Internet, one must understand how the underlying > hardware, software and rules work." > > "Exactly, Engineer Rob. Though rupa is necessary for a person to > exist, it is best to treat rupa as a platform for nama and focus on > how nama experiences rupa (solidity, temperature, motion) rather than > the technical details of rupa (protons, neutrons, electrons). What > makes a person interesting and powerful is the interaction of nama. > One can never truly understand a person looking at the macro-level > (personality, etc.). To truly understand a person, one must > understand how the underlying rupa, nama and niyama work." > > Engineer Rob was satisfied and delighted with what he had heard from > the Blessed One. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > PS: No, Engineer Rob did not become enlightened... I am not MANA > enough for that ! :-) 29610 From: Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 2:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi, Ken - In a message dated 2/2/04 1:34:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > ----------------------- > H: >I presume you believe that you have really answered what I have > asked, but I don't see it that way. It seems to me that, in each > case, you have responded by saying something having a related sense > to it, but not actually giving a clear and direct answer. > ------------------------------- > > If we were all accomplished Abhidhamma scholars, we could > communicate in the same language: As we are, it is hard to be on > the same wavelength. For me, it is hard enough to stay on my own > wavelength -- the mind changes so quickly. > > My Abhidhamma understanding extends about as far as "Right > understanding comes first." That means right understanding comes > before, not after, right effort. The right effort that is pertinent > to the Middle Way, is a cetasika; it arises with (in the same > conscious moment as) -- and depends upon -- the cetasika, `right > understanding.' > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: We start in the very midst of samsaric ignorance. To step off that dime, there must, of course, be some initial understanding of what the Buddha had to say and there has to be some appreciation for it. This sort of conventional, intellectual understanding and intention is required at the outset. But that is a far cry from the Right Understanding and Right Intention needed for liberation. And even the initial degree of understanding required is not something that can be willed. Either the conditions were previously forged for a degree of understanding-ability to be in place or not, but one can not simply say "May I understand" or "May there be wisdom". And anyway, nowhere is it said that the eightfold path is a linear one whose links develop in order. All aspects are needed and are supportive of each other. ------------------------------------------------------- > > We both know this but you seem more determined, than I am, to > pinpoint the conventional ramifications: You want to know if this > means we do something or if it means we don't do something. I don't > think there is a right answer to that. If pressed, I can only > say, "Because there is no self, there can be no control over > dhammas" or words to that effect. There are countless ways of > wording the same answer and it's all good `practice.' :-) > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: My take on your position, and of some others here, is that no-self implies no-volition. I think that is nonsense. Volition is impersonal. It is a fundamental error to think that volition requires an agent. To throw out the baby (the capacity to act with intent) with the bath water (a willing, acting agent) is to dismiss a necessary condition for following the Dhamma. ---------------------------------------------------- > > ----------------------------- > H: >Also, in one case, you add a presumption of wrong > view without giving evidence for same, > ----------------------------- > > Given that the Buddha taught anatta (not-self), any belief in self > is a deliberate (volitional) rejection of that teaching. That is > the definition of miccha-ditthi (wrong view). > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: And thus I have expressed no wrong view! ------------------------------------------------------- In subtle ways, we > > have wrong view every minute of the waking day. Trying to summon-up > right mindfulness is a form of wrong view (because there is no self > who can summon-up anything). ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Some phenomena have immediate volition as a condition for arising, and others don't. When you wish to open your eyes, Ken, with other supporting conditions in place, this can just be done. Likewise for paying attention. But there needn't be a self to do something in order for that something to be done. You seem to think that an action requires an agent. That is self view!! (It seems to me that because you actually have a rather *strong* self-view but also accept the belief that self-view is wrong view, you go to the far extreme as a "way out of the dilemma", and you adopt the belief that no willed activity is possible - "because there is no self who can summon-up anything.") ------------------------------------------------------- Giving-up on right mindfulness is > > another form of wrong view (because it implies it cannot be > conditioned). I find it handy to remember that even wrong view is > a suitable object for right view. > > --------------------- > H: >and several times you talk about "self", which is not anything > that I discussed or even hinted at. So, it seems to me that you did > not reply to what I asked, but instead replied to a post that is a > straw-man. > ------------ > > Everything, that is not the Middle Way, comes down to self-view in > one form or another. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I guess that settles that, Ken! And do you assume that you are the one to know what is Middle Way when you see it, and what is not? -------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------- > H: >When the Buddha said to guard the senses, he was instructing > his followers to engage in an activity. When he told them to abide > by the sangha rules, he was instructing his followers to engage in > an activity. When he told them to find an isolated spot and > meditate, he was instructing his followers to engage in an activity. > ---------------------------------- > > Before the Buddha taught any of these things, he taught that all > dhammas (conditioned and unconditioned) were anatta. So there is no > self who can follow, or not follow, his teaching. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, yes, yes, Ken. You are flogging a dead horse! ---------------------------------------------------- That means > > everything he said has to be understood in a way that is out of the > ordinary. For example it has to be understood as `description,' > not as `prescription.'. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that is 90% incorrect. All one needs to do is study the suttas, but without contorting the mind to accept an extreme position never taken by the Buddha, to see that the position is incorrect. ----------------------------------------------------- > > What better way could there be? Wouldn't you feel disappointed, > Howard, if the way out of samsara was in the least bit ordinary? I > would. I am very glad to have learnt that the way out is not, at > all, along the lines of; "Sit with your legs crossed. This way! No, > not like that; like this. OK, now put the left hand in the palm of > the right hand . . . thumbs like so . . . Now breathe in! . . No, > no, no; like this!" > Count me out! Not interested! > > ------------------------- > H: >My questions, in their bare form can be restated as > follows: 1) Is kamma (volition/action) a condition for the arising > of insight, or do you believe that insight arises or not independent > of kamma? > ------------------------ > > Kamma (cetana) is a universal cetasika and so it must arise with > insight. Cetasikas are mutually dependent in various ways and so, > yes, I suppose cetana is one of the conditions. In any case, the > right volition would not entail any sense of, "Let there be insight!" > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Nowhere have I maintained that insight can be willed. It arises as consequence of a lengthy progression of many conditions, among which are many instances of the exercise of will. Condition Z (insight) may require conditions A though Y, and with some of these being acts of volition, but none of them being a willing of "Let there be Z". --------------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------- > 2) Are abiding by sila (for example the five layperson precepts) and > engaging in meditative cultivation (formal meditation, moment-by- > moment mindfulness, and guarding the senses) futile? > ------------------------- > > If these are conventional designations for certain moments of kusala > consciousness then, of course, they are conducive to the development > of panna. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Of course they are conventional designations. What else? (But they are shorthands for mountains of "realities") ----------------------------------------------- Otherwise, yes they are futile. For example, if I > > practice `attachment to living beings' under the illusion that it is > metta, that is still a step in the wrong direction. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: But contemplating one's own suffering and that of others, with the intention and effort made to see the commonality of feeling and response, can condition the inclination to metta in one whom such is weak. (Note: "In one whom" is conventional language.) ------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------ > 3) Do you maintain that the practice recommended by the Buddha > consists of nothing but studying and thinking about what he taught? > [Understanding, which you gave as something additional, is not a > volitional activity. One can decide to study and to think over. One > *cannot* simply decide to understand. Understanding is not a willed > activity. It is not part of a path of practice - it is a consequence > of a path of practice.] > ---------------------------- > > I don't accept the question. Firstly: understanding is as much a > volitional activity (sankhara-khandha) as is anything else. > ------------------------------------------- Howard: Really! I just willed typing this sentence, and the action followed. But my willing to understand something does not work. I can will thinking about it and paying attention to it, but I cannot will the understanding. Not everything is the same. ------------------------------------------- > Secondly: it is only according to our conventional view of reality > that one can `decide' to study and think over. In the same, > conventional way, one *can* decide to understand. (One can also > decide to fly to the moon.) Ultimately, reading and writing cannot > be willed. There is the illusion of willing, but that's as far as > it goes. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Willing is not an illusion at all. It is cetana. Thinking that, literally, there is a self/agent who wills, however, is an illusion. -------------------------------------------------- > > In that way, I see direct understanding (satipatthana) as a part of > Dhamma practice in the same way as are `hearing, considering and > discussing.' > > In answer to your follow-up post: This is no trouble at all -- > thanks for the extra questions. As I have just said (rather > wittily, I thought) it's all good `practice.' > > Kind regards, > Ken H > > ========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 29611 From: Htoo Naing Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 8:09am Subject: Sanna and its implications Dear Dhamma Friends, There are five aggregates called khandha. They are rupakkhandha or aggregate of material, vedanakkhandha or aggregate of feeling, sannakkhandha or aggregate of perception, sankharakkhandha or aggregate of mental formation and vinnanakkhandha or aggregate of consciousness. Among these five khandha, sannakkhandha frequently cause confusion in terms of translation and interpretation. As usual, translation is not an easy job as any couple of languages will not be so close to fully understand each other. But interpretation on the other hand may work to make sense. Sanna is mostly understood as perception and at many Dhamma sites, sanna appears as perception. At another time, it may appear in the name of consciousness which is a bit confusing with citta which is consciousness. For example the highest jhana or the 4th arupa jhana is called n'evasanna-nasannaayatana arupa jhana. It is translated as neither perception nor non-perception. At another site, it is written as neither consciousness nor unconsciousness. Still there are others who believe that sanna is memory and they will persistently use sanna as memory and they will relate sanna with memory whenever the word sanna arise in a setting of Dhamma anywhere. What does Visuddhimagga say? Some believe that Visuddhimagga is a comprehensive collections of all Dhamma and whenever problem arise they will consult with Visuddhaimagga. What is 'sanna'? 1. Sanna is sense, sanna is consciousness, sanna is perception, sanna is 3rd aggregate of 5 aggregates. 2. Sanna means sense, perception, discernment, recognition, assimilation of sensation, awareness. 3. Sanna is consciousness of diversity. In etymology there appear words end with -nna. It means cognition or perception. Sanna, vinnana, panna are examples of words end with -nna or ~n~na. Here sanna is like knowledge of a child. Vinnana is like knowledge of ordinary adult. And panna is like knowledge of an expert. 4. Sanna is conception, idea, notion. 5. Sanna is a thing that used as a mark. It is a guiding wire. It is a guiding rope. '' Rukkha sanna pubbatta sanna karonto'' ''using trees and hills as guiding marks'' while trekking through jungles and forests. 6. Sanna as twofold. a) Patighasamphassaja. Sense impression and recognition b) Adhivacanasamphassaja. Association by similarities. 7. Sanna as threefold. 1)rupasanna 2)patighasanna 3)nanatthasanna. Kama, vyapada, vihinsa 8. Sanna as fivefold. Pancavimutti 1) anicca 2) anicce dukkha 3) dukkhe anatta 4) pahana 5) viraga 9. Sanna as sixfold. 1) rupa 2) sadda 3) gandha 4) rasa 5) photthabba 6) dhamma 10. Sanna as sevenfold. 1) anicca sanna 2) anatta sanna 3) asubha sanna 4) adinava sanna 5) pahana sanna 6) viraga sanna 7) nirodha sanna 11. Sanna as tenfold. 1) asubha 2) marana 3) ahare patikula 4) sabbaloke anabhirata 5) anicca 6) anicce dukkha 7) dukkhe anatta 8) pahana 9) viraga 10) nirodha 12. Still there are other unclassified definitions. Among these,three words deserve to be examined in some detail. There three words are sanna , vinnana , and panna. Sanna is like the knowledge of a child. For example, when a child see a penny coin he will perceive it as money coin. He will not know more than that as a normal child. As soon as he sees that coin, he immediately knows that it is a money coin. Vinnana is like the knowledge of an ordinary adult. When a man sees the same coin, he knows that it is a money coin and it worths a panny and it is not a 5 pence coin or 10 pence coin but one penny coin. And he knows that the coin can be used in circulation of money in trading. Panna on the other hand is like the knowledge of an expert. When a doctor of Chemistry sees a penny coin. He knows that it is a money coin. It worths one penny and it is not 5 pence or 10 pence coin but one penny coin. And he also knows that it can be used in circulation of money in trading. Moreover, he also knows that the coin is made of copper and the weight and texture of the coin is so and so. So panna is penetrative, analytical and in detail realization of all those which are to be realized. Sanna is sometimes translated as memory because there is some relation with memory but not to the extent that sanna is to be equated with memory. As can be seen in above detailing, sanna perceives. When a person see a green tree, he sees it as a green tree. Here there are many moments pass when he actually assumes what he has seen as a green tree. When 'he' first sees that green tree, he knows nothing more than a light and colours. If someone cannot believe this he can test himself by doing rapid blinking. There should place some object in front of him and that object should be replaced with another coloured thing. If the shift is very rapid, he will not know what the object is but just a light in colour. But in that object there always is at least a marker. See No. 5. Sanna is a thing used as a mark. He sees first green. That marker green provokes him another thought which causes arising of dhammaarammana or mental object at manodvara or mind door. As soon as the green colour is seen possible thoughts and concepts that may arise are 1. Grass as grass is always green. 2. Tree 3. Painting 4. Idea of hatred in some culture 5. Previous dressing with green colour 6. Green car 7. Green valvety sandles or footwear 8. Green hat 9. Holiday 10.Moss 11.Traffic light and accidents 12.Exitway of a building and disasters 13...and so on. Sanna works as perceiver of a mark attached to object. Memory on the other hand is a collection of concepts and ideas that suddenly flash back and all at once realize that these concepts are what he experienced. I hope this message is clear to all and this makes all members to arise comprehensive thoughts and provokes further search. May you all attain penetrative and analytical wisdom. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing JourneyToNibbana htootintnaing@y... JourneyToNibbana@yahoogroups.com 29612 From: Andy Wilson Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 8:11am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The Internet Sutra (a rerun) All, Rob: > "This is how you should understand a person, Engineer Rob, as > an ever- changing grouping of nama and rupa; a concept, not > an ultimate > reality. This is the view of non-self." My apologies in advance if this is a trivial question, but i am only beginning my study of abhidhamma (and, indeed, of dhamma generally) and would like to test my understanding to see if i am correctly following some of the discussions. It seems to me that the tendency of Rob's argument here and elsewhere is something like the following: A. buddhism teaches annica (impermanence) B. annata is closely connected to annica; because, given; C. that which can be said to truly exist is not subject to change and D. there is nothing in the mind that is not subject to change then; E. there is nothing in the mind (a subject of experience) that can be said to exist ultimately (== annata) Perhaps there is another premise here along the lines that 'that which does not exist ultimately does not exist really', or similar. Now i want to ask: if i have understood the argument correctly, what is the justification for holding that that which is subject to change is not ultimately real? Is there a fundamental difference between this line of argument and, eg., the belief of reductionist materialism that since everything is reducible to atoms (earth, fire, air and water / hydrogen, helium, etc.), then not only can experience be explained entirely by studying the laws governing the relations of these atomic constituents, but also any aggregate of such elements (eg. you or i, sensible objects...) has only an apparent or subsidiary type of existence. For example, the commonly used example in the texts of the chariot which is not more than the sum of its parts seems to carry this message. My worry stems from the fact that it seems to me generally unwise when analysing a phenomenon or object into it's elements to then hypostasise the consituents as the 'truly real' and evaporate the complex itself as 'not truly real'. why not instead treat all such reductions as provisional and relative, remove the need for ontological fundamentals ('ultimate consitituents of reality'), and abandon ontological absolutism (everything is either 'really real' or 'not really real'). in modern physics this is similar to the approach of, eg., david bohm i think. This would have the advantage of avoiding the sort of ontological absolutism that the experiental approach of adhidhamma probably could not support(?) have missed the point entirely? metta (i think) andy 29613 From: Michael Beisert Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 9:23am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hello Larry, Agreed. Why not let percolate during a walk? I got tthe impression you also appreciate a walk :) Metta Michael >From: LBIDD@w... >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas >Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 21:56:50 -0700 (MST) > >Hi Michael, > >Let's let this one percolate for a while. > >Larry >------------------------ >M: Hello Larry, >I am not saying that only conditions exist but since a phenomena arises >from a collection of conditions that collection can be regarded as the >sub elements of that phenomena. Conditions are any event, state or >process that explains another event, state or process, without any kind >of metaphysical occult connection between both. >Metta >Michael > > > 29614 From: Andy Wilson Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 8:50am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The Internet Sutra (a rerun) andy: > why not instead treat all such reductions as provisional and > relative, remove the need for ontological fundamentals I forgot to add that I like the notion of one existent 'supporting' the existence of another, as opposed to its 'constituting' the existence of the other, so to speak. This terminology seems to be used in abhidhamma i think, though i couldn't give references(?) andy 29615 From: Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 4:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Internet Sutra (a rerun) Hi, Andy (and Rob) - In a message dated 2/2/04 11:55:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, andy@l... writes: > > All, > > Rob: > >"This is how you should understand a person, Engineer Rob, as > >an ever- changing grouping of nama and rupa; a concept, not > >an ultimate > >reality. This is the view of non-self." > > My apologies in advance if this is a trivial question, but i am only > beginning my study of abhidhamma (and, indeed, of dhamma generally) and > would like to test my understanding to see if i am correctly following > some of the discussions. > > It seems to me that the tendency of Rob's argument here and elsewhere is > something like the following: > > A. buddhism teaches annica (impermanence) > B. annata is closely connected to annica; > > because, given; > > C. that which can be said to truly exist is not subject to change > > and > > D. there is nothing in the mind that is not subject to change > > then; > > E. there is nothing in the mind (a subject of experience) that can be > said to exist ultimately (== annata) > > Perhaps there is another premise here along the lines that 'that which > does not exist ultimately does not exist really', or similar. > > Now i want to ask: if i have understood the argument correctly, what is > the justification for holding that that which is subject to change is > not ultimately real? > > Is there a fundamental difference between this line of argument and, > eg., the belief of reductionist materialism that since everything is > reducible to atoms (earth, fire, air and water / hydrogen, helium, > etc.), then not only can experience be explained entirely by studying > the laws governing the relations of these atomic constituents, but also > any aggregate of such elements (eg. you or i, sensible objects...) has > only an apparent or subsidiary type of existence. For example, the > commonly used example in the texts of the chariot which is not more than > the sum of its parts seems to carry this message. > > My worry stems from the fact that it seems to me generally unwise when > analysing a phenomenon or object into it's elements to then hypostasise > the consituents as the 'truly real' and evaporate the complex itself as > 'not truly real'. why not instead treat all such reductions as > provisional and relative, remove the need for ontological fundamentals > ('ultimate consitituents of reality'), and abandon ontological > absolutism (everything is either 'really real' or 'not really real'). in > modern physics this is similar to the approach of, eg., david bohm i > think. > > This would have the advantage of avoiding the sort of ontological > absolutism that the experiental approach of adhidhamma probably could > not support(?) > > have missed the point entirely? > > metta (i think) > andy > =========================== The distinction between what some call "real" and what they call "unreal" may actually be the distinction between perceived and conceived. (By 'perceived' here, I don't mean "recognized" by the operation of sa~n~na, but simply directly present as opposed to inferred.) When we experience hardness, that is perceived in this sense. But when we experience a tree, all that are present are a number of visual and/or tactile sense objects plus one or more mind-door constructs built using multi-layered applications of sa~n~na and formational operations (sankhara). In the case of a tree, we *seem* to be cognizing an "external entity", but we are, in fact, only conceiving of such - there is nothing of that sort that is being directly perceived. That makes "the tree", if not necessarily unreal, at least unknown and merely inferred. But *all* the actual content of experience, all of what is actually and directly present (to the mind), is "real" in exactly the sense that it constitutes experience, and all of it is yet "unreal" in the sense that none of it is self-existent or independently existent. 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) 29616 From: Michael Beisert Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 9:42am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hello KenO, OK. Let it be. But read and reflect on the teachings of the Kaccayanagotta Sutta. Maybe you will understand. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-015.html Metta Michael >From: Kenneth Ong >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno >Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 14:28:32 +0000 (GMT) > >Hi Michael > >I have been through with you with this before so I do not wish to >restate myself. With your stream of thoughts and argument, there >will be no end to anything. Since everything exist do have essence, >we might as well dont have any thing exist at all in the first place. > I think you should look up in the sutta whether things exist or not >before a fruitful dicussion can be continue or I think this is not >going to benefit you or me. If your line of thinking you might as >well define anatta which is an essential characteristics of Buddha as >a being or an independent entity. > > >best wishes >Ken O 29617 From: Michael Beisert Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 10:24am Subject: RE: [dsg] Mahayana: lower realms Hello Chris, The following quote can be found in 'The Psycho-Ethical Aspects of Abhidhamma' by Rina Sircar (page 98-99): 'The Hinayana system does not offer any parallel to the first bhumi of the Mahayanist's pramudita, for it has no concern with bodhicitta. The second bhumi-vimala corresponds to the sotapatti and sakadagami of the Hinayana. The third bhumi-prabhakari corresponds to anagami of the Hinayanists. The fourth, fifth and sixth bhumis correspond to the abhipanna of the Hinayanists. With the sixth bhumi the comparison between the Hinayana and Mahayana stages ends.' Metta Michael >From: "christhedis" >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [dsg] Mahayana: lower realms >Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 10:35:55 -0000 > >Hi everyone, > >It's been a while since I posted or even read postings in here, I hope no- >one minds my occasional drop-in question. Also, I know this is a >Theravada group but I can't find an answer to my question anywhere, >so thought I'd try in here (plus I like you guys (and gals) :) > >So... in Mahayana, is there an equivalent to the Theravada stream- >enterer, in terms of attaining a level where one does not fall back into >lower realms (the stream-enterer level in Theravada)? I know >Mahayanists are not looking to enter the stream in terms of guaranteed >eventual nibbana, but do they have a level where they will be continually >reborn into the human or higher realms? I know they have a >Buddhahood level but I'm not sure what the implications of it are. > >Thanks, and best wishes to all. > >Chris. > > > > 29618 From: Michael Beisert Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 10:48am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The Internet Sutra (a rerun) Hello Andy, Andy: Perhaps there is another premise here along the lines that 'that which does not exist ultimately does not exist really', or similar. Now i want to ask: if i have understood the argument correctly, what is the justification for holding that that which is subject to change is not ultimately real? Michael: I guess it depends on how you define ‘ultimate reality.’ In my definition ultimate reality is something that exists based on its own power, without relying on anything else for its existence. Is that how you would define it? Andy: My worry stems from the fact that it seems to me generally unwise when analysing a phenomenon or object into it's elements to then hypostasise the consituents as the 'truly real' and evaporate the complex itself as 'not truly real'. why not instead treat all such reductions as provisional and relative, remove the need for ontological fundamentals ('ultimate consitituents of reality'), and abandon ontological absolutism (everything is either 'really real' or 'not really real'). in modern physics this is similar to the approach of, eg., david bohm i think. This would have the advantage of avoiding the sort of ontological absolutism that the experiental approach of adhidhamma probably could not support(?) Michael: I would very much agree with what you are saying. In my view it makes more sense to approach the Buddhist teachings from a phenomenological stand point and not dwell into ontological fundamentals. But the Abhidhamma, and more particularly some interpretations of the Abhidhamma, point towards the dhammas as being fundamental components of reality, ultimate realities with true existence. It has been a big point of contention which has sparked a lot of criticism being one of the reasons for the birth of Mahayana philosophy. Metta Michael _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE online virus check for your PC here, from McAfee. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 29619 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 0:29pm Subject: bangkok bits and detachment Hello Sarah, (KenH at end) and All, Disaster has struck :-) and I've lost all my notes and jottings on what particularly appealed to me about the discussions and experiences in Bangkok. So you're spared my dhamma ramblings. I'll have to rely on others to make up for my lack of dhamma topic contributions. This time, I was particularly struck by K. Sujins patience, Ven Yanatharo's openness and friendliness, and KenO's natural, irrepressible enthusiasm, willingness to talk, and knowledge of the dhamma. My arriving a day before the discussions were due to start, allowed Betty and I to do a little sightseeing and catching up. At the temple with the reclining Buddha (?name) I saw a SAL tree in flower ( the twin Sal trees from the Mahâ-Parinibbâna-Sutta (v. and vi.) of the Digha-Nikâya?). "Be so good, Ânanda, as to spread me a couch with its head to the north between twin sal-trees. I am weary, Ânanda, and wish to lie down." "Yes, Reverend Sir," said the venerable Ânanda to The Blessed One in assent, and spread the couch with its head to the north between twin sal-trees. Then The Blessed One lay down on his right side after the manner of a lion, and placing foot on foot, remained mindful and conscious. Now at that time the twin sal-trees had completely burst forth into bloom, though it was not the flowering season;" I took a photo of the tree, and of the unusual flower. I've seen many bodhi trees, but to see the species of trees that the Blessed One died between, was exciting for me. Betty always takes me interesting places - we took a rough boat-trip across the choppy river to a restaurant for lunch and then I had a guided Cemetery tour at the end of the day. (I'm not sure I'd like to know where my rupa-bits are going to be after death, unlike the equanimous Betty.). The strangest conversation (E&OE) of the weekend occurred when I needed someone to translate into Thai (for the taxi driver) the instructions that Betty had written in English on how to get to the Foundation. The Marriott concierge's translation faltered, so we thought to ring Jon at the Peninsula Hotel. The room didn't answer, but Sarah was tracked down to the lobby. Taking my call on one phone and locating Jon by using another phone, Sarah's lateral thinking was to hold the two phones at the Peninsula Hotel together to that we, at the Marriott, could shout questions at Jon. Needless to say, it didn't work, and 'someone' eventually showed some compassion and took the phones out of Sarah's hands, transferred the call, so that the M. Concierge could speak to Jon and write in Thai. :-) :-) I agree with Jon that this time in Bkk seemed to revolve around friends, old and new, and food. (It was, strikingly without chicken in most places, though the Marriott was still serving chicken congee. Should Kentucky Fried Chicken now change its name from KFC to KFF as it was only selling fish?) I need to thank Ivan this time round for a few conversations, over breakfast and at Sukin and Betty's delicious lunch, about the Present Moment. From something he said, I clearly understand how there is absolutely no control, no self, but how we still manage to live an ordered life with decision making and planning occurring. However, my ability to explain in words seems to have slipped away again (Why does it DO that!?) and I look forward to a refresher next time. I did have the skeleton of a post in my (lost) jottings - wondering what the Buddha 'really meant' by detachment. Defining attachment/detachment/non-attachment, passive internal compassion/active external compassion, and (lets throw in) anatta, mana, and restorative justice as well - triggered by Sarah's remarks at the airport about my predilection for strong reactions about seeing victims in stories (i.e. Vesantara Jataka, Angulimala, ill Soi dogs, chickens buried alive, patients referred to me in crisis etc.), and her question about what the deeper meaning of this predilection is. [Fortunately, I didn't reply with the old but true Australianism of 'b-gg--ed if I know'] How can beginners in the Dhamma, enmeshed in the world and relationships, be detached 'from the beginning'? Isn't this like expecting us not to have a 'sense of self' from the beginning? As Vince said "I'm not enlightened yet, you know." Don't these things come along the way a bit - maybe with attaining Stream Entry - and would it be possible for beginners? Going home via Singapore was the usual Changi Airport experience - I swear that I'm going to go in one of the game shows next time. I think if you sat in one of the coffee shops there, everyone you know will eventually traipse by. Or maybe it's just every Australian you know will ev... Hey KenH - I've a copy of Nina's "Conditions - an Outline of the twenty four paccaya" for you from the Foundation via Sarah. You have two choices - to wait until the next Cooran weekend and I'll bring it, or send me your postal address. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 29620 From: Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 4:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Sukin: "I do sometimes "look at the experience of tangible data", but increasingly I detect `self´ at play behind this." ..."I believe the deliberate looking at experience is fueled not only by lobha but also by wrong view, such that encouraging the kind of practice would be increasing both." "I believe whatever citta arises to experience any object, whether sense or mind, there is never a reason to feel that it should have been otherwise." Hi Sukin, What is this self that you detect? Is "deliberate looking" not allowed? What is the problem if you see a defilement? Can you really see an intention? If not, how do you know it was there? Larry 29621 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 6:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Rob M > The Abhidhamma texts that we have written down today > (Dhammasangani, Vibhanga, etc.) were not the direct words of the Buddha (unlike the Suttas, most of which include the direct words of the Buddha). The Abhidhamma texts that we have written down today were inspired by the Buddha and if the timing is correct, implicitly accepted by the Buddha but were never spoken in this form by the Buddha. k: They are not inspired by the Buddha bc only Buddha has the knowledge of Abhidhamma. They are taught by the Buddha to VEN Sariputta. No Arahants can teach the dhamma without Buddha teaching them in the first place. Not even a pacceka Buddha can teach the dhamma. k: Definitely there are notes in Abhidhamma cannot be found in the sutta and that does not exclude it being taught by the Buddha. Abhdhidhamma being technical bc the nama and rupas are complex. Sutta is conventional terms, if Buddha will to use technical terms in the suttas, the sutta will be very long. Just imagine replace the *self* as the five aggregtes etc. If you think that Sutta should take precedence over Abdhidhamma in your earlier mail, IMHO it is bc you do not have much confidence in the Abdhidhamma text and it is not the Abdhidhamma text in question. There is no conflicts when there is conflict, it is bc it is not explain properly or pple do not read the Abdhidhamma text carefully and consider it thoroughly. Just like the recent about magga/phala. The sutta is so clear. When we talk about one training to be atttaining the fruits of Stream entrant - it indicates mahakusala with or without panna (depends on conditions) hence there is no magga yet as one is not enlighted. When one is enlighted (Stream entrant), then there is magga and phala. Furthermore the sutta is longer than quoted, there are four other kinds, it includes also danna to animals. These are the problems, the bias of writers who do not show the details and discuss out of context. Even though I am not a well thorough read like Nina or many others here, if you feel like talking a point in sutta that is in conflict with Abhidhamma, I would like to discuss with you thoroughly. k: When others who do not believe in Abdhidhamma like James, question the text, that is understandable. This time I am of grave concern bc you write to magazines, taught to students and internet. If you do not have confidence in the text enough, I sincerely hope you stop writing or teach others. Until you feel that these are taught by Buddha and these texts are not in conflict or sutta does not take precedence, then you are call one in touch in Abhidhamma. Or not I think you will only influence more misunderstanding to others. I am not a student of A. Sujin, in fact I do not have any teacher(except for dhamma), hence I am talking as a neutral party. best wishes Ken O 29622 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 6:05pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Michael This is what I call writer bias, essence have six difference meanings which I have write to you before. It can also define as The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something. Do you have more in discussion to support your case other than running in circles about essence, existence and intrinsic. I state again, you have not yet show in any sutta or commentary text to back up your case esp on sabhava and also your so call regression theory (sub khandhas). best wishes Ken O --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello RobM, > > Essence by definition is unchanging and independent. Therefore it > cannot > arise dependently. > > Metta > Michael > > 29623 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 6:28pm Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Ken O, Ken: When others who do not believe in Abdhidhamma like James, question the text, that is understandable. This time I am of grave concern bc you write to magazines, taught to students and internet. If you do not have confidence in the text enough, I sincerely hope you stop writing or teach others. Until you feel that these are taught by Buddha and these texts are not in conflict or sutta does not take precedence, then you are call one in touch in Abhidhamma. Or not I think you will only influence more misunderstanding to others. I am not a student of A. Sujin, in fact I do not have any teacher(except for dhamma), hence I am talking as a neutral party. James: Well, since you mention me, I guess I will jump in here. Frankly, I don't understand what you are getting so worked up about. Rob simply explained that the Buddha had taught the general outline of the Abhidhamma to Ven. Sariputta and gave Sariputta the authority to elaborate on it and teach it to those monks who have that type of intellectual bent. So Rob is just saying that the Abhidhamma isn't the direct, spoken word of the Buddha, but it did come from the Buddha's enlightened mind. And, over the years, other texts were added to the Abhidhamma. Now, if you want to get excited about anybody, you should get excited about me! ;-)) I doubt that the Buddha explained the Abhidhamma to Ven. Sariputta or anyone. I think the Buddha went only as far as the five aggregates and the six sense bases and that was it! I think the Abhidhamma was invented by scholar monks about three hundred years after the Buddha's parinibbana. Furthermore, I don't think you have the right to tell anyone who can and who cannot teach the Abhidhamma, and I think you owe Rob an apology in that regard. Metta, James 29624 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 9:10pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not/Andrew Hi Andrew, I wrote: ------------------ >> and it is interesting to imagine what the world would be like if there were a self. It would be so different from the world > we know. It is probably even harder to comprehend than anatta. (At > least anatta is real.) ----------------- To which you replied: ----------------- > Perhaps you would like to expand on this point, KenH. What would the world be like if there were a self? ------------------ I was hoping you would tell me :-) Despite giving it a lot of thought, I haven't reached any startling conclusions. A self would have to be similar to an almighty god, wouldn't it? (Except, the one we were taught about, never seemed particularly happy with his lot.) A self wouldn't be impermanent or unsatisfactory (but that sounds like not-self) . . Sorry, I've got to stop thinking about it: I'm like a dog chasing its tail. Kind regards, Ken H 29625 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 9:18pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi James, Thanks for this Pali glossary. You say you got it from access-to- insight. They don't like the Abhidhamma there, do they? That would explain the imprecision of their definitions. :-) Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Ken, Rob, Azita, and All, > > Just a quick explanation of meditation terms: > > Satipatthana is an umbrella term, meaning Foundations of Mindfulness, > which includes the more specific methods of Vipassana, Anapanasati, > and Sati. > > 29626 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 9:26pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not Hi Rob M, Thanks for the rundown on Path factors; it's not quite the way I'm used to reading it but I won't try too hard to pick holes in it. A couple of comments though: ----------------- RM: > One must start with a mundane "right understanding". ------------------------------ Sorry if I'm taking you too literally, but I wonder where one really `starts' Dhamma practice. Remembering that the practice is; "lovely at the beginning, lovely at the middle and lovely at the end,' (sorry; no ref.), we can safely say the beginning is kusala. However, I wouldn't say it was with `right understanding.' In the ultimate sense of hearing, considering and discussing Dhamma, only kusala moments are involved. Mundane right understanding might accompany such moments (in which case there is satipatthana), but only if we're very lucky. Our intellectual understanding would have to be very comprehensive, I would think. Perhaps mundane right understanding (at the level of satipatthana) is what the sutta regards as `lovely at the middle.' (?) (Perhaps not.) On the subject of surfing; I was saying that no amount of practice would improve my accumulated tendencies (natural ability) for my next human life: ------------------- RM : > I believe that because of your practice in this life, that you will be naturally drawn toward surfing in your next life. This is natural decisive support condition at work. However, there is nothing to say that your body in your next life will be more suited to surfing than your body was in this life. -------------------- Yes, that sounds right. I might come back as keen as ever but my surfing attributes (both physical and mental) will depend on wholesome and unwholesome kamma. There's not a lot of wholesome kamma involved, unfortunately – we surfies are a rough mob. ----------------- On the subject of whether the Buddha taught us to be mindful of `every' action and `every' choice, you wrote: ---------------- RM: > You are not being pedantic and I will insert the word "present". On the other hand, how can one be truly "mindful" of anything else other than the present? :-) ---------------- Exactly! Ambitious aspirations to `always practise Dhamma' may do wonders for our ego, but it is only the present moment that counts. When we consider what we actually understand about the present billionth of a second, the ego is not so outspoken :-) Kind regards, Ken H 29627 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 9:31pm Subject: Re: bangkok bits and detachment In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > > I need to thank Ivan this time round for a few conversations, over > breakfast and at Sukin and Betty's delicious lunch, about the Present > Moment. From something he said, I clearly understand how there is > absolutely no control, no self, but how we still manage to live an > ordered life with decision making and planning occurring. However, > my ability to explain in words seems to have slipped away again (Why > does it DO that!?) and I look forward to a refresher next time. > >_________ Hi Chris., Sounds like a fun and beneficial time - and who could want more. Ivan has keen understanding, and wit to match. I figure if him and KenH ever meet up they will be friends for life. Why does it slip away - because it is conditione like that, anatta. Understanding accumulates though; if there is enough listening, considering and application then it seeps into the bones and won't be easily dislodged. Robk 29628 From: Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 9:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta Hi Icaro, Is there a grammatical reason why sankhara khandha is translated as "mental fabrications" rather than "mental fabricators"? It occurred to me that sankhara khandha is the only khandha that arises as multiple dhammas (contact, volition, one-pointedness, life faculty, attention, etc.). Because of that it seems like the only khandha that is truly an aggregate in itself. Although rupa arises in an inseparable group and all the khandhas arise together in reality. Perhaps that is why it is called mental fabrications. It seems like a slippery word to translate. Larry 29629 From: Sukin Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 10:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Larry, > What is this self that you detect? Is "deliberate looking" not allowed? > What is the problem if you see a defilement? Can you really see an > intention? If not, how do you know it was there? Thanks for asking. I did think about the possibility of being asked along these lines when I wrote. And just now I was reading Howard's response to Ken H. and had some thoughts but am a little hesitant to butt in. So I will say something here. The "self" can be associated with tanha, mana or ditthi. For me the first two exist in their most gross forms all the time, so I do not particularly worry about whether the more subtle forms are there. Coming to appreciate the Buddha's teachings doesn't mean that lobha will not influence how I view and apply the teachings. I can see that as much as I desire 'worldly' gains, I now desire 'spiritual' ones. There are instances when lobha is unaccompanied by 'view', when seeking this or that object happens as a consequence of seeking pleasant feelings and a general desire to 'be'. If there is some level of sati during such instances, it would be largely due to I believe, Rt. View. Though this level of Rt. View is only intellectual and therefore very weak, meaning that it is immediately followed as usual by all sort of akusala, it makes sense to me that with the further development of understanding, instances of sati arising under any circumstance would also increase. At this point I am thinking about natural decisive support condition. I believe that the development of panna depends directly on the varied situations under which sati could arise, and this I believe depends on how much one has heard, considered and understood the teachings. About conditionality, how "sati" as a reality arises dependent on other factors, but primarily Rt. View. The intellectual appreciation of the Tilakkhana and how Dependent origination is taking place all the time. I also believe that if we can appreciate that 'intention' arises with every citta, we would not be particularly impressed by the "stories of dhamma" which could in fact be an instance of 'ignorance' of this present moment. What I am trying to say is that intention is not a factor of the path, and we can have wrong understanding of the Teachings, thinking that development of panna requires that certain things have to be done, implying that those particular conditions *do* exist now or *will arise* because of certain conventional activity. I can understand people of other religions and also those Buddhists who do not appreciate the Abhidhamma. That they may be wrongly lead to the conclusion that 'observing', 'watching', 'seeing' is all one needs to do to know one's own mind. Whether they believe in a 'lasting mind' or they fail to appreciate the difference between consciousness with lobha and consciousness with sati, there seem to be a logical connection between 'observing' and coming to 'see and understand' and therefore to the 'intention' to do so. However with the knowledge of the complexity of conditions, the notoriety of lobha and moha, that only kusala and not akusala can condition more kusala, that panna of the patipatti and pativedha level must start with the pariyatti level and that all is anatta, I think 'deliberate' attempt at creating conditions or thinking that one knows what it might be, is I believe increasing not only ignorance, but also wrong view. And it is possible I think, that during moments when such thoughts arise, that 'Self View' and 'clinging to self' can be detected. So to answer your question Larry, "Is "deliberate looking" not allowed?" I just want to say that if you detect that you are taking the wrong path to a particular destination; would you still want to take it? However it is not a question of turning away having judged that it is wrong (even this will happen, but not to worry), but understanding that it is conditioned because there are conditions for it. And we know that the conditions for wrong view are in plenty, hence the urgency to develop more Rt. View. :-) Hope I have indirectly answered some of your other questions. Metta, Sukin. 29630 From: Andrew Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 10:24pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not/Andrew --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > > ----------------- A: Perhaps you would like to expand on this point, KenH. What would > the world be like if there were a self? > ------------------ > > Ken H: I was hoping you would tell me :-) Despite giving it a lot of > thought, I haven't reached any startling conclusions. > > A self would have to be similar to an almighty god, wouldn't it? > (Except, the one we were taught about, never seemed particularly > happy with his lot.) A self wouldn't be impermanent or > unsatisfactory (but that sounds like not-self) . . Sorry, I've > got to stop thinking about it: I'm like a dog chasing its tail. > Ken H I feel let down! :-) I thought you were going to show me a fresh new angle, a perspective I hadn't thought of before! Since we live in a world of illusory self, surely a world of self would be rather similar to that we think we already inhabit?? It would be a world of permanence and there would have to be some explanation of dukkha other than the unsatisfactoriness associated with impermanence. It would be a world where you really COULD say "I was the Queen of Sheba in a past lifetime" and not get frowned upon! LOL Andrew 29631 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 10:46pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hi Michael, Kens H & O, Steve, Suan, RobM, Nina & All, --- Michael Beisert wrote: M: > I have recently read a sutta which reminded me of a recent thread on >the sotaapanno magga and phala consciousness. It was argued, based on the > Vsm, > that both magga and phala consciousness occur in succession while I > said, > based on what I heard from a bhikkhu, that those are separate events, > that > magga happens with the elimination of one of the 3 lower fetters, and > phala > with the elimination of all 3 lower fetters. .... S: This is incorrect, I believe. As B.Bodhi summarises from the texts in his introduction to the Upanisa sutta: “Each momentary path-experience eradicates a determinate group of defilements ranked in degrees of coarseness and subtlety, so that the first path eliminates the coarsest defilements and the fourth path the most subtle. The defilements cut off by the paths are generally classified as ten "fetters" (samyojana), receiving this designation because they fetter sentient beings to samsara. With the first path the yogin eradicates the first three fetters -- personality view, doubt, and misapprehension of rules and observances. Thereby he becomes a "stream-enterer" (sotapanna), one who has entered the stream...” .... M: > The Visudhimagga states that: > Vism XX11, 15 > "Immediately next to that knowledge (stream-entry path consciousness), > however, there arise either two or three fruition consciousnesses, which > are its result. > > The Abhidhammattha Sangaha states that: > Cittasangahavibhaga, 26 & 27 > Each path consciousness issues automatically in its respective fruition > in > the same cognitive series, in immediate succession to the path. ..... S: Also, see the Patisambhidamagga, Khudaka Nikkaya, (~Naa.namoli transl,PTS, ch X1, The Path, ch X11, Fruition, chXXX11, Concentration with Immediate Result). It is clear that defilements are eradicated by the sotapatti magga cittas and the sotapatti phala cittas follow immediately. .... M: > The sutta in question is the Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta (MN 142). > ... M: > It is quite clear that the stream enterer and the one practicing for the realization of stream entry fruition are two distinct individuals with > two > corresponding consciousnesses which leads to the conclusion that magga > consciousness and phala consciousness do not occur in succession, in the > > same cognitive series, as described in the Visudhimagga and the > Abhidhammattha Sangaha. ... S: It’s an interesting sutta and I appreciate your points. I’ve been considering it quite a bit. The same Pali words are used as in the other texts raised before by Steve, Nina and others. For example, ‘sotaapattiphalasacchakiriyaaya pa.tipanno - reached the realization of the fruition of the sotapanna (as Nina translated it). Before, Steve read it (in the context of a quote from the Abhidhamma text, Puggalapannatti) as suggesting ‘working for the realization of the fruition stage of the stream-attainer’or someone ‘who has not yet “put away the three fetters” and has not yet become a stream-attainer’. When I first read the extract of this sutta you posted, it also suggested to me that this wider meaning might be implied. In other words, as we know, all other factors being equal, the fruit or benefit from the act of giving is different according to the wisdom and virtue of the recipient. So, in this sutta, I read it as possibly referring to the 14 recipients: 1. Buddha 2. Paccekabuddha 3. Arahants 4. On the way to ‘fruit’ of Arahantship, i.e between Anagami and Arahant 5. Anagami 6. On the way to Anagami 7. Sakadagami 8. On the way to Sakadagami 9. Sotapanna 10. On the way to Sotapanna, i.e worldling developing insight 11. Non-Buddhist who has attained jhanas (outside the Dispensation, free from lust for sensual pleasures) 12. ‘Vurtuous, ordinary person’ 13. ‘Immoral ordinary person’ 14. Animal. Of course, within each of these categories there are numerous sub-categories, such as under animal, the size and so on. In another translation I looked at: http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima3/142-dakkinavibhanga-e.htm For the 4th type above, for the Pali ‘arahattaphalasacchikiriyaaya pa.tipanne’, it gives: ‘A person fallen to the method of realizing worthines’ and adds a note which says: ‘Before attaining worthiness the bhikkhu has to make much effort to attain worthiness.’ The ~Naa.namoli/B.Bodhi transl gives: “one gives a gift to one who has entered upon the way to the realisation of the fruit of arahantship’ and for the 10th type it gives: ‘...to one who has entered upon the way to the realisation of the fruit of stream-entry’. Here the translators give a brief but telling note from the commentaries which possibly supports my wider reading of this passage: “MA and M.T [comy and sub-comy] explain that this term [i.e sotaapattiphalasacchakiriyaaya pa.tipanno] can be loosely extended to include even a lay follower who has gone for refuge to the Triple Gem, as well as lay people and monks intent on fulfilling the moral training and the practice of concentration and insight. In the strict technical sense it refers only to those possessing the supramundane path of stream-entry.” .... S:In other words, according to the commentaries the 10th type -- as I understand this note -- refers to all worldlings developing insight like us;-) I’m not sure if the last ‘technical’ comment is from the commentaries of the translators. In any case, the latter ‘strict tecnical sense’ as Jon wrote before, this ‘is simply a streamwinner progressing to the corresponsing fruition moment.’ Nina also added more on this meaning and the reference to the 4 pairs of ariyans. Perhaps Steve or Suan can add any further comments from the commentary and sub-commentary?? I’ll sign off with the relevant extract from the Udana commentary which Nina gave in part for consideration of ‘the technical sense’ also. Metta, Sarah ...... S: Masefield transl, PTS, Sona Chapter: ‘The sotaapanna (sotaapanno): the one steadfast after entering upon, after reaching, the sota (N:stream) reckoned as the path, meaning the one stationed in the sotaapatti-fruit. The one practising for the realisation of the sotaa-patti-fruit (sotaapattiphalasacchikiriyaaya pa.tipanno): the one practising (pa.tipajjamaano) with the aim of setting before him at first hand the sotaapatti-fruit, the one stationed in the first path, who is also called "one aboard". The once-returner (sakadaagaamii): the one whose nature is that of returning, by way of relinking, but once more to this world, the one stationed in the second fruit. The non-returner (anaagaamii): the one who nature is that of not returning, by way of taking relinking, to the world of sense-desires, the one stationed in the third fruit...” ..... As Jon wrote before: ‘As to the use of ‘practice’ to describe the momentary progress from magga citta to phala citta, we need to understand how the term ‘practce’ is used in the texts. Generally, it is used to mean progressing along the path, that is, actual insight, particularly for the person who is already a stream enterer or above. the ‘path’ itself is in fact the four stages of enlightenment.’ =================================== 29632 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 11:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta --- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Ken O, > > Ken: When others who do not believe in Abdhidhamma like James, > question the text, that is understandable. This time I am of grave > concern bc you write to magazines, taught to students and internet. > If you do not have confidence in the text enough, I sincerely hope > you stop writing or teach others. Until you feel that these are > taught by Buddha and these texts are not in conflict or sutta does > not take precedence, then you are call one in touch in Abhidhamma. > Or not I think you will only influence more misunderstanding to > others. I am not a student of A. Sujin, in fact I do not have any > teacher(except for dhamma), hence I am talking as a neutral party. > > James: Well, since you mention me, I guess I will jump in here. k: I am always careful to mention you except on very exceptional cases ;-). > Frankly, I don't understand what you are getting so worked up > about. Rob simply explained that the Buddha had taught the general outline of the Abhidhamma to Ven. Sariputta and gave Sariputta the > authority to elaborate on it and teach it to those monks who have that type of intellectual bent. So Rob is just saying that the Abhidhamma isn't the direct, spoken word of the Buddha, but it did come from the Buddha's enlightened mind. And, over the years, other texts were added to the Abhidhamma. k: James you got to understand that Abhidhamma to me is the word of the Buddha. If it is not the word of the Buddha, then Abhidhamma should not be Abdhidhamma in the first place - then it should be considered the elder's words and not Buddha words. That is the whole difference in both. Furthermore, this shows that one does not really understand that the principle that only Buddha is able to teach the dhamma to others before others can teach the rest. > > Now, if you want to get excited about anybody, you should get > excited about me! ;-)) k: I am always excited by your thoughts and comments ;-). So far others have reply so there is no need for me to go in the show unless I find it interesting. J: I doubt that the Buddha explained the Abhidhamma to Ven. Sariputta or anyone. I think the Buddha went only as far as the five aggregates and the six sense bases and that was it! I think > the Abhidhamma was invented by scholar monks about three hundred years after the Buddha's parinibbana. k: No it cannot be bc it is too precise. > Furthermore, I don't think you have the right to tell anyone who > can and who cannot teach the Abhidhamma, and I think you owe Rob an apology in that regard. k: No. I dont owe Rob an apology. Even it is TB I will also advise him not to write things that he does not really study or consider it thoroughly. Sometimes his comments on the commentaries really disturb me. It is alright to make one personal comment just like you. But it is not right for one who teaches and propagates Buddhism has no confidence in the anicent texts. To me this is developing more wrong views etc for others and this is dangerous. To me this is serious matter bc when one teaches - one is highly regarded and follow by. best wishes Ken O 29633 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 11:46pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi Michael As I said before if it is regression theory then how is satipatthana going to work. With your theory, - the feelings felt by Buddha should also be smaller still - then I think I dont how Buddha becomes sumpreme in knowledge bc there is still regression behind his knowledge. Certain issues are not discuss by the Buddha bc it is not beneficial just like origination but certain issues are discuss thoroughly and there is no reservation on the part by Buddha to explain in details. Issues like khandhas, dependent origination etc. So your assertion of your view is I think not support unless you can provide logical argument. I do not even ask for evidence, I am just requesting for logical argument. best wishes Ken O > > Michael: > Another way of looking at the issue is to think that the khandhas > are just a bunch of conditions which come together and because of that coming together a phenomena arises that the Buddha has called a khandha. It will not be difficult to see that this bunch of conditions can be regarded as 'sub khandhas'. 29634 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 11:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] new member Hi Andy, I’ll keep this short as KenO has been complaining that I just say the same to all new members anyway;-) --- Andy Wilson wrote: > hello, > > i am a new member, andy, introducing myself. ... I’d just like you to know that even though we were away, we were very glad to read your detailed intro and to thank you very much for it. Do you have a pic to go in the Member album? Can we encourage any others out of the woodwork too? http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/ You might like to see others (and James, when either Sukin or Christine or both get their pix in order, you might notice that you’re no longer the most youthful looking regular contributor;-)). .... <.....> > several years ago i had a health crisis and believed i might be > seriously ill. as a reaction i decided to try to broaden my point of > view (actually, trying to 'break' it on the grounds that it seemed even > to me to be obviously inadequate to my experience.) .... Actually, it was after a health crisis and participating in an on-line medical support group, that we got thinking about DSG..... ..... <....> > more recently however i began to practice some yoga exercises to help > with a slight injury and was impressed by it's effect on me from the > outset (i've only been practising for the last month or so). at the same > time, i happened to start reading her copy of naradas Abhidhammattha > Sangaha. i had browsed it before without it attracting me. this time > however i began to read it closely and have been drawn to it, though i > have not yet finished my first reading. i think i am attracted not only > to it's rigour, but it's 'plausibility' based on my own experience, > including some slight experience of meditation. through my reading many > of the concepts i found in buddhism that i found wooly and indeterminate > have begun to come into focus as ideas and experiences i am maybe > already somehow familiar with in different ways. for whatever reason, > much has at least begun to make sense to me and i would like to find out > more. .... I’m also from England. I wanted to tell Ken O that perhaps this is partly why I go through a rigmarole of pleasantries, but then you get straight to the point in your posts and disprove the theory;-) (I also have family members in M/c, some who do yoga as I do, but not for any enlightening experiences;-). .... > i am interested in this list to see if it can help me gain a clearer > understanding of buddhist philosophy / dhamma. i am especially > interested in how i can best deepen my understanding 'around the edge of > the text' by expanding my experience of meditation and yoga. i am also > casting around looking for opportunities to meet others in person who > might help me develop my understanding in a more focussed way. .... Hope to meet you one day. Meanwhile, RobM kindly responded and mentioned Nina’s book on Abhidhamma and CMA, I think. For searching the archives, you may find it useful to have these links handy: Pali glossary: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Glossary_of_pali_terms Back-up of archives with useful search functions: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/ RobM’s back-up of archives in word document for reading and searching off-line: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/ (he lost a lot of work, so it’s not quite up to date) Selected posts *by the moderators;-)* from the archives under topics http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts RobK’s websites - all good material *imho*: http://www.abhidhamma.org/ http://www.vipassana.info/ .... > as i am new to this tradition and culture, i apologise in advance for my > inevitable misunderstandings. .... You’ve got off to a great start and I also apologise likewise (you see, KenO....we speak the same language;-)) Btw, we have two on-going (but currently taking short breaks) study corners and you may find it useful to purchase the texts. One is the Visuddhimagga - Understanding corner led by Larry. The other is the Samyutta Nikaya (mostly using the Bodhi translation) one led by James*. Welcome again and hope you can encourage your girlfriend to participate as well. Metta, Sarah *p.s James, Christine & all in this corner - what do you say to kind of continuing to read through the SN in order --ie moving on to Marasamyutta-- even if we jump all over the place according to other threads that come up without any fixed rules in this regard?? ============================== 29635 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 11:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism - Long Hi Jeff Brooks You definition of jhana is not in accordance with Ancient text - are you also doubting those Arahants who wrote it???? Do you doubt that the Arahants not experiencing jhanas??? By the way you have not answer my previous qn, your definition of jhana is only esctasy but in the sutta it is both esctasy and mindfullness so how do you explain this jhanas of yours is only esctasy. Ken O 29636 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 11:58pm Subject: New Photos Hi all, Some new photos from the recent Bangkok meeting in the DSGMeetings folder. Enjoy. Sukin. 29637 From: Sarah Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 0:32am Subject: Word of the Buddha (was:The Origin of Namarupa.....) Hi KenO & All, --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > k: James you got to understand that Abhidhamma to me is the word of > the Buddha. If it is not the word of the Buddha, then Abhidhamma > should not be Abdhidhamma in the first place - then it should be > considered the elder's words and not Buddha words. That is the whole > difference in both. Furthermore, this shows that one does not really > understand that the principle that only Buddha is able to teach the > dhamma to others before others can teach the rest. .... S: I appreciate these comments. Even the Kathavatthu and ancient commentaries can be referred to as 'buddhavacana'as I understand. From the time when key disciples like Mahakaccayana and Sariputta elaborated on brief comments and teachings given directly by the Buddha, any further commentary in conformity with this teaching became the 'word of the Buddha'. As you have said, whilst good friends may act as (often essential) guides, it is the Dhamma-vinaya or Buddhavacana itself which has to be our real teacher. In the Pali Text Society brochure, it says: PA¯LI LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE The main division of the Pa¯li canon as it exists today is threefold, although the Pa¯li commentarial tradition refers to several different ways of classification. The three divisions are known as pi akas and the canon itself as the Tipi.taka; the significance of the term pi.taka, literally “basket”, is not clear. The text of the canon is divided, according to this system, into Vinaya (monastic rules), Suttas (discourses) and Abhidhamma (analysis of the teaching). The PTS edition of the Tipi.taka contains fifty-six books (including indexes), and it cannot therefore be considered to be a homogenous entity, comparable to the Christian Bible or Muslim Koran. Although Buddhists refer to the Tipi.taka as *Buddhavacana, “the word of the Buddha”*, there are texts within the canon either attributed to specific monks or related to an event post-dating the time of the Buddha or that can be shown to have been composed after that time. The first four nika¯yas (collections) of the Sutta-pi.taka contain sermons in which the basic doctrines of the Buddha’s teaching are expounded either briefly or in detail. **** S:Indeed the use of the phrase ‘Buddhavacana’ which was used at the first council was not simply what the Buddha had said but that which accorded with the teachings of the Buddha. Let me sign off with a sutta from Anguttara Nikaya which elaborates. Please see the notes at the end. Metta, Sarah ===== http://www.abhidhamma.org/small%20learning.htm Catukkanipata, Bhandagamavaggo, 6) Learning and Virtue “Brethren, there are to be seen existing in the world these four beings. Which four? He that is ill-versed (in the Norm) and leads not a virtuous life; he that is ill-versed but leads a virtuous life ; he that is well-versed but leads not a virtuous life, and he that is well-versed and also leads a virtuous life. Brethren, who is the ill-versed person that leads not a virtuous life ? Here (in the world) a certain one is but slightly versed in the Sutta, Geyya, Veyyàkarana, Gathà, Udàna, Itivuttaka, Jàtaka, Abbhuta-dhamma and Vedalla,'(2) but, is ignorant of the primary and interpreted meaning (of the Norm) and has not reached complete righteousness. This indeed, brethren, is the ill-versed person who leads not a virtuous life. Brethren, who is the ill-versed person that leads a virtuous life ? Brethren, here (in the world) a certain one, though slightly versed (in the Norm consisting of the Sutta; and the rest), knows the primary and the interpreted meaning of that little, and governs his life accordingly. This indeed, brethren, is the one who is ill-versed but leads a virtuous life. Brethren, who is the well-versed person that leads not a virtuous life ? Brethren, here (in the world) a certain person is well-versed in the Sutta and the rest, aind knowing the primary and the interpreted meaning of the much he has learnt governs not his life accordingly. Brethren, this indeed is the person who is well-versed but leads not a virtuous life. Brethren, who is the well-versed person that leads a virtuous life ? Here (in the world) -a certain one who is well-versed (in the Norm consisting of the said Nine Factors) and, knowing the primary and interpreted meaning of the text, governs his life thereby. Brethren, this is the person who is well-versed and leads a virtuous life. Brethren, these four persons are indeed to be seen existing in the world.' He who is ignorant and careless in his ways- Men blame him for his ways and lack of learning too. He who is ignorant, but careful in his ways- Men praise his character, the' knowledge is not his He who is deep in lore, but careless in his ways- Men blame his character; his knowledge goes for naught. He who is deep in, lore and careful in his Men praise his character and learning deep as well. But deep in love, knowing the Norm, In wisdom perfect following The all- enlightened One as guide, A lump of solid gold is he. Who rightly can speak ill of him? Even the devas praise that man: Brahmà himself speaks well of him. ======================= 1 The four persons are. (1) the ignorant and sinful one, (2) the ignorant but vrrtuous one (3) the-versed but sinful one, and (4)the well versed and passion-free One (Arahant).-Comy. Anusota-gàmin, Patisota-gàmin. Thitatto, Pàragato 2 These are called the 'Nine Factors of the Norm '—Navanga Buddha-sàsana. Sutta is discourses including the two Vibhangas, Niddesa, Khandaka, Parivàra, Sutta Nipàta, Mangala úutta and other discourses bearing the name of Suttas. Geyya is discourses with accompanying verses, especially the Sagàthaka Vagga of the Samutta Veyyakarana consists of the whole of Abhidhamma Pitaka, and discourses unaccompanied by verses, but unincluded in the other eight divisions. Gathà, consists of Dhammapada, Thera- and Theri~gàthà, Sutta Nipiita and pure verses not called discourses. Udàna forms the eighty-two 'Sayings of Joy' of the Master. Itivuttaka is the sayings of the Master-Logia. Jataka is the five hundred and fifty stories relating to the Bodhisatta's past lives. Abbhuta-Dhamma is the record of the Lord's wonderful phenomena. Vedalla includes Culla-Vedalla, Maha-Vedalla and Sammà Ditthi and other discourses of exultation. [Sabbampi sagaathaka.m sutta.m geyyanti veditabba.m, visesena sa.myuttake sakalopi sagaathaavaggo. Sakalampi *abhidhammapi.taka.m*, niggaathakasutta.m, ya~nca a~n~nampi a.t.thahi a"ngehi asa"ngahita.m *buddhavacana.m*, ta.m veyyaakara.nanti veditabba.m. Dhammapada-theragaathaa-theri-gaathaa suttanipaate nosuttanaamikaa suddhikagaathaa ca gaathaati veditabbaa.] ====================================================================== 29638 From: Sarah Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 1:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Word of the Buddha (was:The Origin of Namarupa.....) Dear KenO, RobM & All, Let me also requote from an earlier post which elaborates further on the nine divisions in the AN sutta I just quoted. Metta, Sarah ***** Nina quotes posts from Sarah: S: ..... Nina: The word of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Vinaya as taught by him, consists of nine divisions which are: Sutta, Geyya, Veyyåkaraùa, Gåth å,Udåna, Itivuttaka, Jåtaka, Abbhuta and Vedalla. See the 'Expositor', Atthasåliní, Introductory Discourse, 26. The teachings as compiled (not yet written) literature are thus enumerated in the scriptures as nine divisions, for example in the 'Middle Length Sayings' I, no. 22. Sutta, geyya, etc. are nine divisions (angas) of the Tipitaka, and of these: Veyyåkaraùa or 'Exposition' includes the Abhidhamma Pi.taka, the suttas without verses, and the words of the Buddha which are not included in the other eight divisions. ..... Post from Sarah: S: ..... Also from Sarah: QUOTE ***** S: "The Abhidhamma was in existence during The Buddha’s time. This can be proved from the following passages in the Book of Discipline, vol 111: a)"p.415 "Not given leave means: without asking (for permission). Should ask a question means: if, having asked for leave in regard to Suttanta, she asks about discipline or about Abhidhamma, there is an offence of expiation. If, having asked for leave in regard to Abhidhamma, she asks about Suttanta or about Discipline, there is an offence of expiation." b) "p.42 "There is no offence if, not desiring to disparage, he speaks, saying: "Look here, do you master suttantas or verses or what is extra to dhamma (i.e. Abhidhamma)and afterwards you will master discipline’; if he is mad, if he is the first wrong-doer." "These passages clearly show that Abhidhamma was in existence during The Buddha’s time because rules about it were laid down by Him. c)"Also in Middle Length Sayings 1, p.270.....Gosinga sal-wood.......Further dhamma...*....Mogallana is a talker on dhamma** Footnotes * "It is Abhidhamma and it is specifically stated in the Burmese Editions.... ** "Moggallana is called chief of those of psychic power, Ai,23. MA ii,256 explains that abhidhamma-men, having come to knowledge of subtle points, having increased their vision, can achieve a supermundane state’. Non-abhidhamma-men get muddled between ‘own doctrine’(sakavaada) and ‘other doctrine’ (paravaada)." d)"Again, at the time The Buddha returned to Sankassanagara from Tavatimsa, the realm of 33 gods, Sariputta, in Sariputta Sutta, unttered the following in praise of The Buddha: "Erst have I never seen Nor heard of one with voice So sweet as his who came From Tusita to teach." (Suttanipata verse No 955, transl by E.M. Hare, p.139) ...... "This verse is also found in Mahaniddesa (Sixth Synod, p.386), where there is a detailed commentary on it. The following is the commentary on the first line: "At the time The Buddha, after having resided for the period of Lent on the Pandukambala Stone at the foot of the Coral tree in Tavatimsa, came down to Sankassanagara.......... "When Sariputta, based on the methods given by The Buddha, preached Abhidhamma to his pupils, The Buddha not only stated that He had expounded the Abhidhamma in Tavatimsa but also narrated this Sariputta Sutta to be left behind as evidence of having done so for the later generations. The Mahaniddesa was included in the Three Councils.> ***** N: Note:The Bahiranidana is the intro to the Co of the Vinaya by Buddhaghosa. You will have your hands full. I quote these passages because I find that there are many misunderstandings about the dating of the Abhidhamma. This subject comes up all the time, as you will see. And see this one from Sarah today: S:<“But in the list [of four things] beginning with sutta, sutta means the three baskets which the three Councils recited. ‘Accordance with sutta’ means legitimate by being in accord [with what is explicitly legitimate]. ‘The word of a teacher’ means the commentary.> N: Thus three Baskets, not two. Abhidhamma is included. Nina. ======== 29639 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 1:47am Subject: Re: New Photos Thanks Sukin. Great to see the venerable Ajahn Jose. Also Chris., Vince, Nina, Sarah,....A lot of farang! And KenO and Manu: fine to see some black-haired youths among all the grey haired ones! RobK dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi all, > > Some new photos from the recent Bangkok meeting in the DSGMeetings > folder. > 29640 From: bodhi2500 Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 2:27am Subject: Re: Sotaapanno Hi All Thanks to all who replied to my last post on this thread. Here is another sutta about sotapanna that I don't understand> Practising..SN48;18;8 Bhikkhus, there are these five faculties. What five? The faculty of Faith/energy/mindfulness/concentration and wisdom. One who has completed and fulfilled these five faculties is an Arahant. If they are weaker than that, one is practicing for the fruit of Arahantship;If still weaker,one is a non-returner etc /snip/ if still weaker, one is a stream-enterer; if still weaker, one is practicing for the realization of the fruit of stream entry. But Bhikhhus, I say that for one in whom these five faculties are completely and totally absent is `an outsider, one who stands in the faction of worldlings' Com.> In this sutta the faculties are exclusively supramundane. Anyone know why the faculties of a "one practicing for the fruit of Stream entry" would be weaker than a stream-enterers faculties? Thanks Steve 29641 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 2:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yet more discussion (and food) Hi Nina, Sarah, Jon, Christine and Sukin and Manu K: I learn one thing in this discussion - dont sit near A Sujin bc she will ask me qns. Simple but difficult qn "What is dhamma?" "what is seeing" "Right understanding" gosh.... Two person sti S: I’m still not sure why he thinks it’s so dangerous to travel in the same car as any of us and would rather hike down Charoen Nakorn Road (long, busy and polluted) k: I was rather full during lunch and for the past few days I have not exercise so I decided to have a walk. I like walking as ut allows me to see the culture and life of ordinary Thai pple. S: or why he’s convinced it’s a waste of time for me to offer any pleasantries such as ‘how’s your tea?’ or welcomes to new members, (KenO: ‘if it’s not dhamma it’s akusala), k: Comes to think about it, Maybe I am a bit too judgemental about it. Maybe I expected more from dhammas friends (Nina - here is another example of conceit) k: Two persons strikes me, first is Vince - a very open-minded and friendly person (sometimes he strikes me as a lost found brother) and who reminds me about being too quick to judge. Secondly is Nina - I was expecting a teacher like person - instead a vibrant and energetic person. Full of energy. For the rest - just as what I have picture about through the emails k: I have found the info on the Buddha smiling cittas. It ise in the commentary of Abdhimmattha Sangaha. Will type out the text next time. Ken O As Jon said, our old friend Vince arrived > with > all the meditation and samatha qus and honestly, at times, K.Sujin > couldn’t get a word in either. It was never boring and the lunches > and > brunch together were most enjoyable too..... dhamma and catch-up > (Ok, KenO > - dhamma and lobha). > > Many thanks to all who joined us in Bkk and especially to Betty and > Sukin > for coordinating us all so well while we were there. We still don't > know > what happened to Chuck from Texas, but Pinna, an old friend and > lurking > member from Texas was with us. > > Even greater thanks to all those who have been contributing here in > our > absence in such good form and humour and thereby enabling us to > really > take a good break knowing we were leaving the list in your good > finger-tips. > > With metta, > > Sarah > p.s KenO - I’ll get into some straight dhamma soon - well, maybe > after a > welcome or two to new members,that is;-) Have a good trip back to > Sing. > (oops, there I go again;-)) And remember to send a fax or letter to > BPS re > your Samyutta Nikaya order!! > ====== > > > > > > > > > > > > 29642 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 3:06am Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Hi Ken H, Ken: Thanks for this Pali glossary. James: You're welcome. Ken: You say you got it from access-to-insight. They don't like the Abhidhamma there, do they? James: Actually, the site is run by one man, John Bullitt, and he doesn't say he doesn't `like' the Abhidhamma, this is what he writes, "Likewise, you won't find any texts from the Abhidhamma here, simply because I haven't found the Abhidhamma -- as fascinating as it certainly is -- to be particularly helpful to meditation practice." From my experience in this group, I would certainly agree with him there! ;-)) It seems that study of the Abhidhamma with any intensity, with the exception of Rob M, makes one very anti- meditation. Honestly, this really does break my heart. I would prefer to belong to a group which encourages each other to meditate, to directly know what the Buddha taught, and to share those experiences perhaps in the context of the Abhidhamma. But that isn't to be here; theoretical knowledge reigns supreme. But I do appreciate the intellectual level and the basic level of courtesy I find in this group that I don't find in others. I just hope my participation doesn't have a negative influence on my own meditation practice. Conditions are important to consider. Ken: That would explain the imprecision of their definitions. :-) James: Really? I didn't find the definitions imprecise. If you care to explain how the various definitions are imprecise that would be fine with me, and perhaps helpful for everyone. I just offered the list because I have noticed that the Pali Glossary offered in this group's Files Section doesn't contain hardly a single Pali term related to meditation. Again, those are negative conditions for the practice. I was hoping to balance things out a bit. Metta, James 29643 From: Andy Wilson Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 3:09am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Ken: > They are not inspired by the Buddha bc only Buddha has > the knowledge of Abhidhamma. They are taught by the Buddha to > VEN Sariputta. No Arahants can teach the dhamma without > Buddha teaching them in the first place. Not even a pacceka > Buddha can teach the dhamma. The question of 'authorship' of abhidhamma makes me want to ask: is what is at stake here the question of whether the buddha could be the buddha if he did *not* have abhiddhama knowledge (ie., prior to codification / authoring of abhidhamma texts)? tia andy 29644 From: icarofranca Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 3:16am Subject: [dsg] Re: Anatta Dear Larry: " Is there a grammatical reason why sankhara khandha is translated as > "mental fabrications" rather than "mental fabricators"? It occurred to > me that sankhara khandha is the only khandha that arises as multiple > dhammas (contact, volition, one-pointedness, life faculty, attention, > etc.)." --------------------------------------------------------------------- You can trace two distinct lines of interpretation at these issues: a) Exegesis (a greek word that means something like "grammar"), b) A direct approach on facts, mainly ethological and medical ones. The first indicates a direct link between Khanda's definition and the similar ideas on Pali Grammar. You get compound terms that behaves under definite rules. When you think about "fabricated" or "factoring", you take a stand on these line of interpretation - compound terms, as the Khandas, unites two or more words in only one, with the last one suffering the change due to grammar position. Since the sequence is usually (there are exceptions!) Specific term + generic term, who fabricate things fabricates something, so the Khandas act as factoring ( with Citta as counterpart ) their concomitant Cetasikas at almost all cases. But there is not a "impedimenta" for the reverse case anyway... it only seems more rare to occur. The other one is the Ethology approach: the social melee within Buddha lived on. Since all external phenomena may be taken as a personal affair between reality and my own mind, factoring or factored take no more pound on balancing perceptions, and at compounding these perceptions in more complex terms. Since you, as a good and clever Bhikkhu, take the Pali Language as a super-ego's imperative, so you get the Khanda Analysis as a grammar compound tainted with kusala or akusala modes of expression, to interpret your own reality! -------------------------------------------------------------------- Because of that it seems like the only khandha that is truly an > aggregate in itself. Although rupa arises in an inseparable group and > all the khandhas arise together in reality. Perhaps that is why it is > called mental fabrications. It seems like a slippery word to translate. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Note the strong grammatical colors all these reasonings are taking out... since they are mental fabrications, so they behave at world ruled by symbolism and grammar ( Noah Chomsky comes at my help at these occasions!!!). In resume, I think that the Khandas fabricate our cetasikas, but not with our minds as a "tabula rasa" ( blank white sheet of paper). Citta takes a rule also on it - the Fabulous Rob Moult's essay expounds these issues very well!!! But corrections are welcome anyway!!! Don't fear thinking, Larry... it Doesn't hurt!!!!! mettaya, Ícaro > > Larry 29645 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 3:17am Subject: Re: Free Will or Not/Andrew Hi Ken H. and Andrew, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" > wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > > > > ----------------- > A: Perhaps you would like to expand on this point, KenH. What would > > the world be like if there were a self? > > ------------------ > > > > Ken H: I was hoping you would tell me :-) Despite giving it a lot > of > > thought, I haven't reached any startling conclusions. > > > > A self would have to be similar to an almighty god, wouldn't it? > > (Except, the one we were taught about, never seemed particularly > > happy with his lot.) A self wouldn't be impermanent or > > unsatisfactory (but that sounds like not-self) . . Sorry, I've > > got to stop thinking about it: I'm like a dog chasing its tail. > > > > Ken H > I feel let down! :-) I thought you were going to show me a fresh new > angle, a perspective I hadn't thought of before! > Since we live in a world of illusory self, surely a world of self > would be rather similar to that we think we already inhabit?? It > would be a world of permanence and there would have to be some > explanation of dukkha other than the unsatisfactoriness associated > with impermanence. It would be a world where you really COULD say "I > was the Queen of Sheba in a past lifetime" and not get frowned upon! > LOL > Andrew If you would like to have an idea of what it would be like to have a `self', I would suggest you watch the movie "Everlasting Tuck". It is about a family that drinks water from a magical spring and as a consequence they develop a `self'; they never grow old, never die, never get sick, and never change. It is a very interesting movie with some strong Buddhist lessons. Metta, James 29646 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 3:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] new member Hi Sarah, Sarah: James, when either Sukin or Christine or both get their pix in order, you might notice that you're no longer the most youthful looking regular contributor;-)). James: Well, that is good! (and maybe not so good ;-)). You know, when I was younger I just couldn't hardly wait to get older and look older; it seemed that no one took me very seriously. My appearance didn't seem to match my mind. Now that I am starting to look older I am not so sure I like that either! ;-)) Dukkha, Dukkha, Dukkha!! ;-)) Sarah: The other is the Samyutta Nikaya (mostly using the Bodhi translation) one led by James*. James: Sarah, you keep trying to give me a leadership role in this study and I keep trying to not accept any such thing ;-)). I do not feel qualified to lead such a thing…I'm too young!! LOL! Sarah: James, Christine & all in this corner - what do you say to kind of continuing to read through the SN in order --ie moving on to Marasamyutta-- even if we jump all over the place according to other threads that come up without any fixed rules in this regard?? James: Sure, that sounds fine to me. We dropped the study for a while because we were all so busy with deep and weighty thoughts! ;- )) Mara is a very interesting subject and it would probably be good to move on to him/it. Metta, James 29647 From: icarofranca Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 3:42am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Dear James: "Now, if you want to get excited about anybody, you should get excited > about me! ;-))" --------------------------------------------------------------------- Wow!!!! Let's raise a proposal for a "Sexy Sutta"!!! --------------------------------------------------------------------- I doubt that the Buddha explained the Abhidhamma to > Ven. Sariputta or anyone. I think the Buddha went only as far as the > five aggregates and the six sense bases and that was it! I think the > Abhidhamma was invented by scholar monks about three hundred years > after the Buddha's parinibbana. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Right, althought I ought to disagree with the term "invented"! The Abhidhamma was codified ( that's exactly the word for it) circa three hundred years after Buddha's passage to Parinibbana. All Theravadin Schools take these pitaka as sound Buddhistic Doctrine : it seems to my compreehension that the Abhidhamma's texts are a great resume of all metaphysical and philosophical dialogs between Buddha and His Arahats ans Boddhisattas, and AFTER the dialogs between the members of the Sangha. The FAQ (Frequent Answered Questions) scheme of the Vibhanga, for example, indicates also a effort to teaching laypersons the Basics about Buddhism at a easy and clever way. And if you think that lacks poetry in all Abhidhamma, The Dhammasangani is a great poem as a whole, and the Pattahana a true compilation ( abstract, of course!) of ancient traditions of classical India! Buddha explained many aspects of His Doctrine at Sariputta, Subhuti and others by the means of Poetry and old traditions...and at these aspects the Abhidhamma follows His footprints! But... I've forgot!!! I am a fan of Abhidhamma and my opinions about it are tainted up with personal views!!!! --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Furthermore, I don't think you have the right to tell anyone who can > and who cannot teach the Abhidhamma, and I think you owe Rob an > apology in that regard. --------------------------------------------------------------------- As a matter of fact, only members of the Sangha may preach Dhamma. Mettaya, Ícaro 29648 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 4:19am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Icaro, "Now, if you want to get excited about anybody, you should get excited > about me! ;-))" --------------------------------------------------------------------- Icaro: Wow!!!! Let's raise a proposal for a "Sexy Sutta"!!! James: LOL!! That is not the type of excitement I meant!! ;-)) I meant excited as in agitated, vexatious. Icaro: Right, althought I ought to disagree with the term "invented"! James: I chose that term to be especially vexatious! ;-)) `Codified' would be fine to me also. Icaro: And if you think that lacks poetry in all Abhidhamma, The Dhammasangani is a great poem as a whole, and the Pattahana a true compilation ( abstract, of course!) of ancient traditions of classical India! James: I don't know if the Abhidhamma lacks poetry or not. I have yet to read any of the Abhidhamma translated into English. I just go on what others write about it. Icaro: As a matter of fact, only members of the Sangha may preach Dhamma. James: Okay, well this depends on how you define `Sangha'. If you mean only ordained persons, then I don't know if I completely agree (but I could be wrong about that). Also, if you mean only ordained persons then you, Icaro, break this standard all the time (even in this post) and this group should be shut down immediately! Metta, James 29649 From: wen Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 3:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] need help... Dear Larry, Thank you so much for your attention, I'm a Buddhist living in Indonesia and yes the asubha bhavana that I asked was about contemplation of the impurities of the body. I read about it some and also focussed to it's function to reduce desire, but I cannot get the complete instructions, since I don't think many people like this kind of contemplation. I have some photos of dead bodies from the internet (decaying, bleeding, also skeletons). And yes I have read about this sutra of mindfulness but still I'm afraid of walking on the wrong path, so maybe there would be a Sangha member from this forum that can give me some advice… thank you, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Wen, > > Welcome to the group. Is asubha bhavana the reflection on the > repulsiveness (foulness) of the body? I don't know of anyone here > practicing this, but perhaps we can be of a little help anyway. What > kind of photos do you have and where did you get this practice? Have you > studied the satipatthana sutta? Why do you want to do this particular > practice? Maybe you could tell us a little bit about yourself. Below is > a link to the commentary on the part of the satipatthana sutta dealing > with repulsiveness. > > Larry > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m17170.html 29650 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 5:38am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Ken O and all, Whether Abhidhamma is the original words of the Buddha or if Abhidhamma is the Dhamma that the Buddha taught has been debated and views have been expressed about it. I believe that you realize that not all members in DSG have the same view regarding Abhidhamma as you do. I believe that most members in DSG accept that the discourses have the reliable records of the Buddha's teaching and his words. So at least there is a common ground upon which the discussion on the Buddha's teaching can be based. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Rob M > [snip] > best wishes > Ken O 29651 From: Michael Beisert Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 9:27am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hello KenO, Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the Simsapa forest. Then, picking up a few Simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, "How do you construe this, monks: Which are more numerous, the few Simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the Simsapa forest?" "The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the forest are far more numerous." "In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn56-031.html "This is the extent to which there is birth, aging, death, passing away, and re-arising. This is the extent to which there are means of designation, expression, and delineation. This is the extent to which the sphere of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle revolves for the manifesting (discernibility) of this world -- i.e., name-and-form together with consciousness. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn15.html In the first sutta quoted the Buddha confirms that his kwoledge goes far beyond what he has taught, and in the second sutta the Buddha is saying that namarupa and consciousness is how far our discernment can extend, and therefore that is enough for liberation. Combining those two suttas with some additional thinking about conditionality should not be hard to figure out that dhammas are not paramatha from an ontological sense but from a purely empirical point of view. Metta Michael >From: Kenneth Ong >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas >Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:46:01 +0000 (GMT) > >Hi Michael > >As I said before if it is regression theory then how is satipatthana >going to work. With your theory, - the feelings felt by Buddha >should also be smaller still - then I think I dont how Buddha becomes >sumpreme in knowledge bc there is still regression behind his >knowledge. Certain issues are not discuss by the Buddha bc it is >not beneficial just like origination but certain issues are discuss >thoroughly and there is no reservation on the part by Buddha to >explain in details. Issues like khandhas, dependent origination etc. > >So your assertion of your view is I think not support unless you can >provide logical argument. I do not even ask for evidence, I am just >requesting for logical argument. > > >best wishes >Ken O > > > > > Michael: > > Another way of looking at the issue is to think that the khandhas > > are just a bunch of conditions which come together and because of >that coming together a phenomena arises that the Buddha has called a >khandha. It will not be difficult to see that this bunch of >conditions can be regarded as 'sub khandhas'. > > > 29652 From: christhedis Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 9:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mahayana: lower realms Then I guess the answer is.. yes :) Thanks to both replies, any more are welcome. Chris. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > Hello Chris, > > The following quote can be found in 'The Psycho-Ethical Aspects of > Abhidhamma' by Rina Sircar (page 98-99): > > 'The Hinayana system does not offer any parallel to the first bhumi of the > Mahayanist's pramudita, for it has no concern with bodhicitta. The second > bhumi-vimala corresponds to the sotapatti and sakadagami of the Hinayana. > The third bhumi-prabhakari corresponds to anagami of the Hinayanists. The > fourth, fifth and sixth bhumis correspond to the abhipanna of the > Hinayanists. With the sixth bhumi the comparison between the Hinayana and > Mahayana stages ends.' > > Metta > Michael > > > >From: "christhedis" > >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > >Subject: [dsg] Mahayana: lower realms > >Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 10:35:55 -0000 > > > >Hi everyone, > > > >It's been a while since I posted or even read postings in here, I hope no- > >one minds my occasional drop-in question. Also, I know this is a > >Theravada group but I can't find an answer to my question anywhere, > >so thought I'd try in here (plus I like you guys (and gals) :) > > > >So... in Mahayana, is there an equivalent to the Theravada stream- > >enterer, in terms of attaining a level where one does not fall back into > >lower realms (the stream-enterer level in Theravada)? I know > >Mahayanists are not looking to enter the stream in terms of guaranteed > >eventual nibbana, but do they have a level where they will be continually > >reborn into the human or higher realms? I know they have a > >Buddhahood level but I'm not sure what the implications of it are. > > > >Thanks, and best wishes to all. > > > >Chris. 29653 From: Michael Beisert Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 10:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] need help... Hello Wen, I suggest you proceed very, very carefully with this kind of meditation. I did it once, briefly at a retreat, and it is very powerful. I suggest you seek advice from a teacher. But if you don't have a teacher nearby and want to start anyway, I would suggest you use the method employed by novice monks which is to use the hair, hair of the body, teeth and nails as object. How to do the meditation can be found in the Visudhimagga. Metta Michael >From: "wen" >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [dsg] need help... >Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 11:25:31 -0000 > >Dear Larry, >Thank you so much for your attention, I'm a Buddhist living in >Indonesia and yes the asubha bhavana that I asked was about >contemplation of the impurities of the body. I read about it some >and also focussed to it's function to reduce desire, but I cannot >get the complete instructions, since I don't think many people like >this kind of contemplation. I have some photos of dead bodies from >the internet (decaying, bleeding, also skeletons). And yes I have >read about this sutra of mindfulness but still I'm afraid of walking >on the wrong path, so maybe there would be a Sangha member from this >forum that can give me some advice… > >thank you, > > > > >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Hi Wen, > > > > Welcome to the group. Is asubha bhavana the reflection on the > > repulsiveness (foulness) of the body? I don't know of anyone here > > practicing this, but perhaps we can be of a little help anyway. >What > > kind of photos do you have and where did you get this practice? >Have you > > studied the satipatthana sutta? Why do you want to do this >particular > > practice? Maybe you could tell us a little bit about yourself. >Below is > > a link to the commentary on the part of the satipatthana sutta >dealing > > with repulsiveness. > > > > Larry > > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m17170.html > > 29654 From: Michael Beisert Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 9:16am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hello Sarah, Welcome back to our routine :) Sarah: S: This is incorrect, I believe. As B.Bodhi summarises from the texts in his introduction to the Upanisa sutta: With the first path the yogin eradicates the first three fetters -- personality view, doubt, and misapprehension of rules and observances. Thereby he becomes a "stream-enterer" (sotapanna), one who has entered the stream. Michael: I don’t think he is talking from his own experience, based on the interview he gave to the BCBS magazine a while ago. If it is from the commentary it could just be the same source as the Vsm and that does not add much to the discussion. Sarah: In any case, the latter ‘strict tecnical sense’ as Jon wrote before, this ‘is simply a streamwinner progressing to the corresponsing fruition moment.’ Michael: You are confirming what I said. He is a stream-winner and continues his practice (i.e. progressing) towards fruition. Two distinct separate moments that do not happen in succession. Here is another sutta for you: “And furthermore, just as the ocean is the abode of such mighty beings as whales, whale-eaters, and whale-eater-eaters; asuras, nagas, and gandhabbas, and there are in the ocean beings one hundred leagues long, two hundred... three hundred... four hundred... five hundred leagues long; in the same way, this Doctrine and Discipline is the abode of such mighty beings as stream-winners and those practicing to realize the fruit of stream-entry .. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka/udana/ud5-05.html#abode The beings that live in the ocean are clearly different individual beings, and the stream-winners and those practicing for the fruit are also different individuals, otherwise the analogy doesn’t make sense. Metta Michael 29655 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 10:48am Subject: Letters From Mara Hi All, In lieu of a formal introduction to the Marasamyutta in the SN, I want to quote a bit of material written by a Ven. Punnadhammo about Mara (and provide the direct link at the bottom). It is a fictionalized account of the figure of Mara dictating a memo to his 10 legions of squadrons: Sense Desires, Boredom, Hunger and Thirst, Craving, Sloth and Acidy, Cowardice, Uncertainty, Malice and Obstinacy, Honor/Renown/Notoriety, and Self Praise and Denigration of Others. These various legions are listed by the Buddha in the Padhana Sutta. It is supposed to be written in modern times to help close up the hole in Samsara left by the Buddha: "It is quite true that one very clever "fish" escaped our net two and half millennia ago. I fully accept responsibility for that catastrophe. As you have all studied the history in basic training, I need not go over it in great detail. Remember, I tried my very best. Even my daughters dancing for him didn't move him. Even my terrible aspect, which sometimes frightens myself, had no effect. Worse, after he penetrated the true nature of our little game, I couldn't persuade him to keep it to himself; although, I thought I almost had him convinced. "Alas, what's done is done, and there is a small hole in our net through which beings continue to escape. Happily, all indications are that the hole grows smaller with time. It is very hard for our little fishies to imagine that their true welfare lies outside the net; all we need to do is to divert them from thoughts of the canning plant! … "I know this sounds preposterous, but most humans don't think these things through very carefully. They like what feels good and never mind the consequences. The only trick for us is to keep them diverted and entertained. We must keep coming up with new enticements as the old ones become tired. Even with our tried and true standards -- sex and food -- we need to develop new variations and twists. … "But we cannot rest, for there are a few beings getting dangerously close to finding a way out of our power. They are starting to reflect or even to practice renunciation and meditation. Once they discover that their true happiness is not based on our trickery, they may escape. We must use all the resources at our disposal to confuse them. Although they may be sitting quietly, their minds are still easily distracted. Fantasy is a great thing, especially since a mind with a bit of concentration can powerfully visualize and hold even our unwholesome objects. "The thing we must not let them do is to contemplate the real nature of the body. You would think that anyone of even moderate intelligence could see the inherently foul and unstable nature of those meat-machines they drag around. After all, they have to be constantly washing and perfuming the stinking things just to bear being in each other's company! But they don't see that and don't want to see it. We merely have to keep them looking at their bodies in a highly selective way, emphasizing the largely visual characteristics identified as "beautiful". It's an easy enough trick." http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/maracontent.html Metta, James 29656 From: Andrew Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 4:08pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not/Andrew Hi James Thanks for this tip - I will definitely look out for this movie. Not likely to be in the local video shop as I live on the edge of a village of 500 people and, it has to be said, their taste in videos leaves something to be desired. :-) You wrote: > If you would like to have an idea of what it would be like to have > a `self', I would suggest you watch the movie "Everlasting Tuck". It > is about a family that drinks water from a magical spring and as a > consequence they develop a `self'; they never grow old, never die, > never get sick, and never change. It is a very interesting movie > with some strong Buddhist lessons. > James, I think your search for a Buddhist discussion group in which everyone shares your interpretation of Dhamma is a bit like the search for the Holy Grail. But I do hope that some of the other meditators give you encouragement on and off list. It may interest you to know that the strictest and pushiest meditator I have ever come across, someone who frequently suggested I was lazy in my "meditation practice", was a chap who now goes under the name of "Ken H"! :-) There's a lesson in anicca for you!! I have no control over what other people think, so I just enjoy the ride! Best Wishes Andrew PS a bit cheeky, I know, KenH - but you've said as much before - and good on you for sharing your Dhamma journey with us! 29657 From: Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 4:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] need help... Hi Wen, I'm glad you wrote back. First, let me say I'm not qualified to give meditation instruction, so what I say is just my idea. I agree with Michael, the best way would be to talk to a meditation master to get detailed instructions. If you do this, ask a lot of questions. Make sure you understand. Concerning meditation in general, it is best to set up a clean, quiet place where you won't be disturbed. Plan on meditating for a certain length of time, say half an hour at first, then gradually increase the time. Do this every day if you can, and at the same time. Start be sitting with good posture, on a cushion, on the floor, with crossed legs, facing your object of meditation or a blank wall. If this is too difficult, you can sit in a chair, but try to maintain good posture and not lean into the chair. This will help in maintaining alertness. Before you focus on some other object, it is best to start with mindfulness of breathing; just to calm down your body and mind. As you breathe in, watch the physical sensations of breathing in. As you breathe out, watch the physical sensations of breathing out. If thoughts, emotions, or other physical sensations arise, just identify them and return to the breathing. Don't try to control your mind, but train it with a light touch. The goal is to just follow the breathing without any other distractions, but for most of us it will take many years to reach this goal. I would practice just this mindfulness of breathing for several weeks before going on to another object of meditation. This will develop non-attachment to both the body and the mind. Non-attachment arises for many reasons. Two of the main reasons are 1: we see and reason with our mind that something is undesirable, and 2: we just see that that is not me. For example, when I comb my hair, I look at my hair. My hair is not me because it is an object. Whatever "I" am, I can't be an object. Where ever I look, from my head to my toe, there is nothing but objects. No me. The same goes for my hopes and fears, and for confusion in general. When I am afraid, that fear seems like me; but if I look at that fear, it is an object. Someone might say, what about the looking itself? Isn't that me? Look at that looking. What do you see? Not me. This is genuine non-attachment. You will notice there is nothing to gain. You can use either of these approaches in contemplating the body. You can reason that it is disgusting, or you can just look at it. It is helpful to identify each part clearly. If you want to meditate on corpses, follow the instructions in the sutta. The main idea is that my body, and others' bodies, will be like these disgusting corpses someday. Start with just one picture. Look at it carefully. Notice all the details. Try to develop a mental image of the corpse. Then just try to take it to heart that your body will look like this one day. Do this in just the last 5 minutes of your meditation session, mindfulness of breathing goes first for the main part of the session. Once you are sitting for an hour at a time, two or more times a day, you could increase this to 10 minutes at the end of one session. If you start to become depressed or frequently have other negative emotions, discontinue the corpses and just use the breathing. Non-attachment isn't feeling bad. It is feeling even. One last thing. I hope others respond to your letter. Everyone has a different view and we can learn from them all. Good luck. Let us know how things turn out. Larry 29658 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 5:20pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Andy From beginingless time, it is only Buddha and no one else can do it can teach the Abhidhamma. Authorship is not a question bc if we start the qn of authorship, this pblm also arise in the suttas Ken O > > The question of 'authorship' of abhidhamma makes me want to ask: is > what > is at stake here the question of whether the buddha could be the > buddha > if he did *not* have abhiddhama knowledge (ie., prior to > codification / > authoring of abhidhamma texts)? > > > > tia > > andy > > > > > > > > > > 29659 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 5:26pm Subject: Six Sense Bases Hi Sarah, It seems that I may owe you an apology, but I am not sure. I was reading the Chachakka Sutta and according to this sutta eye consciousness does arise because of contact between the eye and forms. Not only that, it reads: "Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect." I am not sure if the Buddha is supposed to be taken literally in this regard. "Consciousness at the eye" is not very specific, and "consciousness at the intellect" is even less specific. He doesn't seem to be pinpointing location, but is just using general terms. Not only that, I know of many, many, many scientific experiments, brain damage research, and drug research that show that sensory consciousnesses arise in the brain. That is the function of the brain. Whole areas of the brain have been mapped out that relate to various sensory processing. Also, what about dreaming? When someone is dreaming it isn't just like an idea contacting the intellect, it is a whole panorama of sights, sounds, tastes, and touch and ideas separate from that experience. There isn't any contact with anything. Does the Buddha explain dreaming consciousness? I can't find a single sutta where he does. Does the Abhidhamma explain dreaming consciousness? What got me to thinking about this is "The Farmer" in SN, Marasamyutta 19 (9): "The eye is yours, Evil One, forms are yours, eye-contact and its base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no eye, no forms, no eye-contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you there, Evil One. (297) (297) Here the Buddha is obviously referring to Nibbana. Cp. 35:117 on the cessation of the six sense bases. From my understanding, the Buddha no longer had a consciousness that was bound by rupa, it was unbounded, however, he still had eyes and he could still see. How? Here he is saying that he doesn't have any eyes; surely this isn't to be taken literally. If seeing is dependent on consciousness that arises at the eye from contact with form, but the Buddha didn't have consciousness that arises at the eye, how did he see? Maybe you or someone else can clear this up for me. Metta, James 29660 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 5:43pm Subject: Re: Free Will or Not/Andrew Andrew: Thanks for this tip - I will definitely look out for this movie. Not likely to be in the local video shop as I live on the edge of a village of 500 people and, it has to be said, their taste in videos leaves something to be desired. :-) James: Well, I am now living in Cairo, Egypt so I have even less selection than you do! ;-)) Also, I think I miswrote the title before; it is actually "Tuck Everlasting". Andrew: James, I think your search for a Buddhist discussion group in which everyone shares your interpretation of Dhamma is a bit like the search for the Holy Grail. James: LOL!! You got that right. I used to be pretty naïve about such things; I have wizened up since then. Andrew: But I do hope that some of the other meditators give you encouragement on and off list. James: Not really, but I do find a lot of encouragement in the various articles on the Access To Insight web site. I especially like the writings of Ajahn Lee. I try to read some of his stuff everyday! (And I meditate some everyday). Andrew: It may interest you to know that the strictest and pushiest meditator I have ever come across, someone who frequently suggested I was lazy in my "meditation practice", was a chap who now goes under the name of "Ken H"! :-) James: Oh really. Actually, this doesn't surprise me. I can sense a lot of disgruntled ex-meditators in this group. I wrote an entire post about it titled "The Ups and Downs of Meditation". Andrew: There's a lesson in anicca for you!! James: Yep!! ;-)) Andrew: I have no control over what other people think, so I just enjoy the ride! James: Good attitude! Thanks for writing! You have really brightened my day! ;-)))) Metta, James 29661 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 5:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] need help... Dear Wen (and James), While reading the article (Letters from Mara) posted by James, I thought about your meditations on death and repulsiveness: It occurred to me that, right now, all around the world, there are people lying on their deathbeds; their bodies bloated and pustulant, convulsed in horrendous pain. Many of these people want only to die. Do they need to be told their bodies are repulsive? Should we tell them that their troubles would be over if only they would stop seeing their bodies as desirable and beautiful? -- Or if only they would stop clinging to physical pleasures? If we did, we would be thrown out of the hospital. And rightly so! On the other hand, there are people who have listened to, and understood the Dhamma – they have developed panna (understanding) to the extent that sometimes, when citta (a fleeting moment of consciousness) takes rupa (a fleeting physical phenomenon) as its object, that rupa becomes known as it truly is; impermanent, unsatisfactory and not self. At such moments, there is serenity and true happiness. Some of these wise people will be inclined to contemplate dead and decaying human bodies. It will remind them of their moments of direct, right understanding of rupa. They can gaze, calmly, upon scenes that other, lesser, mortals (me, for example) would find nauseating. However, we must not put the cart before the horse. If we haven't developed insight into ultimate reality, then gruesome cemetery contemplations are not for us. For us, any ritualistic gazing at rotting corpses would be a silly, pompous, imitation of our superiors. There are four objects of samatha meditation recommended by the Buddha – they are; the Buddha, metta, death and repulsiveness. The right way of practising them depends on our accumulated wisdom. For all of us, there are ways in which the four objects can be brought to mind naturally, calmly and wholesomely. It will happen spontaneously in daily life, without any formal, artificial, rite or ritual: For example: every day, people are, cordially and helpfully, reminding each other; "None of us is getting any younger," "You only live once," "No one lives forever," and so forth. I think; for us simple folk, these are genuine, wholesome meditations on death. Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "wen" wrote: > Dear Larry, > Thank you so much for your attention, I'm a Buddhist living in > Indonesia and yes the asubha bhavana that I asked was about > contemplation of the impurities of the body. I read about it some > and also focussed to it's function to reduce desire, but I cannot > get the complete instructions, since I don't think many people like > this kind of contemplation. I have some photos of dead bodies from > the internet (decaying, bleeding, also skeletons). And yes I have > read about this sutra of mindfulness but still I'm afraid of walking > on the wrong path, so maybe there would be a Sangha member from this > forum that can give me some advice… > 29662 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 7:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] need help... Dear Wen, there is a discussion with Khun Sujin that briefly explains 4 meditation subjects suitable at all times: http://www.abhidhamma.org/meri3.html ""S. : The monks are accustomed to practise continuously, for a long time, four meditation subjects of samatha, in order to have calm of citta and to subdue defilements which can disturb them. Laypeople can also practise these four meditation subjects. The Dhamma and the Vinaya which the monks practise can also be applied by layfollowers in their own situation, as a means of subduing defilements. W. : What are these four meditation subjects? S. : Recollection of the excellent qualities of the Buddha, the development of mettaa (loving kindness), perception of repulsiveness and mindfulness of death. S. : We can recollect the wisdom of the Buddha by which he attained enlightenment. We can recollect the purity of the Buddha who completely eradicated all defilements. We can recollect the great compassion of the Buddha who taught the Dhamma in manifold ways with the purpose of helping all living beings. At the moment we recollect the excellent qualities of the Buddha there is kusala citta with calm, which is free from defilements, because we do not think of other things which can cause the arising of defilements. The citta which recollects the qualities of the Buddha is pure and it is inclined to practise the Dhamma as it has been taught by the Buddha. At such moments the citta is gentle, one will not hurt or harm someone else. There is mettaa and benevolence, one wishes happiness for everybody. When we are developing the inclination to mettaa and benevolence for others we should take care not to be absorbed in pleasant objects [35. We can prevent this by considering the foulness of the body, both of ourselves and of others [36. If we neglect considering this we may go the wrong way and have attachment and infatuation instead of pure loving kindness. In order to prevent the citta to pursue objects which are pleasant and lead to infatuation, we should recollect death which will come certainly. Nobody knows when death will come, whether it will come after a long time or very soon. If we always recollect death it will help us more and more not to be neglectful of kusala. The opportunity for birth as a human being is very rare and therefore we should develop every poassible kind of kusala. W. : Summarizing our conversation, I conclude that there are, apart from daana and siila, other ways of developing kusala, namely, those kinds of kusala which are included in bhaavanaa. When the citta is not intent on daana, siila or bhaavanaa, it is akusala citta. In daily life it is difficult to develop calm to the level of attainment concentration, which is jhaana. However, there is still a way to prevent the citta from thinking of things which cause the arising of defilements. We can think of subjects which are the condition for purity of citta. These subjects are: recollection of the excellent qualities of the Buddha, the development of mettaa, consideration of the foulness of the body and mindfulness of death. If we see the disadvantage and danger of all degrees of defilements, and if we try to develop kusala with the purpose of eliminating all these degrees of defilements, it is beneficial to consider the topics of the discussion we just had. """ Rob 29663 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 7:44pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi Michael Your are inferring from your own perspective. I think we should always go down to basic whenever there is a need to reflect on Buddhism. The basic principles are always khandhas, dependent origination. Your regression assertion is never found in Buddhism, even if Nagarjuna will to pose this qn to me, he will also get the same answer. Your regression theory will mean infinite sub khandhas - how are we going to practise. As I said earlier, we will be stuck on feelings ..sub feeling etc - just imagine. We have also got to remember that Buddha is not teaching those unneccessary for us for liberation. All our suttas for practise in one way or another always refer to nama and rupas. This is a very impt point, hence if there is sub-khandhas it should be taught thoroughly bc this is about liberation. It is not something Buddha will deliberately not taught. It is something Buddha will definitely inform us bc it leads to salvation. I can never state enough of this, Buddha will not keep impt dhammas from us if it is very crucial to our liberation. Ken O 29664 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 7:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yet more discussion (and food) Hi Sarah What strikes me during our discussion is when A Sujin say it just about nama and rupa and right understanding on them. It was not even kusala and akusala nama, it is about just the basic - nama and rupa. When I think about it, what she is trying to put across is to have less thinking but more direct understanding of reality. I think whenever we try to understand the characteristic of kusala and akusala, there is a likelihood that we are thinking and not understanding reality. I thought I was very basic in my practise just noticing the reality of the six rooted cittas, she was even more basic than me. I feel this point of looking at just namas and rupas is good to share with the rest here. To me, effective - it cuts away thinking - it is just about reality Ken O 29665 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 8:13pm Subject: Re: Six Sense Bases Hi James, This is how I see it: As long as an arahant lived, he saw with eyes, heard with ears, smelled with nose, tasted with tongue, sensed with body, and thought with intellect just like everyone else. Eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and intellect are to be seen as the old kamma. The new kamma are whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect. The cessation of kamma is the cessation of bodily kamma, verbal kamma, and mental kamma: it is the release, the unbinding, the cessation of dukkha. Without the cessation of kamma, one would just keep wandering in the round of rebirth. Realizing the cessation of dukkha, the arahant would no longer do any kamma with the body, with speech, or with the intellect. Nevertheless, until the arahant passed into the total unbinding(parinibbana), he still lived in the world with the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas, with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, and consciousness, the whole aggregate of dukkha, that inevitably followed the last birth. For reference to old kamma, new kamma, and the cessation of kamma, see: Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.145 Kamma Sutta Action http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn35-145.html Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Sarah, [snip] > (297) Here the Buddha is obviously referring to Nibbana. Cp. 35:117 > on the cessation of the six sense bases. > > From my understanding, the Buddha no longer had a consciousness that > was bound by rupa, it was unbounded, however, he still had eyes and > he could still see. How? Here he is saying that he doesn't have any > eyes; surely this isn't to be taken literally. If seeing is > dependent on consciousness that arises at the eye from contact with > form, but the Buddha didn't have consciousness that arises at the > eye, how did he see? Maybe you or someone else can clear this up for > me. > > Metta, James 29666 From: Andrew Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 8:11pm Subject: Mind consciousness during sleep Hello folks! Welcome home to all the mendicant wanderers from Bangkok. I am waiting with baited breath to see if Christine finds her lost notes. Anyway, I was watching television the other day and heard a scientist say that he has shown that the brain keeps "thinking" during sleep. That is why you can wrestle with a problem all week and not solve it, then you wake up in the middle of the night and scream "Eureka!" as the answer mysteriously comes into consciousness. During sleep, the brain has continued to work on the problem and actually solved it! This gave me a very deep impression of "no control". How can I possibly control/direct my mind when I'm asleep? I have absolutely no control at all! And if that is the case during sleep, why shouldn't it be the case during waking hours even if it seems otherwise? Howard, here's a good question for you. If volition is a universal cetasika, it must be present in "sleep thinking" as well as "waking thinking". Are the things you think about when asleep "volitional" in the sense that you use the word? If not, what could the difference be between sleeping and awake cetana? Hmmm ... would love to hear anyone's thoughts on that. Best wishes Andrew PS you too, KenH, if I haven't offended you with my last post! :-) I should admit that KenH was totally correct - I WAS a lazy meditator!! 29667 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 8:20pm Subject: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi Ken O, A question: Given the discourses, what do you think is the basic principle that the Buddha taught about the five aggregates(khandha)? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Michael > > Your are inferring from your own perspective. I think we should > always go down to basic whenever there is a need to reflect on > Buddhism. The basic principles are always khandhas, dependent > origination. Your regression assertion is never found in Buddhism, > even if Nagarjuna will to pose this qn to me, he will also get the > same answer. Your regression theory will mean infinite sub khandhas > - how are we going to practise. As I said earlier, we will be stuck > on feelings ..sub feeling etc - just imagine. We have also got to > remember that Buddha is not teaching those unneccessary for us for > liberation. All our suttas for practise in one way or another always > refer to nama and rupas. This is a very impt point, hence if there > is sub-khandhas it should be taught thoroughly bc this is about > liberation. It is not something Buddha will deliberately not taught. > It is something Buddha will definitely inform us bc it leads to > salvation. I can never state enough of this, Buddha will not keep > impt dhammas from us if it is very crucial to our liberation. > > > Ken O 29668 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 8:29pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Yet more discussion (and food) Hi Ken O, The approach of direct understanding of reality sounds very vague to me. Could you elucidate that approach with some passage from the discourse? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Sarah > > What strikes me during our discussion is when A Sujin say it just > about nama and rupa and right understanding on them. It was not even > kusala and akusala nama, it is about just the basic - nama and rupa. > When I think about it, what she is trying to put across is to have > less thinking but more direct understanding of reality. I think > whenever we try to understand the characteristic of kusala and > akusala, there is a likelihood that we are thinking and not > understanding reality. I thought I was very basic in my practise > just noticing the reality of the six rooted cittas, she was even more > basic than me. I feel this point of looking at just namas and rupas > is good to share with the rest here. To me, effective - it cuts away > thinking - it is just about reality > > > > Ken O 29669 From: gazita2002 Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 9:07pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body /Ken H Hello Ken, Hope the storms down your way have bypassed you, they sound wild. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi Azita, > ....snip.... Both satipatthana and > vipassana refer to the various cittas that are accompanied by the > cetasikas, right understanding, right thought, etc., and have a > dhamma as object. Vipassana can refer to all such cittas (including > those with the unconditioned dhamma as object) whereas satipatthana > refers only to those with a conditioned dhamma as object. In other > words, the mundane form of vipassana can be called satipatthana. > > That's my recollection; corrections welcome. > > Kind regards, > Ken H Well, I'm going to take the easy way out here, and fall back on a comment from Nina to me regarding memorizing v.understanding. I was unsure about mind objects, mind doors, etc. and her statement was that I need'nt concern about memorizing, when there is clear understanding then panna will know the answer. So, I'm going down that track now. Its a jungle out there [anyone remember who sang those words], full of mana, ditthi, lobha, dosa and moha and all the rest of the khandhas; occasionally there's a flash of understanding, but as Sukin wrote to Chris, its all conditioned, gone in a flash, its anatta, its impermanent, like that line drawn on water. If I don't understand then that's the reality at that moment. life can be stressful enuff without 'me' adding to it, so to speak. I'm impressed withthe amount of writing u do . Esp. knowing what a chore it was for you just a short time back to put anything on dsg. Well done, people like you who seem to have lots to say allow people like me to lurk and read at leisure. Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 29670 From: gazita2002 Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 9:08pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body /Ken H Hello Ken, Hope the storms down your way have bypassed you, they sound wild. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi Azita, > ....snip.... Both satipatthana and > vipassana refer to the various cittas that are accompanied by the > cetasikas, right understanding, right thought, etc., and have a > dhamma as object. Vipassana can refer to all such cittas (including > those with the unconditioned dhamma as object) whereas satipatthana > refers only to those with a conditioned dhamma as object. In other > words, the mundane form of vipassana can be called satipatthana. > > That's my recollection; corrections welcome. > > Kind regards, > Ken H Well, I'm going to take the easy way out here, and fall back on a comment from Nina to me regarding memorizing v.understanding. I was unsure about mind objects, mind doors, etc. and her statement was that I need'nt concern about memorizing, when there is clear understanding then panna will know the answer. So, I'm going down that track now. Its a jungle out there [anyone remember who sang those words], full of mana, ditthi, lobha, dosa and moha and all the rest of the khandhas; occasionally there's a flash of understanding, but as Sukin wrote to Chris, its all conditioned, gone in a flash, its anatta, its impermanent, like that line drawn on water. If I don't understand then that's the reality at that moment. life can be stressful enuff without 'me' adding to it, so to speak. I'm impressed withthe amount of writing u do . Esp. knowing what a chore it was for you just a short time back to put anything on dsg. Well done, people like you who seem to have lots to say allow people like me to lurk and read at leisure. Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 29671 From: Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 9:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Sukin, Thanks for your well considered reply; I think I understand your view better now. However, I still disagree. If the study of right view is only abstract concepts without application to any experience then nothing will be understood. To wait for things to happen in their own time seems to me to be deliberately cultivating tranquility at the expense of insight. I agree that if you really think you are doing the wrong thing by deliberately cultivating insight, then you should probably stop and consider what is going on. But it seems to me a good sign if you detect desire. I would say look closer and see if it is really desire or just a concept. Larry 29672 From: Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 9:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta Icaro: "Don't fear thinking, Larry... it Doesn't hurt!!!!!" Hi Icaro, I agree; but thinking is always questionable. Thanks for your scholarly and wide ranging reply (Noah Chomsky???) :))) I think we will have more to say on this word (sankhara) in the fullness of time. How are you doing with Buddhaghosa? We will be starting up on the Visuddhimagga again in a week or two. Larry 29673 From: gazita2002 Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 9:27pm Subject: oh ooh!! Hello dsg members, didn't really mean to send 2 of the same, pretending I'm not a lurker. BTW, sounds like Bkk was beneficial to most people. KenO, I like your remark about A. Sujin keeping it simple with just Nama and Rupa. It is her style of teaching and her knowledge, actually I could say lots of good things about her, she has the ability to teach well and clearly. Nama and rupa is all there is and for me it is simple when all is condensed into those 2 words. Makes my jungle seem less dense. Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 29674 From: gazita2002 Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 9:57pm Subject: Re: Six Sense Bases --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: ....snip.... > From my understanding, the Buddha no longer had a consciousness that > was bound by rupa, it was unbounded, however, he still had eyes and > he could still see. How? Here he is saying that he doesn't have any > eyes; surely this isn't to be taken literally. If seeing is > dependent on consciousness that arises at the eye from contact with > form, but the Buddha didn't have consciousness that arises at the > eye, how did he see? Maybe you or someone else can clear this up for > me. > > Metta, James Dear James, While the Buddha still lived, he was Nama and rupa. He was citta, cetasika and rupa. Seeing consciousness, citta, arose at the eye base, rupa, and saw visible object, rupa. He saw, he smelt, he heard etc. The cittas that see, smell, hear etc arose at the respective bases to perform their function and then fell away again. Above, you wrote the Buddha didn't have consciousness that arose at the eye; what makes you think he didn't?? Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 29675 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 10:28pm Subject: Re: Six Sense Bases Hi Azita, It occurs to me that the idea that the Buddha was nama-and-rupa springs from one's self-identity view. If you see your self as nama-and-rupa, please consider the following questions: Is nama-and-rupa permanent or impermanent? Is what is impermanent dukkha? Is what is impermanent, dukkha, subject to change fit to be seen thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > wrote: [snip] > > Dear James, > While the Buddha still lived, he was Nama and rupa. He was > citta, cetasika and rupa. Seeing consciousness, citta, arose at the > eye base, rupa, and saw visible object, rupa. > He saw, he smelt, he heard etc. The cittas that see, > smell, hear etc arose at the respective bases to perform their > function and then fell away again. > Above, you wrote the Buddha didn't have consciousness that > arose at the eye; what makes you think he didn't?? > > Patience, courage and good cheer, > Azita. 29676 From: Sarah Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 11:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta Hi Larry & Icaro, A good discussion....Icaro, Nina will be glad to see you and your humour back in good flow when she returns next week too;-) --- icarofranca wrote: L: > "If I may, I would like to ammend a convention. I think it might be > > better to call sankhara khandha "mental fabricators" instead > > of "mental fabrications". The reason for this is that the cetasikas > > that are categorized in this khandha are no more fabricated than the > > other mental factors. Also, this khandha is particularly associated > > with the conditioning of kamma, so in that sense they are > > fabricators. I wonder if they might also have something to do with > > the proliferation of concepts as well." > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > I: > A good remark, Larry: Khandhas are aggregates, so at the > standpoint of a medium level Bhikkhu's mind doesn't matter either if > they fabricate their cetasika's concomitants or are a fabricated > result by them through Kamma. ..... S: Perhaps the stress is on the formed nature of the khandhas. I don't know if these quotes help. sa"nkhaara - formations which are sa"nkhata - conditioned. Khandha - collection of conditioned formations. "Nibbana is nowhere (to be found) amidst conditioned (sa"nkhata) things, since it has as its own nature that which is antithetical to all formations (sa"nkhaara)......for the collocation of things conditioned and unconditioned is (a thing) not witnessed." (Udana comy, Paa.tali Villagers). "Formations also are like a plantain stem in the sense of being insubstantial; likewise in the sense of being ungraspable. For just as one cannot take anything from a plantan stem and bring it away, even as much as a rafter, and what is brought away alters, so also formations cannot be taken as permanent - and even if so taken they alter. And just as a plantain stem is a combination of many sheaths, so also the formations aggregate is a combination of many states. And just as a plantain stem has many characteristics; for one has the appearance of an outer sheath of leaf, but there is another within and another within that; so indeed the formations aggregate also, by combining one characteristic of impression and other characteristics of volition and so on, is called the formations aggregate; thus also the formations aggregate is like a plantain stem." (Vibh-A, Dispeller of Delusion. PTS, Class. of Aggregates,151) Metta, Sarah ===== 29677 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 10:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi Victor I like this answer - Right Understanding. It may not sound fimilar to you but after three days with someone ;-) in the "little funny group" who always said this - one will eventually get the message. Anyway that is a correct method - being consistent and simple and back to the basic. This has been my mantra since a few years ago when I practise Buddhism, so when I heard the simple two words again and again - it strikes a chord. Anyway I was discussing about regression theory and you are asking different thing. Honestly I am afraid to discuss with you further bc you always asking for actual sutta quotes that say this or that. You are more *hardcore* than James [hope he does not butt in again just bc I mention his name ;-)]. Do forgive me if I do not further our discussion. Ken O --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Ken O, > > A question: > > Given the discourses, what do you think is the basic principle that > > the Buddha taught about the five aggregates(khandha)? > > Metta, > Victor > 29678 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 0:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Six Sense Bases Hi James, A good start to Marasamyutta. Not an easy Samyutta (but then are any?). --- buddhatrue wrote: > > It seems that I may owe you an apology, but I am not sure. I was > reading the Chachakka Sutta and according to this sutta eye > consciousness does arise because of contact between the eye and > forms. Not only that, it reads: > > "Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. > Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. > Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the > nose. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at > the tongue. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises > consciousness at the body. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there > arises consciousness at the intellect." > > I am not sure if the Buddha is supposed to be taken literally in this > regard. "Consciousness at the eye" is not very specific, > and "consciousness at the intellect" is even less specific. He > doesn't seem to be pinpointing location, but is just using general > terms. .... S: I think it was with RobK rather than me that you were discussing the location of eye consciousness, but either way, no apology is called for;-) We’re all just sharing and learning as we go along.... I think you’ll find more and more that there really is no conflict between what is taught in the Abhidhamma, commentaries and suttas. .... J: >Not only that, I know of many, many, many scientific > experiments, brain damage research, and drug research that show that > sensory consciousnesses arise in the brain. That is the function of > the brain. Whole areas of the brain have been mapped out that relate > to various sensory processing. .... S:I know. I once had a professor who was a split-brain expert, so remember I was brought up on all this .... However, when we are discussing science, brain and so on, we’re back to the world of concepts.... See ‘science’ in U.P., perhaps;-) I understand what you're saying. .... J: > Also, what about dreaming? When someone is dreaming it isn't just > like an idea contacting the intellect, it is a whole panorama of > sights, sounds, tastes, and touch and ideas separate from that > experience. There isn't any contact with anything. Does the Buddha > explain dreaming consciousness? I can't find a single sutta where he > does. Does the Abhidhamma explain dreaming consciousness? .... S: The Buddha described realities, paramattha dhammas as indicated in the Chachakka sutta. Apart from the khandhas, the ayatanas or the dhatus, anything else experienced now is a concept, a pannatti, including all dreams. To quote from Karunadasa as you find his writing so helpful: http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm ***** “Further, pannattis differ from dhammas in that only the latter are delimited by rise and fall; only of the dhammas and not of the pannattis can it be said, "They come into being having not been (ahutva sambhonti); and, after having been, they cease (hutva pativenti)." 119 Pannattis have no own-nature to be manifested in the three instants of arising, presence, and dissolution. Since they have no existence marked by these three phases, such temporal distinctions as past, present, and future do not apply to them. Consequently they have no reference to time (kalavimutta).120 For this self-same reason, they have no place in the traditional analysis of empirical existence into the five khandhas, for what is included in the khandhas should have the characteristics of empirical reality and be subject to temporal divisions.121 Another noteworthy characteristic of pannattis is that they cannot be described either as conditioned (sankhata) or as unconditioned (asankhata), for they do not possess their own-nature (sabhava) to be so described.122 Since the two categories of the conditioned and the unconditioned comprise all realities, the description of pannattis as exempt from these two categories is another way of underscoring their unreality.” ***** S:I agree with you about the whole panorama that seems to be existed through the senses while we dream. This is the point: we live in a fantasy land most the time, taking the dreams and imaginations for realities. The other evening when we arrived back, there were some fireworks.When I lay down to sleep later, I could still ‘hear’ and ‘see’ them very clearly, but all through the mind door. If we give importance and pay special attention to our fantasies and dreams, the proliferations merely increase. As the texts state: the arahant doesn’t dream. In the Abhidhamma commentary text I just quoted from to Larry, it clearly spells out that ‘with every kind of five-door consciousness he does not fall asleep, nor sleep, nor wake up, nor see any dreams............For while one is sleeping, when a lamp lit with a big wick is brought near his eye, eye-door advertence does not interrupt the life continuum (bhavanga) first, but mind-door advertence only interrupts it...” In other words, there is only mind-door consciousness while we dream. I could quote more, but it’s technical. This will be of interest to you, however, in real brief: “But one who sees a dream sees it owing to four reasons, namely: 1) owing to a disturbance of the elements (dhaatukkhobha), or 2) owing to what was experienced previously (anubhuutapubba), or 3) owing to provision by deities (devatopasa.mhaara), or 4) owing to a portent (pubbanimitta).” (Vibhanga-a, Classification of Knowledge, 2048f) .... J: > What got me to thinking about this is "The Farmer" in SN, > Marasamyutta 19 (9): > > "The eye is yours, Evil One, forms are yours, eye-contact and its > base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no > eye, no forms, no eye-contact and its base of consciousness—there is > no place for you there, Evil One. (297) > > (297) Here the Buddha is obviously referring to Nibbana. Cp. 35:117 > on the cessation of the six sense bases. .... S: From the same part of the Udana comy I just quoted from to Larry, we read about nibbana which ‘does no possess the own nature of being born, become and created possessed by states that are conditioned, such as name and form and so on.’ Nibbana cannot be clung to or the object of clinging either (see your witty Mara intro;-)). Only by understanding the conditioned dhammas as anatta can the unconditioned dhamma be realized. ‘...there is made known an escape from sense-desires and forms and so on that have that which surpasses them (which escape) consists of that which is their opposite (and) which as as its own nature that which is the antithesis of same, so does there have to be and escape from all conditioned states having that as their own nature...’ (Udana comy, Patali Villagers ch). .... J: > From my understanding, the Buddha no longer had a consciousness that > was bound by rupa, it was unbounded, however, he still had eyes and > he could still see. How? Here he is saying that he doesn't have any > eyes; surely this isn't to be taken literally. If seeing is > dependent on consciousness that arises at the eye from contact with > form, but the Buddha didn't have consciousness that arises at the > eye, how did he see? Maybe you or someone else can clear this up for > me. .... S: I think Victor has clarified and for once I agree with his comments;-) You gave the ‘coming back to the mountain’ analogy. I’d say to you and KenO, it all comes back to the present eye consciousness and forms which continue to arise and fall just as they’ve always done. Metta, Sarah “Having known as useless any austerity Aimed at the immortal state, That all such penances are futile Like oars and rudder on dry land....”SN4, 1 Austere Practice ?Maybe relevant to other threads ====== 29679 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 1:04am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hi Michael, --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello Sarah, > > Welcome back to our routine :) ... S: Thank you. I missed the discussions with you, James & Victor too;-) It’s been good to read your posts while we’ve been away. What did you think about the sections on sabhava, lakkhana and paramattha dhammas and the conclusions in the Karunadasa article that others have been reading? Can we yet agree with his conclusion here on sabhava? “It will thus be seen that although the term sabhava is used as a synonym for dhamma, it is interpreted in such a way that it means the absence of sabhava in any sense that implies a substantial mode of being.” ... > Sarah: > In any case, the latter ‘strict tecnical sense’ as Jon wrote before, > this > ‘is simply a streamwinner progressing to the corresponsing fruition > moment.’ > > Michael: > You are confirming what I said. He is a stream-winner and continues his > practice (i.e. progressing) towards fruition. Two distinct separate > moments > that do not happen in succession. .... S: I think this ‘strict technical sense’ refers to the way that the fruition consciousness cittas follow the path consciousness citta when nibbana is realized. For the interpretation of the sutta, I understand it according to the scale I mapped out which the limited commentary note given seemed to concur with, i.e the worldling with insight on the way to becoming a sotapanna, progressing to being a sotapanna (sotapatti magga citta, followed by sotapatti phala cittas). I think the technical note Bodhi gave and my extra comments on this confused the issue. I’d like to see the Pali and a good translation of the commentary note really. In Bangkok, Num looked at the Thai version but said it didn’ t include much. .... M: >Here is another sutta for you: > > “And furthermore, just as the ocean is the abode of such mighty beings > as > whales, whale-eaters, and whale-eater-eaters; asuras, nagas, and > gandhabbas, > and there are in the ocean beings one hundred leagues long, two > hundred... > three hundred... four hundred... five hundred leagues long; in the same > way, > this Doctrine and Discipline is the abode of such mighty beings as > stream-winners and those practicing to realize the fruit of stream-entry > .. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka/udana/ud5-05.html#abode ..... S:I gave the comy to this part of the passage yesterday, under the technical note. I think it clearly refers to the 8 ariya puggala, i.e the 4 pairs of magga and phala cittas that realize nibbana. ... M: > The beings that live in the ocean are clearly different individual > beings, > and the stream-winners and those practicing for the fruit are also > different > individuals, otherwise the analogy doesn’t make sense. .... S:I think the analogy is referring to all the ‘Greats’ that have discovered the ‘Great Ocean’. All the ariyans in other words. I understand the difficulty with the words, but accept that this is the way it’s expressed in the suttas and elsewhere. I know this won’t satisfy:-) Here’s a quote from the same sutta, relevant I had before with Howard, (Masefield transl): “Just as, monks, the Great Ocean progressively sloes, progressively tends, progressively inclines, is no sudden precipice at all, so in that very same way, monks, are there in this Dhamma and Discipline progressive trainings, progressive obligations, progressive practices, there being no sudden penetration of supreme knowledge. That there are, monks, in this Dhamma and Discipline progressive trainings, progressive obligations, progressive practices, there being no sudden penetration of supreme knowledge, is, mons the first thing with respec to this Dhamma and Discipline that is a marvel, that is unprecedented, upon repeatedly seeing which the monks take delight in this Dhamma and Discipline.” Metta, Sarah “There is but one moment (kha.no) and occasion (samayo), monks, for living the Brahmacariya” (A iv 227) ====================== 29680 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 1:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hi Steve, --- bodhi2500 wrote: > Hi All > Thanks to all who replied to my last post on this thread. > Here is another sutta about sotapanna that I don't understand> > > Practising..SN48;18;8 > > Bhikkhus, there are these five faculties. What five? The faculty of > Faith/energy/mindfulness/concentration and wisdom. > One who has completed and fulfilled these five faculties is an > Arahant. If they are weaker than that, one is practicing for the > fruit of Arahantship;If still weaker,one is a non-returner etc /snip/ > if still weaker, one is a stream-enterer; if still weaker, one is > practicing for the realization of the fruit of stream entry. > But Bhikhhus, I say that for one in whom these five faculties are > completely and totally absent is `an outsider, one who stands in the > faction of worldlings' ..... I would read this sutta with the wider meaning that I gave to the one from MN, Offerings, yesterday with gradual decrease in wisdom and 'five faculties' stages, the last two being the one developing satipatthana (5 indriya are developed and balanced at moments of satipatthana) on the way to becoming a sotapanna and then the last one, the 'outsider' not developing the faculties at all. ..... > Com.> In this sutta the faculties are exclusively supramundane. .... Hmmm....not sure how this fits my last comments. Can you check the Pali or let me know what you think? Otherwise Nina may help more on return. .... > Anyone know why the faculties of a "one practicing for the fruit of > Stream entry" would be weaker than a stream-enterers faculties? .... See above and the MN comy note I gave yesterday. what do you think? Metta, Sarah ====== 29681 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 1:34am Subject: Re: need help... Hi Ken (and Wen), Ken: While reading the article (Letters from Mara) posted by James, I thought about your meditations on death and repulsiveness: It occurred to me that, right now, all around the world, there are people lying on their deathbeds; their bodies bloated and pustulant, convulsed in horrendous pain. Many of these people want only to die. Do they need to be told their bodies are repulsive? Should we tell them that their troubles would be over if only they would stop seeing their bodies as desirable and beautiful? -- Or if only they would stop clinging to physical pleasures? If we did, we would be thrown out of the hospital. And rightly so! James: I think you are taking what I posted a bit out of context. Of course people in the hospital, suffering in pain, should not be told that their bodies are repulsive. I never even suggested such a thing. That would be uncompassionate to the extreme. What I posted is of course for the serious Dhamma practioner to consider, not for anyone else. For example, if I told my mother that her body is repulsive, she might just clobber me over the head! ;-)) As far as Wen, I have declined to give him any comments because he asked for advice from a Sangha member. I am thinking that he means a bhikkhu, but I will give you my input, Ken, since you bring me up in conjunction with him. I don't think that Wen should be doing any such meditation and I think he should seek the counsel of a therapist. From my understanding, this type of meditation is done only by bhikkhus and then only by those bhikkhus who harbor a strong lust for the body. Not only that, the actual body doesn't have to be present or to have photographs of it, a visualization is quite sufficient. I think for anyone to seek out pictures of diseased and bloating corpses and skeletons, and want to meditate on those pictures, it reveals a mental disorder of an insidious sort. It is an over objectification of the body that is beyond the scope of Buddhism. For example, recently a German man was sentenced to seven and a half years in prison for placing an ad on the Internet for another man who was willing to be `slaughtered and consumed'. Believe it or not, someone answered that ad. This German man, with the victims consent, slaughtered and consumed the other man. This isn't Buddhism, even though the victim must have felt repulsiveness for his body to offer it for sacrifice, it is a mental disorder. Another example, there is a German (hmmm…what is it with those Germans? ;-)) (just kidding) who has a display of human bodies in various poses, like playing basketball, etc., which I also find repugnant. Here is the article I read this morning (Warning: complete with gory photographs): http://story.news.yahoo.com/news? tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040203/ap_on_en_ot/corpse_artist_3 Metta, James 29682 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 1:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yet more discussion (and food) Hi Ken O, --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Sarah > > What strikes me during our discussion is when A Sujin say it just > about nama and rupa and right understanding on them. It was not even > kusala and akusala nama, it is about just the basic - nama and rupa. > When I think about it, what she is trying to put across is to have > less thinking but more direct understanding of reality. I think > whenever we try to understand the characteristic of kusala and > akusala, there is a likelihood that we are thinking and not > understanding reality. ..... Excellent! Very sharp;-) I can't describe to others your multi-tasking abilities during discussions - reading through DSG print-outs and making comments on Abhidhamma details in posts, checking Pali terms, giving a running sub-commentary, talking to your neighbours, fiddling with cups and yet still hearing the vital but subtle reminders from A Sujin;-);-) (I look forward to what you found on the arahant's smiling consciousness, cittas with and without panna and anything else. Jhanas and samatha development - all with panna, but not satipatthana panna. Concepts as object (usually). Judgmental and Vince's comments - I think the point is that we all make judgements which may or may not be right, but it always comes back to the present namas and rupas to be known as you indicate above. Hope we can persuade Vince to join us here one day - he's like a brother to me too;-)) Another point from the discussions which may be relevant- Nina raised the 10 punna-kiriya-vatthu (meritorious deeds) which RobM has referred to and which have been discussed here. Before Nina could complete a sentence about (the value of) RobM's developing and performing of these, A Sujin interrupted with the comment: '(It's) for him'. Various reactions round the table of shock, smiles, consternation, disagreement, puzzlement and so on. Comments were made such as 'but, it's good', 'he's so kind', 'we start where we are' etc. The implication of A.Sujin's comment was that when we have the idea of 'doing good', 'developing wholesome states', 'having metta', 'increasing meritorious deeds', there is an underlying clinging to self, wanting to be the good person, the one with metta or generosity and so on. If anyone wishes to question this further, pls join us next time in Bangkok or read Sukin's or Ken H's definitions of meditation;-) Metta, Sarah ======= 29683 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 1:41am Subject: Re: Six Sense Bases Hi Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi James, > > This is how I see it: > > As long as an arahant lived, he saw with eyes, heard with ears, > smelled with nose, tasted with tongue, sensed with body, and thought > with intellect just like everyone else. Eye, ear, nose, tongue, > body, and intellect are to be seen as the old kamma. The new kamma > are whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with > the intellect. The cessation of kamma is the cessation of bodily > kamma, verbal kamma, and mental kamma: it is the release, the > unbinding, the cessation of dukkha. > > Without the cessation of kamma, one would just keep wandering in the > round of rebirth. Realizing the cessation of dukkha, the arahant > would no longer do any kamma with the body, with speech, or with the > intellect. Nevertheless, until the arahant passed into the total > unbinding(parinibbana), he still lived in the world with the eye & > forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile > sensations, intellect & ideas, with form, feeling, perception, > fabrications, and consciousness, the whole aggregate of dukkha, that > inevitably followed the last birth. > > For reference to old kamma, new kamma, and the cessation of kamma, > see: > > Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.145 > Kamma Sutta > Action > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn35-145.html > > Metta, > Victor Thank you for your input. Yes, I also considered this but the Buddha was speaking in the present tense, not after his parinibbana; and the note was also in the present tense saying that the Buddha was referring to nibbana, not parinibbana. I can accept that parinibbana is what the Buddha meant but I am not so sure. Metta, James 29684 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 2:11am Subject: Re: Six Sense Bases Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi James, > > A good start to Marasamyutta. Not an easy Samyutta (but then are any?). Thank you for the post. You have gone to a lot of effort to give me a lot of sources and I do appreciate that. I am not going to pick it apart and reply because I would just be redundant. Unfortunately, I don't really find one thing you say helpful or illuminating. It is all kinds of vague talk about `realities of the present moment' and `science is concept' and I don't sense that you have any real knowledge of what you are saying. No offense, but it is like you are a tape recorder just repeating the same old things you have been conditioned to repeat again and again. Think outside the box and tell me what you know based on what you personally experience AND on what you read. I will ponder this issue more deeply and maybe reach a conclusion myself. At this point, I am thinking that the Buddha was simply being a pragmatist and did not feel the need to go into a technical explanation of brain function, dream function, etc. That wouldn't be conducive to the end of suffering. Sorry, but I am not going to buy any of that stuff about science being a concept and the Abhidhamma being real. It is hogwash. And I am also not going to read any other posts on the matter because I don't want to be conditioned to sound like a tape recorder myself. No offense, just being honest. Metta, James 29685 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 1:49am Subject: Re: Six Sense Bases Hi Azita, > Dear James, > While the Buddha still lived, he was Nama and rupa. He was > citta, cetasika and rupa. Seeing consciousness, citta, arose at the > eye base, rupa, and saw visible object, rupa. > He saw, he smelt, he heard etc. The cittas that see, > smell, hear etc arose at the respective bases to perform their > function and then fell away again. > Above, you wrote the Buddha didn't have consciousness that > arose at the eye; what makes you think he didn't?? > > Patience, courage and good cheer, > Azita. Thank you for your reply. I am just going on what he said in the sutta. He said he didn't have eyes, ears, nose, mouth, body, or mind. He didn't say he won't have those things after parinibbana, he said he doesn't have them now. I am not putting words in his mouth, I don't think. I am simply trying to understand what he meant. Metta, James 29686 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 2:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] New Photos Hi Sukin, --- Sukinderpal Singh Narula wrote: > Hi all, > > Some new photos from the recent Bangkok meeting in the DSGMeetings > folder. ... Thanks for posting these so promptly. Also thanks to ANDY for your pic in the member album. Any more, anyone?? Metta, Sarah ===== 29687 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 3:08am Subject: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi Ken O, Ken: You are more *hardcore* than James [hope he does not butt in again just bc I mention his name ;-)]. James: Huh? What? Did you mention my name? ;-)) Metta, James 29688 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 3:28am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Andy, --- Andy Wilson wrote: > Ken: K:> > They are not inspired by the Buddha bc only Buddha has > > the knowledge of Abhidhamma. They are taught by the Buddha to > > VEN Sariputta. No Arahants can teach the dhamma without > > Buddha teaching them in the first place. Not even a pacceka > > Buddha can teach the dhamma. > A:> The question of 'authorship' of abhidhamma makes me want to ask: is what > is at stake here the question of whether the buddha could be the buddha > if he did *not* have abhiddhama knowledge (ie., prior to codification / > authoring of abhidhamma texts)? .... Very good question. According to the texts, there are 30 regulations for 'all Buddhas but not shared by others'. Pls see these posts which list them: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m17773.html http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m17774.html Note this is one: 19) the teaching of Abhidhamma in the abode of the Thirty-Three; Metta, Sarah ===== 29689 From: Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 3:15pm Subject: Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism - Long Hello Ken O, and thank-you for your continued interest in ecstasy (jhana), I am sure it can only bring you a pleasant abiding in the here and now. As for your question about ancient texts, I am not sure what ancient texts you are talking about, unless you are speaking of the Pali canon. If you are speaking of the Pali canon, then I assure you I have not challenged the source material, only the translation of that source. For your third question regarding Arahants, I believe the Buddha defined an Arahant by some level of jhanic attainment, and I accept that as well. As for your third question, I have never said nor implied that mindfulness is not an intimate part of jhana. In fact I agree with you one does not arrive at jhana without a dedicated contemplative practice, thus requiring the cultivation of what you call "mindfulness." Best regards, Jeff Brooks In a message dated 2/3/04 2:22:52 AM, dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com writes: << Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:50:10 +0000 (GMT) From: Kenneth Ong Subject: Re: Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism - Long Hi Jeff Brooks You definition of jhana is not in accordance with Ancient text - are you also doubting those Arahants who wrote it???? Do you doubt that the Arahants not experiencing jhanas??? By the way you have not answer my previous qn, your definition of jhana is only esctasy but in the sutta it is both esctasy and mindfullness so how do you explain this jhanas of yours is only esctasy. Ken O >> 29690 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 5:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Six Sense Bases Hi All, A correction: --- Sarah wrote: > Hi James, >S:......Only by understanding the > conditioned dhammas as anatta can the unconditioned dhamma be realized. > ‘just as.... there is made known an escape from sense-desires and forms and so on that have that which surpasses them, (which escape) consists of that which is their opposite (and) which HAS as its own nature that which is the antithesis of same, so does there have to be AN escape from all conditioned states having that as their own nature...’ (Udana comy, Patali Villagers ch). > .... Apologies for the other typos. Sarah ===================================== 29691 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 5:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yet more discussion (and food) Dear All, Another correction: --- Sarah wrote: > Another point from the discussions which may be relevant- Nina raised > the > 10 punna-kiriya-vatthu (meritorious deeds) which RobM has referred to > and > which have been discussed here. .... In our live discussions, only issues and not names are raised or discussed. Apologies (esp. to Rob & Nina) for making it sound as though there was anything at all personal in the discussion which is not correct. Metta, Sarah ===== 29692 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 2:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, Howard, I thought you wrote the following message very well and would like to requote it for others who’ve been away and may have missed it: J:> Honestly though, I am not sure > what you mean by `shorthand truth' and `non-literal truth'. To me, > truth is truth. > ======================= H:> Actually, the thing that is literal or non-literal isn't the truth, per se, of the sentence involved, but the meaning. When we say "A person is coming for dinner," it sounds like we mean that some actual thing that we can pin down (a "person") is engaging in a well delineable activity (the "coming") that involves some other actual thing we can pin down ("dinner"). Taking it that way is to provide a literal understanding for a conventional utterance. From the Buddhist perspective, and from my perspective, the conventional meaning of the statement is a "manner-of-speaking" meaning, and it only very indirectly corresponds to the facts; and if the statement is understood quite literally, then is quite false (even when somebody IS coming to dinner ;-). However, the statement, makes perfectly good conventional sense, and it is, when understood that way, quite possibly true. Now, there is a literal meaning that the conventional formulation abbreviates - and there are levels and levels of more and more complex formulation that more and more closely express the literal meaning, but that literal meaning is pragmatically inexpressible in a direct manner, requiring a (near-)infinite complexity. Thus, to communicate, we *must* use conventional formulation. The trouble is that we are in the habit of taking our conventional formulations as bearing literal meaning. The Buddha used conventional formulations all the time, because he communicated, and they are needed to communicate, but he directly saw what is literally the case and was not taken in by convention.< end quote> Metta and good to read your other posts too:-) Sarah ======= 29693 From: Andy Wilson Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 7:00am Subject: RE: [dsg] new member Sarah S: > Do you have a pic to go in the Member album? i have added my picture for the enlightenment and edification of all :) S: > Meanwhile, RobM kindly responded and mentioned Nina's book on > Abhidhamma and CMA, I think. I bought copies of Nina's 'Cetasikas' and 'Abhidhamma in Daily Life' and very much look forward to reading them. Unfortunately they have had to join a small pile of Abhidhamma-related texts that await my attention once I finish my first reading of (Bodhi's edition of) the Abhidhammattha Sangaha. This is proceeding very slowly indeed as I find I am taking huge amounts of notes. In some sections I find myself practically transcribing the text into my notebook, it's so beautifully terse and yet bursting with implications at every line. I think this slow approach is the best way to introduce myself to the text. It does, however, mean that I'm only now approaching the close of #2 / compendium of mental factors. I don't know if that means I have too little knowledge to participate properly in this forum (which, from the posts, takes place at a high level), but perhaps my misunderstandings and impressions as a new reader from a non-buddhist background may be of some interest to others. if that turns out not to be the case, i will enjoy lurking anyway, i'm sure :) S: > Btw, we have two on-going (but currently taking short breaks) study > corners and you may find it useful to purchase the texts. One is the > Visuddhimagga - Understanding corner led by Larry. The other is the > Samyutta Nikaya (mostly using the Bodhi translation) one led by James*. Again, I now have copies of these texts and only wait for the time to give them the attention they deserve. may i ask how a 'study corner' works? i would like to take part if it is appropriate. If i can finish with what may sound like a foolish question: when people sign off 'metta' i understand that they intend 'loving-kindness', but are they reporting something about themselves or using it as a merely formal device? does it represent an aspiration to metta, a claim to it? or is it simply polite to sign off this way? As you'll have guessed, being British I'd hate to appear impolite, but on the other hand don't want to appear to be saying something about myself that either isn't true or at least isn't known by me to be true :) to a neophyte it seems a bold claim, if i understand it. tia (or, possibly, metta) andy 29694 From: Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 3:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 2/4/04 8:55:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Hi, Howard, > > I thought you wrote the following message very well and would like to > requote it for others who’ve been away and may have missed it ======================== Welcome back! Thank you for letting me know that you like this. Of course, you are free to quote any of my rantings ;-), whether you wish to express approval or disapproval. 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) 29695 From: Michael Beisert Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 9:09am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hello Sarah, Sarah: What did you think about the sections on sabhava, lakkhana and paramattha dhammas and the conclusions in the Karunadasa article that others have been reading? Can we yet agree with his conclusion here on sabhava? “It will thus be seen that although the term sabhava is used as a synonym for dhamma, it is interpreted in such a way that it means the absence of sabhava in any sense that implies a substantial mode of being.” Michael: I am still digesting the article. It will take me some time to comment. Do you think the views of the ‘abhidhamikas’ in this list very much agree with what Karunadasa writes in that article? Sarah: I think this ‘strict technical sense’ refers to the way that the fruition consciousness cittas follow the path consciousness citta when nibbana is realized. Michael: I don’t see anything you wrote to convince me that you are right. The reading from the suttas that I posted is quite obvious, magga and phala are portrayed as two distinct individuals, two separate and distinct moments of consciousness that do not happen in succession. This interpretation is also supported by the teachings I heard from a well respected and studied bhikkhu. In my mind the interpretation you gave is a blunder by Buddhaghosa. Metta Michael >From: Sarah >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno >Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:04:31 +0800 (CST) > >Hi Michael, > > --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello Sarah, > > > > Welcome back to our routine :) >... >S: Thank you. I missed the discussions with you, James & Victor too;-) >It’s been good to read your posts while we’ve been away. What did you >think about the sections on sabhava, lakkhana and paramattha dhammas and >the conclusions in the Karunadasa article that others have been reading? >Can we yet agree with his conclusion here on sabhava? > >“It will thus be seen that although the term sabhava is used as a synonym >for dhamma, it is interpreted in such a way that it means the absence of >sabhava in any sense that implies a substantial mode of being.” > >... > > Sarah: > > In any case, the latter ‘strict tecnical sense’ as Jon wrote before, > > this > > ‘is simply a streamwinner progressing to the corresponsing fruition > > moment.’ > > > > Michael: > > You are confirming what I said. He is a stream-winner and continues his > > practice (i.e. progressing) towards fruition. Two distinct separate > > moments > > that do not happen in succession. >.... >S: I think this ‘strict technical sense’ refers to the way that the >fruition consciousness cittas follow the path consciousness citta when >nibbana is realized. For the interpretation of the sutta, I understand it >according to the scale I mapped out which the limited commentary note >given seemed to concur with, i.e the worldling with insight on the way to >becoming a sotapanna, progressing to being a sotapanna (sotapatti magga >citta, followed by sotapatti phala cittas). > >I think the technical note Bodhi gave and my extra comments on this >confused the issue. > >I’d like to see the Pali and a good translation of the commentary note >really. In Bangkok, Num looked at the Thai version but said it didn’ t >include much. >.... >M: >Here is another sutta for you: > > > > “And furthermore, just as the ocean is the abode of such mighty beings > > as > > whales, whale-eaters, and whale-eater-eaters; asuras, nagas, and > > gandhabbas, > > and there are in the ocean beings one hundred leagues long, two > > hundred... > > three hundred... four hundred... five hundred leagues long; in the same > > way, > > this Doctrine and Discipline is the abode of such mighty beings as > > stream-winners and those practicing to realize the fruit of stream-entry > > .. > > > > >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka/udana/ud5-05.html#abode >..... >S:I gave the comy to this part of the passage yesterday, under the >technical note. I think it clearly refers to the 8 ariya puggala, i.e the >4 pairs of magga and phala cittas that realize nibbana. >... >M: > The beings that live in the ocean are clearly different individual > > beings, > > and the stream-winners and those practicing for the fruit are also > > different > > individuals, otherwise the analogy doesn’t make sense. >.... >S:I think the analogy is referring to all the ‘Greats’ that have >discovered the ‘Great Ocean’. All the ariyans in other words. I understand >the difficulty with the words, but accept that this is the way it’s >expressed in the suttas and elsewhere. I know this won’t satisfy:-) > >Here’s a quote from the same sutta, relevant I had before with Howard, >(Masefield transl): > >“Just as, monks, the Great Ocean progressively sloes, progressively tends, >progressively inclines, is no sudden precipice at all, so in that very >same way, monks, are there in this Dhamma and Discipline progressive >trainings, progressive obligations, progressive practices, there being no >sudden penetration of supreme knowledge. That there are, monks, in this >Dhamma and Discipline progressive trainings, progressive obligations, >progressive practices, there being no sudden penetration of supreme >knowledge, is, mons the first thing with respec to this Dhamma and >Discipline that is a marvel, that is unprecedented, upon repeatedly seeing >which the monks take delight in this Dhamma and Discipline.” > >Metta, > >Sarah > >“There is but one moment (kha.no) and occasion (samayo), monks, for living >the Brahmacariya” (A iv 227) >====================== 29696 From: Michael Beisert Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 9:23am Subject: RE: [dsg] new member Hello Andy, Andy: If i can finish with what may sound like a foolish question: when people sign off 'metta' i understand that they intend 'loving-kindness', but are they reporting something about themselves or using it as a merely formal device? does it represent an aspiration to metta, a claim to it? or is it simply polite to sign off this way? As you'll have guessed, being British I'd hate to appear impolite, but on the other hand don't want to appear to be saying something about myself that either isn't true or at least isn't known by me to be true :) to a neophyte it seems a bold claim, if i understand it. Michael: The most destructive emotion for oneself and others is anger/hatred. The Buddha once compared being angry as the same as the person throwing hot embers at the other person. It hurts both and first the person who is angry. Anger pervades the world. Loving kindness or loving friendliness (metta) is the best antidote to anger. By signing off with metta I try to remind myself of that every time, and hopefully the reader will also be reminded. Metta Michael 29697 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 10:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Six Sense Bases Hi Sarah, I gave a rather terse reply to this post which has been bothering me for a couple of hours now. You would think I would have learned not to ask you direct questions by now, since I hardly ever agree with the answers, but I guess I haven't! ;-)) I want to give a more thorough reply. Sarah: A good start to Marasamyutta. Not an easy Samyutta (but then are any?). James: Well, there are quite a few in this section easier than this one but I didn't want to bore everyone by picking an easy one to discuss. Sarah: I think you'll find more and more that there really is no conflict between what is taught in the Abhidhamma, commentaries and suttas. James: Actually, I am finding quite the opposite. I am finding that quite a lot of mental gymnastics have to be done to make the Abhidhamma and commentaries match the suttas. Frankly, I don't know why you don't see this yourself. Haven't you noticed that this group never runs out of things to disagree about?? When looking at the suttas and then the Abhidhamma and commentaries are thrown in it becomes a real mess! (like some of what I see in this post). Sarah: I know. I once had a professor who was a split-brain expert, so remember I was brought up on all this .... However, when we are discussing science, brain and so on, we're back to the world of concepts.... See `science' in U.P., perhaps;-) I understand what you're saying. James: Okay, I have read all of them and I don't see your point. Most of them are about how science doesn't have the goal of liberation but Buddhism does. Okay. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out! ;-)) The problem that I see however is that the Abhidhamma often intrudes into the territory of science. For example, I found in one of the `science' posts this quote from Nina, " The Abhidhamma teaches that at the first moment of life of a human there arise three groups of ten rupas (dasakas): one with the heartbase, one with bodysense and one with sex. But these are infinitesimally tiny. The Abhidhamma does not have science as its goal. The goal is knowing dhammas as they are." What? How is knowing that at the moment of human life there arise three groups of ten rupas, etc., etc., etc., this is pure science!!! It is not very good science, but it is science all the same. There is nothing dhamma about this information. Knowing this isn't going to lead anyone to liberation. Nina also writes in another post, "With rupas it may seem that there is a conflict between science and the teaching of the Abhidhamma, they may not see that there *is no conflict*." I don't think Nina knows science all that well because I can tell you that there are conflicts galore!! When more is known about the brain I am sure we are going to see a lot of conflicts with nama theory as well. All of this stuff from the Abhidhamma is pseudo-scientific and it doesn't really lead to liberation. Liberation as in: Don't do evil, do only good, and purify the mind. Sarah: The Buddha described realities, paramattha dhammas as indicated in the Chachakka sutta. Apart from the khandhas, the ayatanas or the dhatus, anything else experienced now is a concept, a pannatti, including all dreams. To quote from Karunadasa as you find his writing so helpful: http://www.abhidhamma.org/dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm ***** "Further, pannattis differ from dhammas in that only the latter are delimited by rise and fall; only of the dhammas and not of the pannattis can it be said, "They come into being having not been (ahutva sambhonti); and, after having been, they cease (hutva pativenti)." 119 Pannattis have no own-nature to be manifested in the three instants of arising, presence, and dissolution. Since they have no existence marked by these three phases, such temporal distinctions as past, present, and future do not apply to them. Consequently they have no reference to time (kalavimutta).120 For this self-same reason, they have no place in the traditional analysis of empirical existence into the five khandhas, for what is included in the khandhas should have the characteristics of empirical reality and be subject to temporal divisions.121 Another noteworthy characteristic of pannattis is that they cannot be described either as conditioned (sankhata) or as unconditioned (asankhata), for they do not possess their own-nature (sabhava) to be so described.122 Since the two categories of the conditioned and the unconditioned comprise all realities, the description of pannattis as exempt from these two categories is another way of underscoring their unreality." James: Yes, Karunadasa's writing is very helpful, but he is simply describing Abhidhamma theory: which I don't agree with. I don't see where the Buddha taught the concepts of paramattha dhammas and pannatti in the same way which it is done in the Abhidhamma: saying one is real and the other isn't. The senses bring in information from the outside world and the brain forms concepts from that sensory input (consciousness which arises at the intellect). It is illusionary to think that the mind knows paramattha dhammas directly but not pannatti. Paramattha dhammas are only known as concept as well. The only exception to this, I believe, is during deep meditation when the mind is focused on a single object in a jhanic state or vipassana state and there is `pure awareness'. Anyway, this doesn't answer my question as to the LOCATION of the arising of the consciousness (this is why I wrote that no matter what I ask you I seem to always get the same answer). Sarah: In other words, there is only mind-door consciousness while we dream. James: The dreams are begun and continued by mind-door consciousness but they involve perceptual consciousness as well: "Dreaming reverses the normal sequence of perceptual events. When awake we perceive something from the outside and then process the information in the cortex. In dreams, there are internally generated images, which are fed backwards as if coming from the outside and abstract thoughts are converted into concrete perceptions. That is why there is a cessation of dreaming when there is damage to the gray cortex at the back of the brain (occipito-temporo-parietal junction) which is where the brain performs the highest level of processing of perceptual information." http://www.apsa.org/pubinfo/remqa.htm This is why I say that consciousness doesn't actually arise at the various sense organs but in the brain. Now, I don't think that the `brain' and the `mind' are the same thing; but we can save that discussion for another time. Anyway, the Abhidhamma is obviously entering scientific territory when it describes the location of the arising of consciousness. I don't think the Buddha actually described location; he spoke in more general terms in the suttas (or at least I hope so or I have a disagreement with the Buddha, which doesn't make me comfortable and maybe why I am so agitated about this subject…sorry for taking it out on you, Sarah). Sarah: From the same part of the Udana comy I just quoted from to Larry, we read about nibbana which `does no possess the own nature of being born, become and created possessed by states that are conditioned, such as name and form and so on.' Nibbana cannot be clung to or the object of clinging either (see your witty Mara intro;- )). Only by understanding the conditioned dhammas as anatta can the unconditioned dhamma be realized. James: This doesn't answer my question. It is like we are ships passing in the night. ;-)) Sarah: You gave the `coming back to the mountain' analogy. I'd say to you and KenO, it all comes back to the present eye consciousness and forms which continue to arise and fall just as they've always done. James: Again, not directly related to what I wrote. We are missing contact. Metta, James 29698 From: bodhi2500 Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 3:42pm Subject: Re: Sotaapanno Hi Sarah and all, > > Practising..SN48;18;8 > > > > Bhikkhus, there are these five faculties. What five? The faculty of > > Faith/energy/mindfulness/concentration and wisdom. > > One who has completed and fulfilled these five faculties is an > > Arahant. If they are weaker than that, one is practicing for the > > fruit of Arahantship;If still weaker,one is a non-returner etc /snip/ > > if still weaker, one is a stream-enterer; if still weaker, one is > > practicing for the realization of the fruit of stream entry. > > But Bhikhhus, I say that for one in whom these five faculties are > > completely and totally absent is `an outsider, one who stands in the > > faction of worldlings' > ..... Sarah: > I would read this sutta with the wider meaning that I gave to the one from > MN, Offerings, yesterday with gradual decrease in wisdom and 'five > faculties' stages, the last two being the one developing satipatthana (5 > indriya are developed and balanced at moments of satipatthana) on the way > to becoming a sotapanna and then the last one, the 'outsider' not > developing the faculties at all. > ..... That is how I understood it as well. > > Com.> In this sutta the faculties are exclusively supramundane. > .... Sarah: > Hmmm....not sure how this fits my last comments. Can you check the Pali or > let me know what you think? Otherwise Nina may help more on return. > .... The Pali is > imasmi.m sutte lokuttaraaneva indriyaani kathitaani. In this Sutta lokuttaraaneva indriyaani is spoken (of) > > Anyone know why the faculties of a "one practicing for the fruit of > > Stream entry" would be weaker than a stream-enterers faculties? > .... > See above and the MN comy note I gave yesterday. what do you think? I think the com. notes stating the faculties are lokuttara dont support a reading that "one practicing for the realization of the fruit of stream entry" is being used in the wider sense, as a worldling developing satipatthana. Pali for the Sutta, Atthakatha and Tika> 8. Pa.tipannasutta.m 488. "Pa~ncimaani, bhikkhave, indriyaani. katamaani pa~nca? saddhindriya.m …pe… pa~n~nindriya.mimaani kho, bhikkhave, pa~ncindriyaani. imesa.m kho, bhikkhave, pa~ncanna.m indriyaana.m samattaa paripuurattaa araha.m hoti, tato mudutarehi arahattaphalasacchikiriyaaya pa.tipanno hoti, tato mudutarehi anaagaamii hoti, tato mudutarehi anaagaamiphalasacchikiriyaaya pa.tipanno hoti, tato mudutarehi sakadaagaamii hoti, tato mudutarehi sakadaagaamiphalasacchikiriyaaya pa.tipanno hoti, tato mudutarehi sotaapanno hoti, tato mudutarehi sotaapattiphalasacchikiriyaaya pa.tipanno hoti. yassa kho, bhikkhave, imaani pa~ncindriyaani sabbena sabba.m sabbathaa sabba.m natthi, tamaha.m `baahiro puthujjanapakkhe .thito'ti vadaamii"ti. a.t.thama.m. Atthakatha 488. A.t.thame tato mudutarehiiti maggaphalavasena nissakka.m veditabba.m. ta.m paa.liya.m vuttameva. baahiroti imehi a.t.thahi puggalehi bahibhuuto. puthujjanapakkhe .thitoti puthujjanako.t.thaase .thito. imasmi.m sutte lokuttaraaneva indriyaani kathitaani. Tika 488. Tanti maggaphalavasena nissakka.m. paa.liya.m vuttameva "arahattaphalasacchikiriyaaya pa.tipanno hotii"ti- aadinaa. a.t.thahiiti catuuhi phalehi catuuhi ca maggehiiti a.t.thahi. bahibhuuto na antobhaavo. lokuttaraaneva indriyaani kathitaani maggaphalacittuppaadapariyaapannattaa. Steve 29699 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 7:00pm Subject: [dsg] Re: concept and ultimate realty in the suttas Hi Ken, I am not sure what it means by Right Understanding. Does it mean Right View (samma-ditthi)? Please don't get intimidating with my questioning. Sometimes I ask question to seek clarification on what others are talking about. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Victor > > I like this answer - Right Understanding. It may not sound fimilar > to you but after three days with someone ;-) in the "little funny > group" who always said this - one will eventually get the message. > Anyway that is a correct method - being consistent and simple and > back to the basic. This has been my mantra since a few years ago > when I practise Buddhism, so when I heard the simple two words again > and again - it strikes a chord. > > Anyway I was discussing about regression theory and you are asking > different thing. Honestly I am afraid to discuss with you further bc > you always asking for actual sutta quotes that say this or that. > You are more *hardcore* than James [hope he does not butt in again > just bc I mention his name ;-)]. Do forgive me if I do not further > our discussion. > > > > Ken O > > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Ken O, > > > > A question: > > > > Given the discourses, what do you think is the basic principle that > > > > the Buddha taught about the five aggregates(khandha)? > > > > Metta, > > Victor 29700 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 7:04pm Subject: Re: Contemplation On Own Body /Ken H Hi Azita and Andrew, -------------- Az: > Hope the storms down your way have bypassed you, they sound wild. > ---------------- They pretty well bypassed me, thanks Azita, (although I thought for a while the frog house was a goner). Some of my in-laws in Brisbane had a gum tree fall on their roof. On the subject of satipatthana and vipassana; we were both having trouble remembering the difference: ----------------- Az: > Well, I'm going to take the easy way out here, when there is clear understanding then panna will know the answer. ----------------- I think you are being too modest. When you wrote that, there was an understanding of anatta – which is not at all `easy.' :-) ------------------ Az: > If I don't understand then that's the reality at that moment. life can be stressful enuff without 'me' adding to it, so to speak. ------------------ I agree, in principle, that we shouldn't `stress out' over our own ignorance; but in practice, I stress out over just about everything. ------------------ Az: > I'm impressed with the amount of writing u do. ------------------ Thank you. You are more tactful than our friend Andrew. Mind you, he remembers me from my meditation days when I tried to restructure the Cooran meetings along the lines of a Goenka retreat. On one occasion, I actually drew up a schedule for when we could use the toilet and bathroom: This was so we wouldn't have to break noble silence by asking, "Is anyone in there?" :-) Oh dear, don't remind me! Maybe I have good reason to be stressed:-) Kind regards, Ken H 29701 From: Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 6:35am Subject: Why is Ignorance-Conditioned Sankhara a Condition for Consciousness? Hi, all - It would seem, on the face of it, that consciousness/discernment/awareness is a neutral function that is not, in and of itself, problematical. Yet, there remains the question that is the title of this post. One possible answer is that 'vi~n~nana' does not refer to experience in general, but to a special, dualistic, subject-bound mode of experiencing that amounts to experience infected by the sense of self/subject and individuality. In this regard, one might consider the beginning of the definition of 'vi~n~nana' in the Pali Text Society dictionary: ___________________________ Vinnana (p. 618) (nt.) [fr. vi+jna; cp. Vedic vijnana cognition] (as special term in Buddhist metaphysics) a mental quality as a constituent of individuality, the bearer of (individual) life, life--force (as extending also over rebirths), principle of conscious life, general consciousness (as function of mind and matter), regenerative force, animation, mind as transmigrant, as transforming (according to individual kamma) one individual life (after death) into the next. --------------------------------------- During my one extended "no-self" experience, the flow of experience continued, but there was no sense of subject, no knowing self, and what was experienced, correspondingly didn't appear as object of knowing, but just as being present. Did that experiencing constitute vi~n~nana? I think perhaps not. So, the question is: Is the "vi~n~nana" of dependent origination and of the khandhas experience in general, or is it defiled, self-bound experience? I suspect the latter. 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) 29702 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 7:16pm Subject: Re: Six Sense Bases Hi James, I was a bit puzzled as I checked the reference, SN35.117, and the quote you provided but did not find that the Buddha said about whether he has eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, intellect or not. Could you quote what the Buddha said on not having eyes from the discourse? I am not sure if I missed it. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > Hi James, > > > > This is how I see it: > > > > As long as an arahant lived, he saw with eyes, heard with ears, > > smelled with nose, tasted with tongue, sensed with body, and > thought > > with intellect just like everyone else. Eye, ear, nose, tongue, > > body, and intellect are to be seen as the old kamma. The new kamma > > are whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with > > the intellect. The cessation of kamma is the cessation of bodily > > kamma, verbal kamma, and mental kamma: it is the release, the > > unbinding, the cessation of dukkha. > > > > Without the cessation of kamma, one would just keep wandering in > the > > round of rebirth. Realizing the cessation of dukkha, the arahant > > would no longer do any kamma with the body, with speech, or with > the > > intellect. Nevertheless, until the arahant passed into the total > > unbinding(parinibbana), he still lived in the world with the eye & > > forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & > tactile > > sensations, intellect & ideas, with form, feeling, perception, > > fabrications, and consciousness, the whole aggregate of dukkha, > that > > inevitably followed the last birth. > > > > For reference to old kamma, new kamma, and the cessation of kamma, > > see: > > > > Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.145 > > Kamma Sutta > > Action > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn35-145.html > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > Thank you for your input. Yes, I also considered this but the Buddha > was speaking in the present tense, not after his parinibbana; and the > note was also in the present tense saying that the Buddha was > referring to nibbana, not parinibbana. I can accept that parinibbana > is what the Buddha meant but I am not so sure. > > Metta, James 29703 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 7:10pm Subject: Re: need help.../James Hi James, ------------- J: > I think you are taking what I posted a bit out of context. Of course people in the hospital, suffering in pain, should not be told that their bodies are repulsive. I never even suggested such a thing. > ----------------- Of course you didn't. I should have explained that I wasn't attributing that meaning to you. ----------------- J: > That would be uncompassionate to the extreme. What I posted is of course for the serious Dhamma practioner to consider, not for anyone else. For example, if I told my mother that her body is repulsive, she might just clobber me over the head! ;-)) ------------------ I can believe that! There have been times when I've wanted to clobber you over the head. :-) But I think you have missed the point I was trying to make. I was thinking that no amount of conventional right understanding is going to make an iota of difference. Those poor people, whose bodies have become hideously diseased, know, as well as any of us, that the body is not worth clinging to. Does that bring them enlightenment? No. To gain enlightenment, we have to understand ultimate reality: There is rupa (body), body object, body consciousness, body-contact and body-contact-feeling. In the present moment, while these fleeting phenomena (the five khandhas) exist, they are `the all' (the loka). In another, succeeding moment, there may be pannatti, (thinking, conceptualising): There may be the concept of a human body that feels, hears, sees and lies on a bed. That concept is of something other than ultimate reality – it is not what the Buddha taught. We, uninstructed worldlings, take our concepts of body as real: we are ignorant of the loka (the five khandhas) and so we are trapped in samsara. That is why the "Letters from Mara" article left me unimpressed: Far from explaining the way out of samsara, it rehashes the same, conventional view, of the Buddha's Dhamma, that prevails in the world today. Get off the bandwagon, James! :-) Just kidding; there is no more a James than there is a bandwagon: As mere, mental phenomena, different kinds of understanding come and go according to conditions. There is no control. Kind regards, Ken H 29704 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 10:37pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hi Michael, --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Michael: > I am still digesting the article. It will take me some time to comment. > Do > you think the views of the ‘abhidhamikas’ in this list very much agree > with > what Karunadasa writes in that article? ..... I can’t speak for anyone else and I’m not sure who the ‘abhidhamikas’ are, apart from Suan perhaps:-) I’ve only read parts of the article and not followed the references carefully as I’d like to (there’s a lot of meat in it). In brief, I don’t care much for his introductions (here and the time and space one), because of the emphasis on ‘theory’and ‘philosophical cornerstone’ and his comments about Abhidhamma arising out of the ‘need to make sense out of experiences in meditation’ etc and many other comments too. For many of us, the Abhidhamma and Dhamma are not a ‘theory’ that has ‘evolved’ or ‘one of the earliest forms of the dhamma theory’. Seeing it as such, a construct separate from practice and present moment realities, means the paramattha dhammas will never be known. Seeing, visible forms, hearing, sounds and so on are paramattha dhammas which can be directly known at the present moment. It doesn’t matter what they’re called. They are not theoreticl constructs but realities or actualities to be understood as KenO stressed. What I like is all the accurately quoted textual detail. While I think there are errors in some of his comments(such as on space in the other article and possibly here under ayatanas and dhatus, for example), the discussions on puggala, paramattha, sabhava, pannatti,lakkhana seem pretty good with a lot of very useful material. I’d be happy to discuss any of it further (maybe one section at a time), though, as I stress and James rightly concurs, I’m not an expert in Abhidhamma theory or practice;-) ..... > Michael: > I don’t see anything you wrote to convince me that you are right. The > reading from the suttas that I posted is quite obvious, magga and phala > are > portrayed as two distinct individuals, two separate and distinct > moments of > consciousness that do not happen in succession. .... It is obvious to you, but not to B.Bodhi,some of us here, Buddhaghosa or even Sariputta who was supposed to have taught the Patisambhidamagga and Abhidhamma. .... This interpretation is > also > supported by the teachings I heard from a well respected and studied > bhikkhu. In my mind the interpretation you gave is a blunder by > Buddhaghosa. ..... Can the bhikkhu give any textual support which clearly states 1) not all defilements are eradicated by lokuttara magga cittas, but some by the (vipaka) phala cittas and 2)that the lokuttara phala cittas do not follow immediately after the magga cittas? Metta, Sarah p.s Did you see the ‘timely’ momentary reminder yesterday? I’ve been reflecting on it a lot today after receiving the news about a tragic family death yesterday evening. ========================================= 29705 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 11:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hi Steve & All, Thankyou for giving me the Pali and your extra comments to SN48:18:8 ‘Practising’ --- bodhi2500 wrote: > > > Practising..SN48;18;8 <....> > I think the com. notes stating the faculties are lokuttara dont > support a reading that "one practicing for the realization of the > fruit of stream entry" is being used in the wider sense, as a > worldling developing satipatthana. .... In that case I think we’re both stuck at the same point and I can't help. We can see if Nina adds anything further too;-) However, I looked at the three suttas before this one, S48:15,16 and 17 which seem consistent with the way we read this one originally - stages, but without the intervening ‘practising for the fruit of’ stages. They all have an unenlightened Dhamma-follower with weaker faculties and then a still weaker ‘faith-follower’. I’ve looked at the commentary notes you gave below but can’t translate them - my Pali is very limited. However, could they be saying that: Atthakatha 1. If the faculties (indriya) are weaker, the (lokuttara) magga and phala cittas cannot arise to experience nibbana. 2. For worldlings, there will be continued and numerous becomings. 3. In this regard, in the sutta, lokuttara level faculties (wisdom etc) are being referred to. Tika 4. Full mastery of magga and phala cittas is meant by "one practicing for the realization of the fruit of arahantship" 5. There are 4 sets of magga and phala cittas 6. For these (the arahants), there is no more becoming 7. Lokuttara faculties are being spoken of as support/nourishment for magga and phala cittas here. Or is this a nonsensical ‘stretch’ or contortion to fit our reading???? Metta, Sarah ======= > Pali for the Sutta, Atthakatha and Tika> > > 8. Pa.tipannasutta.m > Atthakatha > 488. A.t.thame tato mudutarehiiti maggaphalavasena nissakka.m > veditabba.m. ta.m paa.liya.m vuttameva. baahiroti imehi > a.t.thahi puggalehi bahibhuuto. puthujjanapakkhe .thitoti > puthujjanako.t.thaase .thito. imasmi.m sutte lokuttaraaneva > indriyaani kathitaani. > > Tika > 488. Tanti maggaphalavasena nissakka.m. paa.liya.m > vuttameva "arahattaphalasacchikiriyaaya pa.tipanno hotii"ti- > aadinaa. a.t.thahiiti catuuhi phalehi catuuhi ca maggehiiti > a.t.thahi. bahibhuuto na antobhaavo. lokuttaraaneva indriyaani > kathitaani maggaphalacittuppaadapariyaapannattaa. 29706 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 11:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Six Sense Bases Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > I gave a rather terse reply to this post which has been bothering me > for a couple of hours now. You would think I would have learned not > to ask you direct questions by now, since I hardly ever agree with > the answers, but I guess I haven't! ;-)) I want to give a more > thorough reply. .... I greatly appreciate this and will consider your comments further when I have a chance. I understand my brief comment on science sounded flippant and unhelpful and I quite see that the points and references didn't 'connect'. The typos wouldn't have helped either. <...> > James: Actually, I am finding quite the opposite. I am finding that > quite a lot of mental gymnastics have to be done to make the > Abhidhamma and commentaries match the suttas. Frankly, I don't know > why you don't see this yourself. Haven't you noticed that this group > never runs out of things to disagree about?? .... Oh well, perhaps that's the secret of a busy list;-) For me, the suttas just get deeper and deeper in meaning. Long gone are the days I can read them like a novel . Really, I think this is the great joy of the Teachings - the depth and wisdom. We're hardly scratching the surface, even with all those gymnastics;-) .... <...> >I don't think the Buddha actually > described location; he spoke in more general terms in the suttas (or > at least I hope so or I have a disagreement with the Buddha, which > doesn't make me comfortable and maybe why I am so agitated about this > subject…sorry for taking it out on you, Sarah). .... That's OK. I'll try to step a little more sensitively here. Thanks for this comment and really I don't mind being the punch-bag;-) ..... <...> > James: This doesn't answer my question. It is like we are ships > passing in the night. ;-)) <...> > James: Again, not directly related to what I wrote. We are missing > contact. .... OK, let's try better next time.... I'm a little distracted right now. Metta, Sarah ===== 29707 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 0:03am Subject: RE: [dsg] new member Hi Andy, Thx for the pic and I’m very impressed by all your reading. I’ll make sure Nina sees your letter too when she returns. --- Andy Wilson wrote: > Sarah On CMA: > I think this > slow approach is the best way to introduce myself to the text. It does, > however, mean that I'm only now approaching the close of #2 / compendium > of mental factors. I don't know if that means I have too little > knowledge to participate properly in this forum (which, from the posts, > takes place at a high level), but perhaps my misunderstandings and > impressions as a new reader from a non-buddhist background may be of > some interest to others. if that turns out not to be the case, i will > enjoy lurking anyway, i'm sure :) .... Pls don’t lurk - too many lurkers already;-) You’re already making good contributions and truly, there’s never a case of ‘too little knowledge to participate properly in this forum’. Often the simplest comments and impressions are the best too. Pls share anything from CMA as you go along. I admire those who can systematically study these texts. I find I can only read like a grass-hopper. ... > Again, I now have copies of these texts and only wait for the time to > give them the attention they deserve. may i ask how a 'study corner' > works? i would like to take part if it is appropriate. .... You’ll like Larry’s Vism corner (following an Abh in Daily Life and then a Satipatthana sutta commentaries corner), beause he keeps it running methodically. He posts extracts in order from the last section of the Vism (Understanding) in order and anyone can ask qus, raise points or comments. Nina translates much of the accompanying Tika (sub-commentary). We’ll be continuing from X1V,61 I think in the next couple of weeks after lots of controversy over heart-basis;-) The Samyutta corner is newer and less predictable. We’ve just started self-reading the 4th section, Marasamyutta. If you or anyone else would like to introduce a sutta or verse from this section or any comments, we’d be glad. Chris, Victor, anyone.... Also, anyone may wish to look at various meanings of Mara in UP under ‘Mara’ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts I’m sure you’ll have realized by now that there’s more controversy than agreement on any threads;-) .... > tia (or, possibly, metta) .... I liked Michael’s explanation on why he uses metta. for me it’s probably part formality, part reminder, part genuine well-wishing, part copycat, part ignorance;-) tia is fine too. Metta, Sarah ======= 29708 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 0:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body /Ken H Hi KenH, Azita & Andrew, Chris and I laughed at Bangkok airport - she was dressed for return to the big heat and I was dressed for return to freezing wet conditions here;-) --- gazita2002 wrote: > Hello Ken, > Hope the storms down your way have bypassed you, they sound > wild. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" > wrote: > Both satipatthana and > > vipassana refer to the various cittas that are accompanied by the > > cetasikas, right understanding, right thought, etc., and have a > > dhamma as object. Vipassana can refer to all such cittas > (including > > those with the unconditioned dhamma as object) whereas satipatthana > > refers only to those with a conditioned dhamma as object. In other > > words, the mundane form of vipassana can be called satipatthana. .... I'm also taking an easy route. Sounds fine. vi-passana - clear seeing or wisdom. Nina wrote a post on the meaning (see vipassana in U.P).As you say, mundane or supramundane wisdom is included. Satipatthana - 3 meanings (also in U.P. under satipatthana). Awareness with clear comprehension (wisdom) and other factors. Azita, I think that any moments of right understanding of realities are satipatthana, however weak. It has to develop before 1st vipassana nana. Usually, I think, vipassana isn't used in the texts to refer to these kindergarden moments of satipatthana and as KenH suggests, I also think satipatthana only refers to the development of mundane factors. As you've also said, neither refers to a 'position', a 'location', 'quiet' or anything other than wisdom etc and the objects of such wisdom and so on. Andrew - no need to go soft on your friend - I'm sure it would take a lot more than your gentle and kindly meant ribbing to offend him;-) Funny how those same accumulations shine through, Ken H. I remember a friend who'd heard me harping on about politics and community issues at length and so when it all turned to Buddhism and she was still a friend, she sighed and asked if we had to go through the same process and mini-lectures all over again;-) (Btw, I assured Nina that you were really the best of friends in real life;-)) Metta, Sarah ===== 29709 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 1:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Larry, > Thanks for your well considered reply; I think I understand your view > better now. However, I still disagree. If the study of right view is > only abstract concepts without application to any experience then > nothing will be understood. To wait for things to happen in their own > time seems to me to be deliberately cultivating tranquility at the > expense of insight. I agree that if you really think you are doing the > wrong thing by deliberately cultivating insight, then you should > probably stop and consider what is going on. But it seems to me a good > sign if you detect desire. I would say look closer and see if it is > really desire or just a concept. What is it to "wait for things to happen in their own time"? Is the need to have patience a consequence of having concluded that development of wisdom takes time and that one's understanding by comparison is still very low? Yes one often thinks along these lines, and I agree that when this is so, it would be more like developing tranquility at the expense of insight ;-). Though such considerations can be a form of kusala thinking, I don't think it is very useful as far as following the Buddha's teachings on Satipatthana is concerned. And I must admit that most of my reflections on dhamma is of such sort, the immediate result of which is just `calm acceptance'. Sometimes however, when I consider about the conditioned nature of the present moment, I also see that it is anatta and that there is no control. Sometimes there is a little insight into the difference between sense door and the thinking process (still purely on the thinking level though). There may be the recognition of ignorance of sense door and instead being caught in `thinking about' it. At other times there may be the intellectual realization that moha, lobha and dosa is so pervasive. Sometimes one see that one's interpretation of experiences is within the narrow limits of one's own conditioning, and often no matter how hard one tries, there is no insight into the moment. One concludes that enough panna hasn't been accumulated and *nothing can be done* except listen and consider more (as descriptive ;-)). Yes the so called detecting of desire is only "thinking"!! But what does one do except recognize that it is so?! There is no escape from thinking, and there is nothing wrong with it. The thoughts are reflections of our underlying views and this is what needs to be questioned and corrected. Just because we feel an urgency to develop understanding doesn't mean we get carried away by a line of thought which may have wrong view as an underlying factor. Looking at this post, does it seem like there is `passive waiting for things to happen'? That this is "only abstract concepts without application" and "I" choose this? I think that the line between theory and practice is hard to pin point. Certainly the "self" can't decide on where to make the distinction. And when there is a `self' who practices, it is more likely that there is none, imho. Looking forward to your response. I think you ask the best questions Larry ;-). Metta, Sukin. 29710 From: Andrew Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 2:14am Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body /Ken H Hi Sarah You wrote: > Andrew - no need to go soft on your friend - I'm sure it would take a lot > more than your gentle and kindly meant ribbing to offend him;-) [snip] (Btw, I assured Nina that you were really the best of friends in real > life;-)) The internet is quite a hard medium to communicate in. I sometimes forget that most readers don't know that Ken H and I have known each other for many years and live in the same area. For the record, I think Ken H is terrific and I have learnt alot from him over the years. He is very sincere and a deep thinker. We don't always agree, mind you, but that's samsara, isn't it. I can also attest to the fact that Ken H was a very diligent meditator - so whatever his current views on "meditation practice" can be attributed to, laziness is not amongst them. Just thought I'd clear that up for Nina and any others I may have confused. Here on the farm at Cooran, I look outside and the female wallaby that lives around the house garden is out grazing. She has recently weaned a joey and sent it off to fend for itself and now she has a new joey in her pouch. Its head is stretching out to nibble at the grass. The wheel of life rolls on! Best wishes to all! Andrew 29711 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 2:16am Subject: Re: need help.../James Hi Ken, Ken: I can believe that! There have been times when I've wanted to clobber you over the head. :-) James: Good, good. To me, this is progress. If I placate you continually you will continue to cling to fixed views. As I said when I joined this group, I have a strong Zen streak. Zen folks are known to be non-conformists and intentionally irritating. (But I guess this precludes my participation in any Bangkok meetings. There would be a melee with you and Ken O leading the pack! ;-)) Ken: But I think you have missed the point I was trying to make. I was thinking that no amount of conventional right understanding is going to make an iota of difference. Those poor people, whose bodies have become hideously diseased, know, as well as any of us, that the body is not worth clinging to. Does that bring them enlightenment? No. James: What? Those people don't know that the body isn't worth clinging to anymore than you or I. What makes you think they do? If they knew this they would be enlightened. If doesn't matter how diseased, horrible, festering, rotten, ugly, etc. a person's body is, there is still a clinging to it: a clinging for existence, sometimes for non-existence, but still a clinging. Ken: To gain enlightenment, we have to understand ultimate reality: James: Well, here is where you and I differ. I believe that to gain enlightenment one needs to purify the mind of defilements, understanding ultimate reality will come as a consequence of that. It seems to me that you are putting the cart before the horse. (Of course, there are some able to `understand' their way to enlightenment, but they are rare, and they need to start from ground zero. After all, my reality isn't your reality. To get to ultimate reality you have to start with subjective reality.) Ken: There may be the concept of a human body that feels, hears, sees and lies on a bed. That concept is of something other than ultimate reality – it is not what the Buddha taught. James: Denying the existence of the human body, in my opinion, isn't going to lead to a realization of anatta. Anatta can only be reached when the body is not seen as `me or mine'. Ken: We, uninstructed worldlings, take our concepts of body as real: weare ignorant of the loka (the five khandhas) and so we are trapped in samsara. James: No, we cling to the five khandhas, this is what causes samsara. This is a very subtle difference between what the two of us are saying but I believe it is a very important one. Allow me to quote from the Dhammapada, "Knowing that this body is like foam, and comprehending its mirage-nature, one should destroy the flowershafts of sensual passions (Mara), and pass beyond the sight of the King of Death." Knowing that the body has a mirage nature, constantly changing, isn't enough. One must destroy clinging to the body to complete the path. Ken: That is why the "Letters from Mara" article left me unimpressed: Far from explaining the way out of samsara, it rehashes the same, conventional view, of the Buddha's Dhamma, that prevails in the world today. Get off the bandwagon, James! :-) James: LOL! You know, history is replete with examples of people thinking they have come up with `New and Improved' ways of doing things. The Buddhadhamma is no exception. But, really, there are no shortcuts. The tried and true method: Don't do evil, do only good, and purify the mind. It is so easy to understand but so difficult to follow. Your conceit of being `special and unique' on the path blocks your view of the truth. I am not special. I try to be as ordinary as a stone. Ken: There is no control. James: I read your recent post to Azita and Andrew (29700) and it seems to me that you like this mantra a lot because of your overwhelming stress. Maybe you think if you repeat it enough your stress will go away. Since you have gotten somewhat personal in this post, I feel that I can do the same (for your benefit): It seems to me that you are up, you are down, you are left, you are right, you are high, you are low, you are everywhere except in the present moment. Stop letting your mind run the show, get control of it! To quote again from the Dhammapada "The mind is hard to check. It is swift and wanders at will. To control it is good. A controlled mind is conducive to happiness." Metta, James 29712 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 3:30am Subject: Re: Six Sense Bases Hi Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi James, > > I was a bit puzzled as I checked the reference, SN35.117, and the > quote you provided but did not find that the Buddha said about > whether he has eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, intellect or not. > > Could you quote what the Buddha said on not having eyes from the > discourse? I am not sure if I missed it. > > Metta, > Victor Hmmm...I am not sure where you are in the SN. I was referring to SNI,4,19(9). SNI refers to Book I: The Book of Verses (Sagathavagga), 4 refers to Chapter 4: Marasamyutta, 19 refers to sutta 19: "The Farmer", (9) refers to sutta 9 of the subchapter II: "Rulership" (which the subchapter may not match your addition of the SN). I will type out the entire sutta later; I have some errands to do today. I am running behind schedule as it is. I think I might have figured out this sutta's meaning, but I will get to that later. Metta, James 29713 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 5:14am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hi Michael Please look at the sutta that you have quoted carefully. Definitely is about different individual but it is about DANA and not about MAGGA or PHALA cittas. I think this sutta is straight forward enough - one practise to be on the fruit of Stream Entrant is different than who is a already a Stream Entrant. One practise to be one is only of Mahakusala cittas and even close to magga yet. Only one that is stream entrant - one has in magga / phala cittas. Without even going to details of commentaries, I am very confident to say that there sn't any tiny minute difference between the SUTTA you quote and the ABDHIDHAMMA. I welcome any comments on this from you Ken O 29714 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 5:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism - Long Hi Jeff Brooks I am definitely interested in jhanas (even though I know it may be countless lives away before I experience ;-0). Definitely jhanas bring a different level of pleasant abiding than what we experience as plesant in non-jhanas momemts. I glad that you have strong faith in the Pali Cannon in Pali - If my memory does not fail me there is a method of dry insight where one does not need jhanas to be enlighted. Beside this point lets talk about jhanas. But first of all, I have not experience jhanas in my whole life and also I have not read much about jhanas bc to me this is still not a practical thing for me now. If you are interested in this, I like to explore further this with you. I like to explore the mindfullness portion with you - how do you define mindfullness. Do you think when one that is mindful, will one still long for the experience of the ecstasy of jhanas? When one is mindful, can one say let me now go to the jhanas - is it possible without the right conditions?. What do you mean by dedicated contemplative practice, what are the conditions, what are the methods? Are those said in the sutta where one must be withdraw from sensual desire first before going to the jhanas? Or one have to the right conditions as stated in the Visud before a jhanas can happen? Thats all I can think now for you kind comments please Ken O In fact I agree with you one does > not arrive > at jhana without a dedicated contemplative practice, thus requiring > the > cultivation of what you call "mindfulness." > > Best regards, > > Jeff Brooks > > In a message dated 2/3/04 2:22:52 AM, > dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com writes: > > << Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:50:10 +0000 (GMT) > From: Kenneth Ong > Subject: Re: Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism - Long > > Hi Jeff Brooks > > You definition of jhana is not in accordance with Ancient text - > are > you also doubting those Arahants who wrote it???? Do you doubt > that > the Arahants not experiencing jhanas??? > > By the way you have not answer my previous qn, your definition of > jhana is only esctasy but in the sutta it is both esctasy and > mindfullness so how do you explain this jhanas of yours is only > esctasy. > > > > Ken O >> > > > > > > > > > > 29715 From: Michael Beisert Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 6:02am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hello Sarah, Sarah: Can the bhikkhu give any textual support which clearly states 1) not all defilements are eradicated by lokuttara magga cittas, but some by the (vipaka) phala cittas and 2)that the lokuttara phala cittas do not follow immediately after the magga cittas? Michael: There is a misunderstanding in relation to your point 1. The argument is that lokuttara magga citta occurs with the elimination of the first defilement and subsequent to that the sotapanna continues to develop his practice and eliminates the other two fetters and after the three fetters have been eliminated you have the vipaka phala citta. It would not be possible for the defilements to be eliminated by a vipaka citta. Point 2 is where our main difference is. I will try to get clarification. Metta Michael 29716 From: Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 2:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: need help.../James Hi, Ken (anfd James) - In a message dated 2/5/04 1:58:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Hi James, > > ------------- > J: >I think you are taking what I posted a bit out of context. Of > course people in the hospital, suffering in pain, should not be told > that their bodies are repulsive. I never even suggested such a > thing. > > > ----------------- > > Of course you didn't. I should have explained that I wasn't > attributing that meaning to you. > > ----------------- > J: >That would be uncompassionate to the extreme. What I posted is > of course for the serious Dhamma practioner to consider, not for > anyone else. For example, if I told my mother that her body is > repulsive, she might just clobber me over the head! ;-)) > ------------------ > > I can believe that! There have been times when I've wanted to > clobber you over the head. :-) > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: ;-)) You have a great sense of humor, Ken! -------------------------------------------------- > > But I think you have missed the point I was trying to make. I was > thinking that no amount of conventional right understanding is going > to make an iota of difference. Those poor people, whose bodies have > become hideously diseased, know, as well as any of us, that the body > is not worth clinging to. Does that bring them enlightenment? No. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I very much agree with you on this, Ken. All that the conventional understanding will do - but this is important - is make one clearly aware that things are not "just fine", to point one in the direction of seeking a way out from suffering, and to serve to make one realize the urgency of the matter. --------------------------------------------------- > > To gain enlightenment, we have to understand ultimate reality: There > is rupa (body), body object, body consciousness, body-contact and > body-contact-feeling. In the present moment, while these fleeting > phenomena (the five khandhas) exist, they are `the all' (the loka). > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, "but". The "but" is that this understanding must not be an encyclopedic, intellectual knowledge, which is near worthless, but a direct seeing of things as they are, resulting from establishing the proper conditions. And this requires putting into practice the Buddha's program of cultivation of s ila, samadhi, and pa~n~na, and that is done on a basis of conventional understanding. --------------------------------------------------- > > In another, succeeding moment, there may be pannatti, (thinking, > conceptualising): There may be the concept of a human body that > feels, hears, sees and lies on a bed. That concept is of something > other than ultimate reality – it is not what the Buddha taught. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, a perusing of the suttas will clearly show that the Buddha taught both. ------------------------------------------------------- > > We, uninstructed worldlings, take our concepts of body as real: we > are ignorant of the loka (the five khandhas) and so we are trapped > in samsara. > > That is why the "Letters from Mara" article left me unimpressed: Far > from explaining the way out of samsara, it rehashes the same, > conventional view, of the Buddha's Dhamma, that prevails in the > world today. Get off the bandwagon, James! :-) > > Just kidding; there is no more a James than there is a bandwagon: > As mere, mental phenomena, different kinds of understanding come and > go according to conditions. There is no control. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Some comments on this last paragraph, Ken: 1) Merely saying or believing that there literally is no "James" is of little value. Experiencing no-self is something else. 2) Yes, different kinds of understanding come and go according to conditions. What is the point? 3) If 'control' means "My wish is my command," then I agree - no control. But there *can* be effective influence, and were there not, then Buddhism wouldn't be worth even a nanosecond of anyone's time. --------------------------------------------------------- > > Kind regards, > Ken H > > ======================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 29717 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 8:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yet more discussion (and food) Hi Sarah The smiling cittas is from the commentary to the Summary of the Topics of Abhidhamma chapter six number 34 <<(34) The thirteen: four from the wholesome, form from the unwholesome, and five from the kiriya, making thirteen. Of these, ordinary persons smile with eight wholesome and unwholesome consciousness, trainees with the same excluding those accompanied by view, those in no need of training with the five kiriya. And in the case of the last [some] argue that Buddhas smile only with the four kiriya consciounesses with motivation, and not with the one without motivations; this follows from the statement that when Blessed Buddhas attain unobstructed knowledge of the past, etc., and possess these three accomplishments, all their bodily actions are preceded by knowledge, or involve knowledge, so that for Buddhas the arising of a smile without knowledge consisting in examination is not appropriate. However, when a smile occurs for Buddhas with the [kiriya] smile-producing consciounesss it still involves knowledge since it is consequent upen the knowledges of previous existences, the future or omniscience. In consideration of this fact, it is stated in the [Abhidhamma] Commentary that the consciousness which causes smiles arises at the consclusion of these knowledges. Therefore it is not possible to exclude the occurrence of this consiousness in the case of the Buddhas. >> Ken O 29718 From: Michael Beisert Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 8:35am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hello KenO, >From: Kenneth Ong >Reply-To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno >Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:14:58 +0000 (GMT) > >Hi Michael > >Please look at the sutta that you have quoted carefully. Definitely >is about different individual but it is about DANA and not about >MAGGA or PHALA cittas. Yes, thank you for remind me. It is a beautiful sutta about dana. We should always remember dana. Why not inspired by the sutta do some dana for the Sangha today. Let's just do it :) I think this sutta is straight forward enough >- one practise to be on the fruit of Stream Entrant is different >than who is a already a Stream Entrant. Thanks for confirming what I said. The sutta portrays them as different individuals, i.e. one has attained stream entry ( has experienced magga citta) and the other is practicing for the fruit of stream entry (after experiencing magga citta continues to develop his practice and will eventually experience phala citta). One practise to be one is >only of Mahakusala cittas and even close to magga yet. Only one that >is stream entrant - one has in magga / phala cittas. > > >Without even going to details of commentaries, I am very confident to >say that there sn't any tiny minute difference between the SUTTA you >quote and the ABDHIDHAMMA. I welcome any comments on this from you > > Well, then you haven't read what you wrote. The Abhidhamma does not agree with the sutta. Just refer to the previous posts. Metta Michael >Ken O 29719 From: Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 4:39am Subject: Right Speech On Right Speech It seems that I continue to receive some very confrontational and even offensive messages from people who are incensed that I would criticize their unflawed, perfect and righteous tradition. Please understand I have no intention to belabor debate. When I criticize various traditions and religions (including Theravadan Buddhism) for assumptions, beliefs or practices that I find unproductive for the greater good, or the journey to nibbana, I invariably encounter some criticism. The typical argument is based upon invoking the Noble Eight Fold Path, by questioning whether my criticism is a violation of Right Speech (samma-vaca). What the Abhaya Sutta, MN 58, says on the issue of speaking out, when an issue seems to be harming to the dhamma, I found very interesting. I recommend reading the whole sutta, it is only a few pages. But I will not burden you with the whole thing here. I will just quote a few stanzas. Please note the Buddha was speaking from his point of view, so please do not assume that I am saying that I am a Tathagata . I only want to point out, that anyone in the greater sangha has a right and a responsibility to challenge beliefs and practices in the sangha that they do not believe follow the dhamma. Abhaya Sutta, MN 58 "Now at that time a baby boy was lying face-up on the prince's lap. So the Blessed One said to the prince, "What do you think, prince: If this young boy, through your own negligence or that of the nurse, were to take a stick or a piece of gravel into its mouth, what would you do?" "I would take it out, lord. If I couldn't get it out right away, then holding its head in my left hand and crooking a finger of my right, I would take it out, even if it meant drawing blood. Why is that? Because I have sympathy for the young boy." "In the same way, prince: [3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them." [6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living beings..." "Magnificent, lord! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has the Blessed One -- through many lines of reasoning -- made the Dhamma clear. I go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the Sangha of monks. May the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge, from this day forward, for life." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn058.html Please understand I am not invoking the authority of a Tathagata. I am only saying that anyone in the greater sangha has a right and a responsibility to "place upright what was overturned," or to speak out on beliefs and practices of their tradition or religion that they perceive as unproductive to the dhamma and sangha. I do not however believe that gives anyone the right to endlessly filibuster for their agenda. Because there is a right time and place for everything. Access To Insight has a excellent discourse on Right Speech (Samma-Vaca) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/samma-vaca.html May you become enlightened in this very lifetime, Jeff Brooks 29720 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 10:09am Subject: paticcasamuppada (dependent co-arising) Hi all, Some reflection on paticcasamuppada (dependent co-arising) I would like to share with the group. What is dependent co-arising? The Buddha taught that: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name- &-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is how I understand it: The conditioning in the formulation of dependent co-arising has the form: when this as a requisite condition comes that. The condition `this' and the conditioned `that' in dependent co-arising is presented in a linear way. That is, except aging & death, the conditioned `that' of one conditioning becomes the condition `this' in the next. Each of the conditionings in dependent co-arising with the form "when this as requisite condition comes that" parallels with some other conditionings. Nevertheless, these parallel relations among the conditionings are not apparent in the linear presentation of dependent co-arising. With these relations among the conditionings in consideration, the formulation of dependent co- arising is not only and simply linear, but also recursive and complex. If dependent co-arising is like a three-dimensional building, then the formulation of dependent co-arising is like the two-dimensional blueprints for this building. With the two- dimensional blue prints, one can relate the blue print for each floor to other blue prints to form a three-dimensional image of the building. Likewise, the recursive and complex nature of dependent co-arising is seen with the association of parallel relations of the conditionings as presented in the formulation of dependent co- arising. I will try to present the association of these conditionings as following: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications: From ignorance of the four noble truths, come the bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, mental fabrications. Fabrications, or kamma, are the manifestations of craving and clinging/sustenance. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness: From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming- forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth. In other words, with fabrications, consciousness inevitably takes place after birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death. And these conditionings take place from birth to death: From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. Without full understanding/comprehension (parinna), namely, without the destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion [1], from feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming after death. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. Hence another round of rebirth. Like the Buddha said, dependent co-arising is deep and deep in implications. [2] Metta, Victor [1] Samyutta Nikaya, translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi. SN22.23, p. 872. [2] Ibid. SN12.60, p. 594. 29721 From: dwlemen Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 10:27am Subject: Companionship Hi all. I have a more practical question that I've been wrestling with for some time. That is, how do you deal with the "lonelyness" of being a Buddhist in a western / Christian society? Here in Indiana, we are rather "bible-belt" and there is very little in the way of Buddhist organizations or anything. Are there others who might be in a similiar situation that might have some advice or encouraging words! I suppose there is not much that can be done but move or deal with it. Anyway, just curious what others might have to offer. Thanks. Peace, Dave 29722 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 11:07am Subject: Re: Right Speech Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > On Right Speech > > It seems that I continue to receive some very confrontational and even > offensive messages from people who are incensed that I would criticize their > unflawed, perfect and righteous tradition. Please understand I have no intention to > belabor debate. > > When I criticize various traditions and religions (including Theravadan > Buddhism) for assumptions, beliefs or practices that I find unproductive for the > greater good, or the journey to nibbana, I invariably encounter some criticism. > The typical argument is based upon invoking the Noble Eight Fold Path, by > questioning whether my criticism is a violation of Right Speech (samma-vaca). > > What the Abhaya Sutta, MN 58, says on the issue of speaking out, when an > issue seems to be harming to the dhamma, I found very interesting. I recommend > reading the whole sutta, it is only a few pages. But I will not burden you with > the whole thing here. I will just quote a few stanzas. > > Please note the Buddha was speaking from his point of view, so please do not > assume that I am saying that I am a Tathagata . I only want to point out, > that anyone in the greater sangha has a right and a responsibility to challenge > beliefs and practices in the sangha that they do not believe follow the dhamma. > > Abhaya Sutta, MN 58 > > "Now at that time a baby boy was lying face-up on the prince's lap. So the > Blessed One said to the prince, "What do you think, prince: If this young boy, > through your own negligence or that of the nurse, were to take a stick or a > piece of gravel into its mouth, what would you do?" > > "I would take it out, lord. If I couldn't get it out right away, then holding > its head in my left hand and crooking a finger of my right, I would take it > out, even if it meant drawing blood. Why is that? Because I have sympathy for > the young boy." > > "In the same way, prince: > > [3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, > beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper > time for saying them." > > [6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, > beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time > for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has sympathy for living > beings..." > > "Magnificent, lord! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was > overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, > or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in > the same way has the Blessed One -- through many lines of reasoning -- made the > Dhamma clear. I go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the > Sangha of monks. May the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone > to him for refuge, from this day forward, for life." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn058.html > > Please understand I am not invoking the authority of a Tathagata. I am only > saying that anyone in the greater sangha has a right and a responsibility to > "place upright what was overturned," or to speak out on beliefs and practices > of their tradition or religion that they perceive as unproductive to the dhamma > and sangha. I do not however believe that gives anyone the right to > endlessly filibuster for their agenda. Because there is a right time and place for > everything. > > Access To Insight has a excellent discourse on Right Speech (Samma- Vaca) > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/samma-vaca.html > > May you become enlightened in this very lifetime, > > Jeff Brooks 29723 From: Michael Beisert Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 2:51pm Subject: RE: paticcasamuppada (dependent co-arising) Hello Victor, I like very much the analysis of dependent co-arising made by Thanissaro Bhikkhu in his book 'The Wings to Awakening.' Below is an excerpt of what he wrote: Dependent co- arising is often presented in the texts as an expansion of the general principle of this/that conditionality, which we have already discussed in the Introduction. Here we will recapitulate some of the essential points. This/that conditionality is expressed in a simple formula: "(1) When this is, that is. (2) From the arising of this comes the arising of that. (3) When this isn't, that isn't. (4) From the stopping of this comes the stopping of that." This formula is non-linear, an interplay of linear and synchronic principles. The linear principle-taking (2) and (4) as a pair-connects events over time; the synchronic principle-(1) and (3)-connects objects and events in the present moment. The two principles intersect, so that any given event is influenced by two sets of conditions, those acting from the past and those acting from the present. Because this is the pattern underlying dependent co-arising, it is a mistake to view dependent co-arising simply as a chain of causes strung out over time. Events in anyone category of the list are affected not only by past events in the categories that act as their conditions, but also by the ongoing, interacting presence of whole streams of events in those categories. All categories can be present at once, and even though two particular conditions may be separated by several steps in the list, they can be immediately present to each other. Thus they can create the possibility for unexpected feedback loops in the causal process. Metta Michael 29724 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 3:27pm Subject: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" At Savatthi. Now on that occasion the Blessed One was instructing, exhorting, inspiring, and gladdening the bhikkhus with a Dhamma talk concerning Nibbana. And those bhikkhus were listening to the Dhamma with eager ears, attending to it as a matter of vital concern, applying their whole minds to it. Then it occurred to Mara the Evil One: "This ascetic Gotama is instructing, exhorting, inspiring, and gladdening the bhikkhus…who are applying their whole minds to it. Let me approach the ascetic Gotama in order to confound them." Then Mara the Evil One manifested himself in the form of a farmer, carrying a large plough on his shoulder, holding a long goad stick, his hair disheveled, wearing hempen garments, his feet smeared with mud. He approached the Blessed One and said to him: "Maybe you've seen oxen, ascetic?" "What are oxen to you, Evil One?" "The eye is mine, ascetic, forms are mine, eye-contact and its base of consciousness are mine. (296) Where can you go, ascetic, to escape from me? The ear is mine, ascetic, sounds are mine…The nose is mine, ascetic, odours are mine…The tongue is mine, ascetic, tastes are mine… The body is mine, ascetic, tactile objects are mine…The mind is mine, ascetic, mental phenomena are mine, mind-contact and its base of consciousness are mine. Where can you go, ascetic, to escape from me?" "The eye is yours, Evil One, forms are yours, eye-contact and its base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no eye, no forms, no eye-contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you there, Evil One. (297) The ear is yours, Evil One, sounds are yours, ear-contact and its base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no ear, no sounds, no ear- contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you there, Evil One. The nose is yours, Evil One, odours are yours, nose- contact and its base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no nose, no odours, no nose-contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you there, Evil One. The tongue is yours, Evil One, tastes are yours, tongue-contact and its base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no tongue, no tastes, no tongue-contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you there, Evil One. The body is yours, Evil One, tactile objects are yours, body-contact and its base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no body, no tactile objects, no body contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you there, Evil One. The mind is yours, Evil One, mental phenomena are yours, mind-contact and its base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no mind, no mental phenomena, no mind- contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you there, Evil One." [Mara:] "That of which they say `It's mine,' And those who speak in terms of `mine'— If your mind exists among these, You won't escape me, ascetic." [The Blessed One:] "That which they speak of is not mine, I'm not on of those who speak [of mine]. You should know thus, O Evil One: Even my path you will not see." Then Mara the Evil One…disappeared right there. Note 296: I follow Spk, which resolves cakkhusamphassavinnanayatana thus: cakkhuvinnanena sampayutto cakkhusamphasso pi vinnanayatanam pi; "eye-contact associated with eye-consciousness and also the base of consciousness." Spk says that "eye-contact" implies all the mental phenomena associated with consciousness; "the base of consciousness," all types of consciousness that have arisen in the eye door beginning with the adverting consciousness (avajjanacitta). The same method applies to the ear door, etc. But in the mind door, "mind" (mano) is the bhavangacitta together with adverting; "mental phenomena" are the mental objects (arammanadhamma); "mind-contact," the contact associated with bhavanga and adverting; and "the base of consciousness," the javanacitta and tadarammanacitta, i.e., the "impulsion" and "registration" consciousness. For an account of the types of consciousness (fundamental to Pali Abhidhamma), see CMA 3:8. Mara's reply, and the Buddha's rejoinder, hinge on the practice of using Pali words for cattle metaphorically to signify the sense faculties. See GD, pp. 141-42, n. to 26-27. Note 297: Here the Buddha is obviously referring to Nibbana. Cp. 35:117 on the cessation of the six sense bases. 29725 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 4:38pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hi Michael M> Thanks for confirming what I said. The sutta portrays them as > different > individuals, i.e. one has attained stream entry ( has experienced > magga > citta) and the other is practicing for the fruit of stream entry > (after > experiencing magga citta continues to develop his practice and will > > eventually experience phala citta). k: Please dont misread me, I have stated very clearly, one has attain stream entry is one with magga cittas thereafter phala cittas. Then one who is still practisiing to stream entry is just mahakusala not even magga cittas (I think the other email there was a type error on my message, I forget the NOT word.). M > Well, then you haven't read what you wrote. The Abhidhamma does not agree with the sutta. Just refer to the previous posts. k: Nope, there is no difference bc to me you have not read carefully. One who is a stream entrant MAGGA/PHALA, one who is on the path is just MAHAKUSALA. Ken O 29726 From: Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 4:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Sukin, Well said. I agree, and find myself in the same situation as well. It looks to me that you are not just studying the concepts without applying them to your life, as I had thought earlier. Rather, it looks like you are looking at your experience all the time. There is only one point I would like to revisit. When I asked you to look at desire and see if it is really desire or just concept, what did you find? You said the detecting of desire is only "thinking". Did you mean that there really wasn't any desire after all? Larry 29727 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 4:46pm Subject: Re: paticcasamuppada (dependent co-arising) Hi Michael, Yes, I like Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu's analysis of dependent co- arising in 'The Wings to Awakening' as well. The book itself as a whole is great too!! Thanks for typing out the excerpt. Great reminder!! Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Beisert" wrote: > Hello Victor, > > I like very much the analysis of dependent co-arising made by Thanissaro > Bhikkhu in his book 'The Wings to Awakening.' Below is an excerpt of what he > wrote: > > Dependent co- arising is often presented in the texts as an expansion of the > general principle of this/that conditionality, which we have already > discussed in the Introduction. Here we will recapitulate some of the > essential points. This/that conditionality is expressed in a simple formula: > > "(1) When this is, that is. > (2) From the arising of this comes the arising of that. > (3) When this isn't, that isn't. > (4) From the stopping of this comes the stopping of that." > > This formula is non-linear, an interplay of linear and synchronic > principles. The linear principle-taking (2) and (4) as a pair- connects > events over time; the synchronic principle-(1) and (3)-connects objects and > events in the present moment. The two principles intersect, so that any > given event is influenced by two sets of conditions, those acting from the > past and those acting from the present. Because this is the pattern > underlying dependent co-arising, it is a mistake to view dependent > co-arising simply as a chain of causes strung out over time. Events in > anyone category of the list are affected not only by past events in the > categories that act as their conditions, but also by the ongoing, > interacting presence of whole streams of events in those categories. All > categories can be present at once, and even though two particular conditions > may be separated by several steps in the list, they can be immediately > present to each other. Thus they can create the possibility for unexpected > feedback loops in the causal process. > > Metta > Michael > 29728 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 4:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right Speech Hi Jeff We cannot prevent how others talk, however we can be aware of what we are experiencing on sound rupas. Most of the time when I am here, pple are ok, only very rarely pple are not in the right speech, one of the very rarely pple includes me(occasional outburst). Feel free to express your view here, but be prepared to be challenged your belief or what you are written. It should be seen in this light and not one of a confrontational. And also dont worry, we have Jon and Sarah behind our back. If they are very dedicated, during our Bkk discussions, they are still moderating ;-). Ken O 29729 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 4:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Larry Detecting desire is have the possibility of deliberate action, hence usually conditioned by discursive thinking(moha). Detection of desire or mindfulness when is arise should be a naturally induced process not a deliberate one. One who is constantly considering/reflecting and study dhamma will induce the development of sati and panna. Anyway by the time we experience that desire, it is not at the paramatha level, it is more of a concept level (or thinking level). But practise of understanding of the nature of concepts viz nama and rupas is the start of practising. There is also no need to fret over our practise now are just concept levels, not real satipatthana, this is how one practise right understanding at the most basic level (pannati). Then when more right understanding develop, then the practise will develop more towards satipatthana at the paramatha level. Ken O 29730 From: Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 5:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Why is Ignorance-Conditioned Sankhara a Condition for Consciousness? Hi Howard, I think the answer to this question is that ignorance of the 4 noble truths conditions kamma causing consciousness, "sankhara", (e.g. desire), which conditions kamma resultant consciousness, "consciousness", (e.g. seeing consciousness). This is according to CMA. However, I'm not very clear on this. Maybe someone else could explain it. Larry 29731 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 5:19pm Subject: [dsg] Personal thoughts on life reminders Hi All By reading posts in this list, it has been very beneficial to me as it is always a constant reminder and condition reflections in my life. Sometimes, I was so carried away by life especially the goals that I have inevitably set by myself, these mails are so crucial to bring me back to the momemt of right understanding. During my life, I am always carried away with life goals, suffering arise throughout and it will be a force to reckon with, if left unchecked by right understanding. Also so carried away by life goals that I thought all these ordinary lives are so real and forget that I am still in samasara. Also sometimes, it is extremely difficult to see the dukkha in sensual pleasure, I always felt, there is always a need to have more sensual pleasure. A need to feel I want this and that or to make my life more materially better or have more pleasure. Hard is to have right understanding of conceptual life goals. So fast is the the conditioning of latency that even after a few days of discussion in Bkk, I have realise that I have been once again entrall by my life goals and sensual pleasure needs. Gosh, it is hard to have right understandings and not to be so caught up. Even when after I write this and send it out, I know very well, I am still a wordlings caught up in the net. Conditional life is indeed suffering. Ken O 29732 From: Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 5:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Ken O: "Anyway by the time we experience that desire, it is not at the paramatha level, it is more of a concept level (or thinking level)." Hi Ken, Is there desire in your life, or not? How do you know? Larry 29733 From: Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 5:21pm Subject: Yahoo "spam guard" Hi Sarah, Yahoo is labeling a lot of dsg messages "spam" because of odd subject lines or names. Is there any way to turn it off? Larry 29734 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 6:30pm Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi Victor and Azita, Here is the section I was referring to: --- "The eye is yours, Evil One, forms are yours, eye-contact and its > base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no > eye, no forms, no eye-contact and its base of consciousness—there is > no place for you there, Evil One. (297) The ear is yours, Evil One, > sounds are yours, ear-contact and its base of consciousness are > yours; but, Evil One, where there is no ear, no sounds, no ear- > contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you > there, Evil One. The nose is yours, Evil One, odours are yours, nose- > contact and its base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where > there is no nose, no odours, no nose-contact and its base of > consciousness—there is no place for you there, Evil One. The tongue > is yours, Evil One, tastes are yours, tongue-contact and its base of > consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no tongue, no > tastes, no tongue-contact and its base of consciousness—there is no > place for you there, Evil One. The body is yours, Evil One, tactile > objects are yours, body-contact and its base of consciousness are > yours; but, Evil One, where there is no body, no tactile objects, no > body contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you > there, Evil One. The mind is yours, Evil One, mental phenomena are > yours, mind-contact and its base of consciousness are yours; but, > Evil One, where there is no mind, no mental phenomena, no mind- > contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you > there, Evil One." > > [Mara:] > "That of which they say `It's mine,' > And those who speak in terms of `mine'— > If your mind exists among these, > You won't escape me, ascetic." > > [The Blessed One:] > "That which they speak of is not mine, > I'm not on of those who speak [of mine]. > You should know thus, O Evil One: > Even my path you will not see." > > Then Mara the Evil One…disappeared right there. > > Note 296: I follow Spk, which resolves cakkhusamphassavinnanayatana > thus: cakkhuvinnanena sampayutto cakkhusamphasso pi vinnanayatanam > pi; "eye-contact associated with eye-consciousness and also the base > of consciousness." Spk says that "eye-contact" implies all the mental > phenomena associated with consciousness; "the base of consciousness," > all types of consciousness that have arisen in the eye door beginning > with the adverting consciousness (avajjanacitta). The same method > applies to the ear door, etc. But in the mind door, "mind" (mano) is > the bhavangacitta together with adverting; "mental phenomena" are the > mental objects (arammanadhamma); "mind-contact," the contact > associated with bhavanga and adverting; and "the base of > consciousness," the javanacitta and tadarammanacitta, i.e., > the "impulsion" and "registration" consciousness. For an account of > the types of consciousness (fundamental to Pali Abhidhamma), see CMA > 3:8. > Mara's reply, and the Buddha's rejoinder, hinge on the practice of > using Pali words for cattle metaphorically to signify the sense > faculties. See GD, pp. 141-42, n. to 26-27. > > Note 297: Here the Buddha is obviously referring to Nibbana. Cp. > 35:117 on the cessation of the six sense bases. What do you guys make of this? When I first read it it sounded like the Buddha was saying he didn't have any eyes, ears, nose, etc. But then I realized that it also says that there aren't even the objects of those sense bases. Odd. Then I couldn't tell if he was speaking of himself or of the location: Nibbana, since he continues to state, "but, Evil One, where there is no eye, no forms, no eye- contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you there, Evil One". There?? I have something of an idea of what he means, that maybe those sense bases aren't 'his' because he no longer believes that he 'owns' them, but my thinking isn't very concrete in this regard. Just because he doesn't believe he owns them does this make it so that Mara doesn't own them either? Also, I didn't know how to find, as it states in Note 297, Cp. 35:117, information to learn more details about cessation of the six sense bases. Do either of you? Overall, I don't feel confident that I know what this sutta is saying. Metta, James 29735 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 6:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Larry I will know and so do you. It has been to be understood that the moment when we felt lobha in this present mind moment that we are experiencing it is already a snow ball effect of the countless lobha-mula akusala citta that arise. What we practise now is only the snow-balled effect and not the momentary lobha-mula cittas. How do I now all these? As usual, study, listening and considering, sooner or later the message will get across. If you prefer a quick way, then you have to join us for discussion for three days (sounds like a retreat ;-)). Ken O 29736 From: Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 7:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Ken O: "How do I now all these? As usual, study, listening and considering," Hi Ken, If you can't really find desire in your experience when carefully looking, what about unhappiness? Can you find unhappiness? Larry 29737 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 7:22pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body /Ken H Hi Sarah, Sorry to hear about the death in your family. Thanks for soldiering- on at dsg. You wrote to Andrew: ------------------ - no need to go soft on your friend - I'm sure it would take a lot more than your gentle and kindly meant ribbing to offend him;-) > -------------------------------- That's true. It is interesting that Andrew even suspected his jokes might have gone too far. Has he contracted my anxiety problem? Is there something in the water in our part of the world? :-) ----------------------------- S: > Funny how those same accumulations shine through, Ken H. I remember a friend who'd heard me harping on about politics and community issues at length and so when it all turned to Buddhism and she was still a friend, she sighed and asked if we had to go through the same process and mini-lectures all over again;-) ---------------- In my case, but not in yours, there has always been a tendency to be a `little bit' opinionated. I'm sure no one has noticed it here though. :-) Kind regards, Ken H 29738 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 8:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Yahoo "spam guard" Larry I haven't quite figured out the basis on which some messages are being identified as spam. Below is Yahoo's anouncement on the new measures. More info can be obtained from the links on the Yahoo Groups website. I hope this helps. Jon A. Dear Yahoo! Groups Members, Yahoo! Groups is proud to announce that we've introduced SpamGuard, an advanced spam-control system. Yahoo! Groups routes messages sent to your group through SpamGuard. If we detect that a message is spam, we will notify you and include the message as an attachment. If you use a Yahoo! Mail email address for your group, these messages will automatically get routed to your Bulk folder. If you do not use Yahoo! Mail, or if you use POP access to read your Yahoo! Groups messages in your email client (e.g., Outlook), you can set up filters to route these messages to an appropriate folder, such as "spam" or "bulk." The introduction of SpamGuard demonstrates Yahoo!'s commitment to fighting spam abuse. We hope that you enjoy this new feature! The Yahoo! Groups Team B. What is SpamGuard? SpamGuard is our spam-detection system. Yahoo! Groups routes messages sent to your group through SpamGuard. If we detect that a message is spam, we will notify you and include the message as an attachment. The notification you will receive should look as follows: -------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups SpamGuard has detected that the attached message to the Yahoo! Group [your group name here] is likely to be spam. For more information about SpamGuard, please visit: http://groups.yahoo.com/local/spamguard.html -------------------------------------------------------- If you use a Yahoo! Mail email address for your group, these messages will automatically get routed to your Bulk folder. If you do not use Yahoo! Mail, or if you use POP access to read your Yahoo! Groups messages in your email client (e.g., Outlook), you can set up filters to route these messages to an appropriate folder, such as "spam" or "bulk." Learn more about filters for POP mail. --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Yahoo is labeling a lot of dsg messages "spam" because of odd > subject lines or names. Is there any way to turn it off? > > Larry 29739 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 8:28pm Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi James, Thanks for typing out the discourse. I read it and this is how I understand it: In the part of the discourse starting with "The eye is yours The eye is yours, Evil One, forms are yours, eye- contact and its base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no eye, no forms, no eye-contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you there, Evil One." to "The mind is yours, Evil One, mental phenomena are yours, mind- contact and its base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no mind, no mental phenomena, no mind-contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you there, Evil One." the Buddha, as I understand it, was delineating the domain of Mara the Evil One. And the domain of Mara the Evil One is: the eye, forms, eye-contact and its base of consciousness, the ear, sounds, ear-contact and its base of consciousness, the nose, odours, nose-contact and its base of consciousness, the tongue, tastes, tongue-contact and its base of consciousness, the body, tactile objects, body-contact and its base of consciousness, the mind, mental phenomena, mind-contact and its base of consciousness. In that sense, each of them is Mara's. They are his domain. Nibbana, the cessation of dukkha, is the cessation of the eye, forms, eye-contact and its base of consciousness, the ear, sounds, ear-contact and its base of consciousness, the nose, odours, nose- contact and its base of consciousness, the tongue, tastes, tongue- contact and its base of consciousness, the body, tactile objects, body-contact and its base of consciousness, the mind, mental phenomena, mind-contact and its base of consciousness. The Buddha said: but, Evil One, where there is no eye, no forms, no eye-contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you there, Evil One. I understand it as that the domain of Mara the Evil One does not extend to nibbana, the cessation of dukkha. In that sense, there is no place for Mara the Evil One in where eye, forms, eye-contact and its base of consciousness cease, the cessation of dukkha, nibbana. The Buddha said "That which they speak of is not mine, I'm not on of those who speak [of mine]. I understand it as not because the Buddha no longer believed that which they speak of is his. He spoke of it (that which they speak of) as it actually is: "That which they speak of is not mine." As I see it, that which they speak of refers to the eye, forms, eye- contact and its base of consciousness, the ear, sounds, ear-contact and its base of consciousness, the nose, odours, nose-contact and its base of consciousness, the tongue, tastes, tongue-contact and its base of consciousness, the body, tactile objects, body-contact and its base of consciousness, the mind, mental phenomena, mind- contact and its base of consciousness. Finally, it (that which they speak of) is impermanent. What is impermanent is dukkha. What is dukkha is not self. What is not self 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." As I see it, saying "That which they speak of is not mine," the Buddha was speaking of the characteristic of that which they speak of being not self. That is how I understand it. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Victor and Azita, > > Here is the section I was referring to: --- > "The eye is yours, Evil One, forms are yours, eye-contact and its > > base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no > > eye, no forms, no eye-contact and its base of consciousness— there > is > > no place for you there, Evil One. (297) The ear is yours, Evil > One, > > sounds are yours, ear-contact and its base of consciousness are > > yours; but, Evil One, where there is no ear, no sounds, no ear- > > contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you > > there, Evil One. The nose is yours, Evil One, odours are yours, > nose- > > contact and its base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, > where > > there is no nose, no odours, no nose-contact and its base of > > consciousness—there is no place for you there, Evil One. The > tongue > > is yours, Evil One, tastes are yours, tongue-contact and its base > of > > consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no tongue, > no > > tastes, no tongue-contact and its base of consciousness—there is no > > place for you there, Evil One. The body is yours, Evil One, > tactile > > objects are yours, body-contact and its base of consciousness are > > yours; but, Evil One, where there is no body, no tactile objects, > no > > body contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for > you > > there, Evil One. The mind is yours, Evil One, mental phenomena are > > yours, mind-contact and its base of consciousness are yours; but, > > Evil One, where there is no mind, no mental phenomena, no mind- > > contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you > > there, Evil One." > > > > [Mara:] > > "That of which they say `It's mine,' > > And those who speak in terms of `mine'— > > If your mind exists among these, > > You won't escape me, ascetic." > > > > [The Blessed One:] > > "That which they speak of is not mine, > > I'm not on of those who speak [of mine]. > > You should know thus, O Evil One: > > Even my path you will not see." > > > > Then Mara the Evil One…disappeared right there. [snip] > What do you guys make of this? When I first read it it sounded like > the Buddha was saying he didn't have any eyes, ears, nose, etc. But > then I realized that it also says that there aren't even the objects > of those sense bases. Odd. Then I couldn't tell if he was speaking > of himself or of the location: Nibbana, since he continues to > state, "but, Evil One, where there is no eye, no forms, no eye- > contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you > there, Evil One". There?? I have something of an idea of what he > means, that maybe those sense bases aren't 'his' because he no longer > believes that he 'owns' them, but my thinking isn't very concrete in > this regard. Just because he doesn't believe he owns them does this > make it so that Mara doesn't own them either? Also, I didn't know > how to find, as it states in Note 297, Cp. 35:117, information to > learn more details about cessation of the six sense bases. Do either > of you? Overall, I don't feel confident that I know what this sutta > is saying. > > Metta, James 29740 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 9:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Yahoo "spam guard" Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Yahoo is labeling a lot of dsg messages "spam" because of odd subject > lines or names. Is there any way to turn it off? ... A little more to add to Jon's note. Obviously Yahoo doesn't think its moderators are tough enough (it obviously doesn't follow us here;-)). Two days ago in my in box it had classified all messages from Victor as spam in my yahoo in box for this account where I get mail!! I paused and then clicked at the top on 'this is not spam'. It then took me to two boxes already ticked with 'report.. to yahoo' and 'deliver all messages from Victor's account'. I just ticked 'send' and since then Victor's messages have been 'un-spammed'. Just now, I find it's doing the same with James's, so I've followed the same procedure. I found nothing in the subject lines.....maybe it's anyone who repeatedly contradicts the moderators on DSG;-);-) Yahoo's very slow at the moment with all its spamworks. Still, as I was telling Chris in Bkk, I've never had a single spam or junkmail in this account (which I just use for DSG mail and occasional off-list mail), so they're doing something right. If you worry you may have missed anything, check the homepage which is not affected. Metta, Sarah p.s in another circular I didn't keep and can't find now, it said to avoid phrases such as 'hi', 'hello' and 'test' in subject lines which will be picked up as spam. ================== 29741 From: Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 4:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Why is Ignorance-Conditioned Sankhara a Condition for Consciousness? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 2/5/04 10:53:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I think the answer to this question is that ignorance of the 4 noble > truths conditions kamma causing consciousness, "sankhara", (e.g. > desire), which conditions kamma resultant consciousness, > "consciousness", (e.g. seeing consciousness). This is according to CMA. > However, I'm not very clear on this. Maybe someone else could explain > it. > > Larry > > ========================= The thing is: Ignorance-conditioned sankhara is a requisite condition for vi~n~nana, and that in turn conditions, in steps, all the remaining links of paticcasamupada, leading to eventual rebirth. But a living arahant, just as a worldling, has experience. If that experience is vi~n~nana, then that vi~n~nana is condition for namarupa, and that for salayatana, and so on down the line, leading to rebirth!! But an arahant is not reborn. Now, in fact, the negative reading of paticcasamupada is that with the cessation of ignorance, there is the cessation of fabrications, and thence the cessation of vi~n~nana, etc. Now, the Buddha had full and final cessation of ignorance, hence of fabrications, and hence of vi~n~nana. So, the Buddha, even the living Buddha, was freed of vi~n~nana. But clearly he wasn't unconscious! So, it seems to me that vi~n~nana must be a *defiled* awareness, an awareness infected by the sense of self. (And that makes sense, arising as it does with ignorance-conditioned sankhara as condition.) It must be an awareness in which there is the seeming of a knowing subject, and, correspondingly, a known object. (A knowing subject is an "I".) It seems to me that patticcasamupada describes the conditioned life of a non-arahant and the mechanism for the arising of suffering in such a being. It also shows the means of escape from suffering by such a being, the breaking of the chain of dependent arising fully and for good, which likewise marks the radical transformation from non-arahant to arahant. 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) 29742 From: Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 4:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi, Larry (and Ken) - In a message dated 2/6/04 12:23:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Ken O: "How do I now all these? As usual, study, listening and > considering," > > Hi Ken, > > If you can't really find desire in your experience when carefully > looking, what about unhappiness? Can you find unhappiness? > > Larry > =================== I must say: This is starting to be a bit amusing! Er, at least I *think* I find it amusing - I'll have to study what the ancient texts say to be sure. (Sorry - just couldn't resist! ;-) 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) 29743 From: Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 4:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Yahoo "spam guard" Hi, Jon - In a message dated 2/6/04 12:36:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Larry > > I haven't quite figured out the basis on which some messages are > being identified as spam. > > Below is Yahoo's anouncement on the new measures. More info can be > obtained from the links on the Yahoo Groups website. > > I hope this helps. > > Jon > ========================= There seem to be alternative criteria. One criterion seems to be a dislike for typing errors that involve insertion of symbols like ) or # in the middle of an English phrase. Also, the spam filter clearly takes to heart the Buddha's instruction to teach in the vernacular - there is a clear aversion to long Pali expressions! ;-)) 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) 29744 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 10:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Companionship Hi Dave, It’s good to hear from you and I always find your practical questions refreshing. I hope Christine gives a response to this one as your comments remind me of ones she used to make when she first joined DSG. I’m sure many others would say just the same. I’m also wondering what’s happened to Nori who also made similar comments. --- dwlemen wrote: > Hi all. > > I have a more practical question that I've been wrestling with for > some time. That is, how do you deal with the "lonelyness" of being a > Buddhist in a western / Christian society? .... I think many of us have been through this and there could be answers on many levels. Sticking to ‘practical’ solutions for now, I think that you might consider: a) making far more use of DSG for Qs and support. It’s what we’re all here for after all. When many of us first became interested in Buddhism and were living in ‘western /Christian society’, there was no internet and we just had to rely on occasional snail mail letters. b) check out the nearest temples, groups, internet Buddhist chat groups. c) why not consider a get together with other DSGers like Howard, Larry or those in Penn who are not too far from you. Maybe you could meet in NY sometime - even if just once a year for a day. If a few people were interested, I’d even consider coming over from HK, now we have direct (but loooong flights), as I’ve never been before. Rob Ep always said he’d come up from Washington DC too. When we met with all the Australians in Noosa a couple of years and more ago, it was really great. .... >Here in Indiana, we are > rather "bible-belt" and there is very little in the way of Buddhist > organizations or anything. > > Are there others who might be in a similiar situation that might have > some advice or encouraging words! I suppose there is not much that > can be done but move or deal with it. .... Ken O will just say ‘right understanding’ and it’s true. In the end we’re all alone and the difficulties, problems, loneliness follow us around. So often it’s the comparing or thinking others are better off that’s the problem, when often we really don’t know. Again Christine was telling me how helpful she found some discussions with Jon on the Sangha issue in this regard. I hope she’ll share more with you as well. I’m also thinking of Num who used to have time to read and post a lot when he was working in hospital in Ohio(?) a couple of years back. He moved back to Thailand to be near family, Thai teachers and so on, but his job and working conditions are so demanding that he’s been under continuous stress and pressure ever since he returned and told me how much simpler life was for him in the States and easier for exercise, study and DSG. (Btw, James, Num told me he’ll be visiting Cairo with his parents, but I have a feeling he stopped posting before you joined DSG??). ... > Anyway, just curious what others might have to offer. Thanks. .... ...And it really does come back to the present moment and knowing those realities. ‘Seeing’ in Indiana is the same as ‘seeing’ in Bangkok.....’attachment’, ‘aversion’ and so on have just the same characteristics. This is why the Buddha’s teaching is universal and applicable to all. Metta, Sarah p.s would you consider kindly add your pic (maybe with the statue RobM helped with) to the member album? I think this is also a way of having a little more personal contact. ======= 29745 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 10:58pm Subject: More contemplation on death (was Contemplation On Own Body /Ken H) Hi KenH & All, --- kenhowardau wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Sorry to hear about the death in your family. Thanks for soldiering- > on at dsg. ..... I was actually pretty shaken up and still can hardly bear to say more about it - I’m now typing in slow motion - but think I may as everyone here goes through these things in their families sooner or later as we've often discussed before here. In brief (well, brief for me), while we were on holiday, unknown to us until the evening before last, my brother’s sister-in-law, in her early 40s, took her life by jumping from the (white) cliffs at Dover(England) while visiting her parents. I never met her, but of course I knew a lot about her and I think I may have made a reference to a previous attempt at suicide on list. Of course by brother (the one who recently visited us here) and his family have had a very tough time and the parents are really struggling. My nieces are also finding it difficult as they were very close to their aunt and she was always very kind to them. She had a very good job, house in London and so on and was very popular (well over 100 colleagues attended the funeral in Dover, at least a couple of hours away). I’ve had a long chat with my sister in law, sent a card with ‘The Salla sutta’ inside* and one or two other things, but one can really only help or say anything if people are ready or wish to hear or speak. We did have some discussion about the uselessness of guilt or thinking we could have helped more and the uselessness of pride when one’s concerned with what others will think as the teenage children are apparently. We also discussed how sometimes we all need to ask for and seek professional and friendly help and again shouldn’t let pride get in the way at such times. My sister-in-law has actually been a tower of strength helping her parents and other friends and family members. No one is getting much sleep. In this regard, whilst we all may often and regularly disagree on aspects of the Teachings, at least we can hear, consider and give each other support from them in our difficulties. As I mentioned to Michael, as I wrote the following words, it was a special reminder for me. We never know what will happen next. “There is but one moment (kha.no) and occasion (samayo), monks, for living the Brahmacariya” (A iv 227) Metta, Sarah *http://www.vipassana.com/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp3-8.php =========== 29746 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 11:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yet more discussion (and food) Hi KenO. For others - Ken O was having a discussion with A.Sujin about whether these and some other cittas in the arahant arose with panna. Ken O, I don't have time to check carefully now, but do you think it might be suggesting these particular kiriya cittas are conditioned by, rather than arising with panna? What did it say in CMA? What about other cittas not arising with panna in the arahant (are we only talking about kiriya ones??). I have students coming now and tomorrow so I don't have time to check myself now. For others - these may seem like obscure points, but sometimes they stem from particular views we may have, such as an arahant having wisdom at each moment or not seeing and hearing as we do now or something else which may affect our ideas about practice. We also had a discussion about the arahant's sila while brushing his teeth. For the ariyan disciples, no more virati sila or any inclination to break the precepts but many other kinds of sila.... Metta, Sarah ===== --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Sarah > > The smiling cittas is from the commentary to the Summary of the > Topics of Abhidhamma chapter six number 34 29747 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 11:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Personal thoughts on life reminders Hi Ken O, --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi All > > By reading posts in this list, it has been very beneficial to me as > it is always a constant reminder and condition reflections in my > life. Sometimes, I was so carried away by life especially the goals > that I have inevitably set by myself, these mails are so crucial to > bring me back to the momemt of right understanding. .... Very good reflections again. When Vince asked us about our retirement plans, I didn't wish to answer but soon was lost in all the stories and attachments as you indicated. >Gosh, it is hard to > have right understandings and not to be so caught up. ... Any wishing for more rt und or wishing not to be 'so caught up'? What about understanding while 'carried with life goals' instead of any (subtle or not so subtle) ideas that it would be better not like this? .... Even when > after I write this and send it out, I know very well, I am still a > wordlings caught up in the net. Conditional life is indeed > suffering. .... ;-) You got it! Metta, Sarah ====== 29748 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 11:44pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Sotaapanno Hi Michael, --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Michael: > There is a misunderstanding in relation to your point 1. The argument is > > that lokuttara magga citta occurs with the elimination of the first > defilement and subsequent to that the sotapanna continues to develop his > > practice and eliminates the other two fetters and after the three > fetters > have been eliminated you have the vipaka phala citta. It would not be > possible for the defilements to be eliminated by a vipaka citta. Point 2 > is > where our main difference is. I will try to get clarification. ... I think we have a difference on all these points and I look forward to any further clarification on any of them. Metta, Sarah ======= 29749 From: Sarah Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 1:37am Subject: Fwd: Fw: An Apology Hi Chuck, You asked for this to be f/w to all attendees. As there were several from DSG, I'm f/w it to the list. Glad you're well and thx for the explanation - I was a little concerned after trying to call both your numbers several times with no answer. I know Sukin was trying too. Metta, Sarah > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Charles Thompson > To: Nina van Gorkom ; Khun Sukind > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 12:27 AM > Subject: An Apology > > > Good Dhamma Friends, > > Please forgive me for not attending the recent Dhamma discussions in > Bangkok. I trust you all will understand. > > Unfortunately, Thursday and Friday were dental appointment days for my > wife and me. On Saturday, I was to be three places at about the same > times. First, with you my Dhamma friends; second, at the 50 Day Death > Remembrances for my late Abbot of Wat Ampheran in the Dusit area of > Bangkok; and, third, attending a "new Abbot's kuti" ceremony with my > wife and her sister in the Chachoansao Province. They had major > monetary contributions for the construction. I chose be with my wife. > I hope you all understand. > > If you can, please forward this message to all attendees with my sincere > apologies. > > Your's in the Dhamma, > > Chuck 29750 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 3:09am Subject: Re: More contemplation on death (was Contemplation On Own Body /Ken H) Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi KenH & All, > > --- kenhowardau wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > > > Sorry to hear about the death in your family. Thanks for soldiering- > > on at dsg. > ..... > I was actually pretty shaken up and still can hardly bear to say more > about it - I'm now typing in slow motion - but think I may as everyone > here goes through these things in their families sooner or later as we've > often discussed before here. My condolences to you and your family for your loss. I want you to know that this morning I meditated upon a wish of loving-kindness for you and your family to face this difficult time with peace and equanimity. I also placed a wish (mental intention) for your brother's sister-in-law's karma stream to meet more favorable and happy circumstances in the future. May we all know the end to life's suffering; may all beings be happy. Metta, James 29751 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 3:13am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi Victor, Thank you for your thorough explanation of this sutta. Unfortunately, hardly none of it is hitting home with me. I think, at least for me, this is one of those types of suttas that no matter how hard I try, I cannot understand it just intellectually. It requires a deeper understanding that I do no possess at the moment. I will place it aside until a later time, when the moment is ripe. Metta, James --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi James, > > Thanks for typing out the discourse. I read it and this is how I > understand it: > 29752 From: gazita2002 Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 3:16am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" dear James, Have just purchased my first book of suttas "A Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya" by Bh. Bodhi, so am able to read from a book rather than the off the Net, much better, I think: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Victor and Azita, > > Here is the section I was referring to: --- > "The eye is yours, Evil One, forms are yours, eye-contact and its > > base of consciousness are yours; but, Evil One, where there is no > > eye, no forms, no eye-contact and its base of consciousness—there > is > > no place for you there, Evil One. (297) , - ...a large snip... > > What do you guys make of this? When I first read it it sounded like > the Buddha was saying he didn't have any eyes, ears, nose, etc. But > then I realized that it also says that there aren't even the objects > of those sense bases. Odd. Then I couldn't tell if he was speaking > of himself or of the location: Nibbana, since he continues to > state, "but, Evil One, where there is no eye, no forms, no eye- > contact and its base of consciousness—there is no place for you > there, Evil One". There?? I have something of an idea of what he > means, that maybe those sense bases aren't 'his' because he no longer > believes that he 'owns' them, but my thinking isn't very concrete in > this regard. I think you're right here, James. I believe the Buddha knows that he owns none of these things - consciousness, sense bases, forms which are objects of the consciousness - bc an arahat's wisdom and knowledge [not to mention a Buddha] is so highly developed that they really know without any doubt at all, that all these conditioned phenomena are impermanent and cannot be 'owned'. Mara, on the other hand, does not have this degree of knowledge, if any, and therefore believes that he does own these things, does have a belief in permanence. In fact, it is my belief that the Buddha knows that these conditioned phenomena are the very things that cause us all to believe in a self, a lasting thing. Because we don't yet have the knowledge, we are ignorant and therefore cling to what we think of as lasting entities. Just because he doesn't believe he owns them does this > make it so that Mara doesn't own them either? Also, I didn't know > how to find, as it states in Note 297, Cp. 35:117, information to > learn more details about cessation of the six sense bases. Not too sure what you are asking here about cessation of sense bases, but I assume that somewhere in the future when Nibbana is finally reached eg. death of arahat then there is final cessation of sense bases. IN the meantime, the rupa [oops I forgot you don't believe in rupa ;) but I'll continue my rave] which we call sense bases arises and falls constantly therefore in a sense, there is a kind of cessation happening all the time. Do either > of you? Overall, I don't feel confident that I know what this sutta > is saying. > > Metta, James Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 29753 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 3:18am Subject: Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Larry (and Ken O), You asked: > When I asked you to look at desire and see if it > is really desire or just concept, what did you find? You said the > detecting of desire is only "thinking". Did you mean that there really > wasn't any desire after all? I really liked Ken O's answer to this when he said: "Detecting desire is have the possibility of deliberate action, hence usually conditioned by discursive thinking(moha)." I think this is what happens with any deliberate `looking' and I believe your point is that we may be carried away by a concept and *think* that we experience `desire', but in reality it may be something else altogether. Am I right? I believe the level of ignorance in most of us is tremendous. However I think we can still learn something from conceptual manifestations, only we must be careful to realize that it is just that. So by "thinking" I also mean making inferences from vague feelings and ideas about experiences. And here reading about the characteristics of Paramattha dhammas help. I believe that this little by little conditions understanding, becoming gradually more and more precise and leading to possibility of having insight later on. Hence I also like Ken's advice to keep it simple. Otherwise there is room not only for misapprehension but also for lobha to feed upon. It is hard to remember this, since the desire to latch on some form of security (an explanation about one's experiences) is so great. K. Sujin often reminds us about lobha being both the leader and the follower. By "thinking" I also mean that when one apprehends a sense door object, be it sound or visible object, it happens so fast and falls away instantly, that by the time we realize it, it is only `a thought', and that too the product of trains and trains of it. We have so many ideas about the study and practice of the Buddha's teachings, but should we be propelled to follow any particular practice? The idea of differentiating between theory and practice is fine, but what reality is "study" and what "practice"? I think the only sure distinction is made when satipatthana arises and one knows that this is only a dhamma and no words are needed to describe it. But how can this be made to arise? `Who' practices `what'?!! It is useful to know the difference, but if `theory' is all we experience now, it is already a great blessing. Certainly there is no one who `lets go' of theory and choosing instead to application. Our ideas about such things are mostly very vague, often associated with `attachment for results' and often we tend to be quite idealistic too, no!? Panna lets go by the very fact that it `sees'. So why struggle! ;-) Forgot what else I wanted to say :-/, so will just end here. Metta, Sukin 29754 From: Sarah Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 4:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More contemplation on death (was Contemplation On Own Body /Ken H) Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > My condolences to you and your family for your loss. I want you to > know that this morning I meditated upon a wish of loving-kindness for > you and your family to face this difficult time with peace and > equanimity. I also placed a wish (mental intention) for your > brother's sister-in-law's karma stream to meet more favorable and > happy circumstances in the future. May we all know the end to life's > suffering; may all beings be happy. > > Metta, James ..... This is a beautiful message and I greatly appreciate your friendship and kind wishes. Thank you - it's given me inspiration to consider further ways to offer assistance to her family and a wish that her 'karma stream' may appreciate some of the good deeds being performed in her memory. Metta, Sarah p.s I'll try to share your message too. ======= 29755 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 4:47am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi Azita, Azita: Have just purchased my first book of suttas "A Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya" by Bh. Bodhi, so am able to read from a book rather than the off the Net, much better, I think: James: Congratulations! Isn't it a wonderful feeling? Yes, it is much better to read them out of the book than off the Internet. Not only is it more `personal', you don't waste bandwidth and don't suffer as much eye fatigue! ;-)) Hopefully you will join actively in the SN corner now. (Christine and Howard seem to have ditched the group or something??) Azita: I think you're right here, James. I believe the Buddha knows that he owns none of these things - consciousness, sense bases, forms which are objects of the consciousness - bc an arahat's wisdom and knowledge [not to mention a Buddha] is so highly developed that they really know without any doubt at all, that all these conditioned phenomena are impermanent and cannot be 'owned'. James: I'm glad that you agree. It took a lot of concentrated thought for me to come up with that!! ;-)) Actually, it hit me spontaneously after my concentrated thought went nowhere. Azita: Mara, on the other hand, does not have this degree of knowledge, if any, and therefore believes that he does own these things, does have a belief in permanence. James: This is an excellent point!! I didn't think of that. Sometimes we think that Mara is almost the antithesis of the Buddha; he knows everything the Buddha knows but is just opposed to it because he is evil. But that isn't the case at all. He is just as ignorant as the rest of us. I have been reading in a few sources that eventually Mara becomes a disciple of the Buddha and is reborn in a god realm and will eventually become a future Buddha…but I don't know if this is textually accurate or not. Azita: Not too sure what you are asking here about cessation of sense bases, but I assume that somewhere in the future when Nibbana is finally reached eg. death of arahat then there is final cessation of sense bases. James: Yes, I assumed that also but there must be a textual reference for that somewhere, a description of it. I would like to read that if anyone could point me in the right direction. Azita: IN the meantime, the rupa [oops I forgot you don't believe in rupa ;) but I'll continue my rave] James: LOL! Actually, this isn't true anymore. I do believe in rupa; it just depends on whose rupa you are referring to. I believe in a phenomenological rupa but not an ontological rupa…if that makes sense. Metta, James ps. Why don't you introduce a sutta from the Marasamyutta that you find interesting? 29756 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 5:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Larry Maybe it is a bit difficult to explain. When the momemt you experience a desire or unpleasant feelings (unhappiness is to be a bit vague so I have used unpleasant), the momentary feelings of our experience of such cittas will have arise and cease a million times. By the time when we experience (we do experience it) its already a conceptual or thinking level. The practise we now have is only conceptual/thinking level, it is still not satipatthana where it works only in paramttha level. But every journey there should be a start, so our "satipatthana" is all still conceptual level. You cannot purposedly find unhappiness, anyway by the time we know it, it is already a conceptual level. No one can deliberately find anything cittas or cetasikas bc they are all anatta - so dont bother to find it. Just like a woman is only many momentary visible rupas that form this woman "rupa", hence the satipatthana we see is only "rupa" of woman and not the millions of momentary visible rupas. But this "rupa" is the start of right understanding at conceptual level which eventually lead to paramattha level where we are able to see the million of momentary visible rupas. Just having right understanding of rupas and namas help a lot and it has broke down conceptual level. Once I realise that woman are just "rupa" the likelihood of the arisen of lobha mula cittas reduce tremenduously. I used to have such experience before but did not understand it, now after hearing from A Sujin and considering it, it makes a lot of sense. Hence the learning of Abhidhamma is crucial for right understanding of the characteristics of nama and rupas, and most impt it built a lot of confidence on the path of liberation. I think I cannot said enough, right understanding of characteristics is impt and prevent ambuigity in our practise, it provide a concise meaning in the path of salvation, Learning Abhidhamma has so many benefits and it will only be known when one start using it in their daily lives, and even i will to write for another day, I would not write finish the benefits one will experience with Abhidhamma. Larry, dont push youself too hard. It takes time to learn and understand Abhidhamma and to me there is no such thing as overnight "Buddha". Have confidence in it bc one day I believe that you will understand. One day, you will exclaim "it is just conditions" or "it is just namas and rupas". Till then as Azita always said good cheer. Ken O 29757 From: ashkenn2k Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 5:24am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi James James: I have something of an idea of what he means, that maybe those sense bases aren't 'his' because he no longer believes that he 'owns' them, but my thinking isn't very concrete in this regard. Azita:I think you're right here, James. I believe the Buddha knows > that he owns none of these things - consciousness, sense bases, forms which are objects of the consciousness - bc an arahat's wisdom and knowledge [not to mention a Buddha] is so highly developed that they really know without any doubt at all, that all these conditioned > phenomena are impermanent and cannot be 'owned'. k: James if you have learn the Abhidhamma, you will understand whats is being said in the sutta. This sutta becomes very clear. I always believe that learning Abhdidhamma bring concise and clarity in our studying of Suttas. Suttas may sound inconsistent at times and by just study Abhidhamma, we will realise that there is no inconsistency. Just my thoughts (sound like a salesman here) Ken O 29758 From: icarofranca Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 5:54am Subject: [dsg] Re: Anatta Dear Larry: "I agree; but thinking is always questionable. Thanks for your scholarly > and wide ranging reply (Noah Chomsky???) :))) I think we will have more > to say on this word (sankhara) in the fullness of time." ------------------------------------------------------------------- A lot of problems here to deal on! Monday I ought to travel on assignment of my office... and robbers had stolen all Phone cables of mi neighbourhood: so, I won't have Internet at home for a while!!! But, as Good Rob Moult wrote at his essay, the only burden at our mind it's realy the Ego - that somewhat artifitial structure that manages our comprehension of external world. When you relieve its pressure on brains, a deeper stracta of consciousness buddeth forth. If you do it without the recurse of hammering on your skull with clubs and warhammers, so it won't hurt anyway thinking about it! Noah Chomsky was the first scholar to point out the necessity of build up a general grammar for English and other languages, as done at the classical Arnault & Lancelot's "Grammarie du Port-Royal"! ------------------------------------------------------------------ How are you > doing with Buddhaghosa? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wonderful!!! I've read the first chapter of Visuddhimagga in English. Many doubts and obscurities on Buddhaghosa's treatment of Pali Language and Buddhistic Doctrine had been clarified: - Yes!!! That's the Answer! - But... What's the question ??? - Stay Tuned for more Visuddhimagga chapters!!! --------------------------------------------------------------------- "We will be starting up on the Visuddhimagga > again in a week or two." ------------------------------------------------------------------ When the Phone Company fix the stolen cables for new ones, I will get back internet at home!! Mettaya, Ícaro 29759 From: icarofranca Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 6:00am Subject: [dsg] Re: Anatta Typos: > had stolen all Phone cables of mi neighbourhood: Mi casa su casa... but the right word is "my" the Ego - that somewhat artifitial structure Artificial strucuture (I really hope clean out all these mistakes when reach Nibbana!) Mettaya, Ícaro 29760 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 7:29am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi Ken O, Ken: James if you have learn the Abhidhamma, you will understand whats is being said in the sutta. This sutta becomes very clear. I always believe that learning Abhdidhamma bring concise and clarity in our studying of Suttas. Suttas may sound inconsistent at times and by just study Abhidhamma, we will realise that there is no inconsistency. James: I appreciate your concern and well-wishing for me, but really, there is no reason to keep proselytizing the Abhidhamma to me. I don't believe that the Abhidhamma is the `magic pill' for everyone. I hope you aren't going to chime in every time I express confusion over a sutta with, "If you just knew the Abhidhamma you would understand it!" LOL! That would get very tiresome. As for myself, what I believe I lack at the moment is Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration. I have gone as far as I can go with vipassana meditation so now I am beginning the process to kick it up into high gear with Jhana meditation. Ken, did you know that it was from Jhana meditation that the Buddha gained enlightenment? Amazing but true!! ;-) It was from the fourth level of Jhana that he developed the psychic ability to know his numerous past lives, the passing away and reappearance of other beings according to their kamma, and then finally the knowledge of the taints and their destruction (MN 36). Now, developing Jhana isn't everything; take Jeff for example. He doesn't have Right View and Right Understanding so he has taken Jhana to only the second level and believes that ecstasy is the whole goal (he also mistakenly believes he has achieved all four jhanas when he has only further perfected the second jhana.) The key that you seem to be missing is to purify the mind and let knowledge arise on its own. Knowing the Abhidhamma with a defiled mind is like driving at high speed in the fog: you may think you're going somewhere but pretty soon you're going to crash. Metta, James 29761 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 8:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi James > Ken, did you know that it was from Jhana meditation that the Buddha gained enlightenment? Amazing but true!! ;-) It was from the fourth level of Jhana that he developed the psychic ability to know his numerous past lives, the passing away and reappearance of other beings according to their kamma, and then finally the knowledge of the taints and their destruction (MN 36). k: Do you think Buddha if without panna will attain enlightment? Just by experiencing jhanas? Hey there are many ascetics during Buddha time also have jhanas - only Buddha attain enlightment and not them? how do you explain it. > The key that you seem to be missing is to purify the mind and let > knowledge arise on its own. Knowing the Abhidhamma with a defiled > mind is like driving at high speed in the fog: you may think you're > going somewhere but pretty soon you're going to crash. k: Dont you and I have the same problem, how about those pple who study suttas with a defile mind, would it also mean like driving high speed in the fog also? Ken O 29762 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 10:32am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi James, No problem. Sometimes things just don't make sense and I think putting this particular discourse aside for a while and come back to it later is helpful. In the mean time, necessary prior knowledge to understand the discourse might be acquired or assumption that is not in accord with what is being said in the discourse might be exposed and examined. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Thank you for your thorough explanation of this sutta. > Unfortunately, hardly none of it is hitting home with me. I think, > at least for me, this is one of those types of suttas that no matter > how hard I try, I cannot understand it just intellectually. It > requires a deeper understanding that I do no possess at the moment. > I will place it aside until a later time, when the moment is ripe. > > Metta, James > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > Hi James, > > > > Thanks for typing out the discourse. I read it and this is how I > > understand it: > > 29763 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 11:22am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: < snip > The key that you seem to be missing is to purify the mind and let knowledge arise on its own. Knowing the Abhidhamma with a defiled mind is like driving at high speed in the fog: you may think you're going somewhere but pretty soon you're going to crash. Metta, James KKT: Going to crash, yes. But the same conglomeration of paramattha dhammas is still there. (by the principle of conservation of energy :-)) Only the form of this conglomeration changes :-)) Hope nobody feels offense. No harm is intended here. I cannot resist giving this comment just for joke :-)) Metta, KKT 29764 From: Eddie Lou Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 1:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Dear KKT, Interesting, I thought I am but one of the few that will relate Dhamma with Physical Law like - the principle of conservation of energy :-). I frequently think all these we are thinking about Dhamma are somehow, energy-related. Like, Karmic energy. I once asked of some one knowledgeable in Dhamma he said yes, it is or like energy. United Field Theory ??? - that unfinished masterpiece by Dr. Albert Einstein. Hope I do not get all these mixed up. Hope to learn more from you relating to such linkage or analogy. Metta, Eddie Lou. --- phamdluan2000 wrote: < snip > > > KKT: Going to crash, yes. > > But the same conglomeration of > paramattha dhammas is still there. > (by the principle of > conservation of energy :-)) > Only the form of this > conglomeration changes :-)) < snip > > Metta, > > > KKT 29765 From: Htoo Naing Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 1:09pm Subject: Sensing feeling where it arises and where it vanishes ( 07 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, The Dhamma practitioner is training his mind to be well tamed. He trains his mind in many different ways. At the very first attempt, he started with breathing meditation. Origionally his mind is so wild that it frequently escaped from watching. With diligent practice, moving of mind far outside of the origional object of meditation can well be controlled and his mind is then mostly in his breathing process at least while he is doing sitting meditation and also at other time whenever it is practicable. When he changes his body position he notes that changes and he well knows his bodily position. He knows while he sits. He knows while he stands. He knows while he walks. He knows while he lies in bed and he knows his body position well. He knows whenever he does anything like bending, stretching, moving, stopping, carrying, dropping, dressing, undressing, washing, brushing, eating, drinking, and anything that is related to his body is watched thoroughly and he notes that he knows all these well. He contemplates on his own body and he goes on each part and recognizes that there is nothing to attach with all these body parts. At a time, he contemplates on 4 elements that compose the whole body and he notices that there is nothing but these 4 basic elements and there is nothing to attach. The body where he has to depend is just a body and when he has to leave it it will becomes a corpse and he contemplates on the process of decomposition till all body parts become dust and with that practice he realizes that there is nothing to attach to his body. At a time he contemplates on feeling. When a pleasant feeling arises, he notes that the pleasant feeling arise. When it falls away, he notices that he knows the feeling falls away. When unpleasant feeling arises, he notes that unpleasant feeling arises. When it falls away, he recognizes that he knows that unpleasant feeling falls away. When neither pleasant nor unpleasant feeling arises, he notices its arising and he also knows that he knows when it falls away. At a time, a feeling with sensual pleasure arises. He notes that a feeling with sensual pleasure arises. When falls away, he notices that he knows it falls away. When a feeling with sensual displeasure arises he notes that arises and when falls away he also notices its falling away. When a feeling with neither sensual pleasure or sensual displeasure arises, he notes that arising and when falls away, he recognizes that he knows its falling away. In this way, he recognizes all happenings around him when they arise as arising and when they fal away as falling away. He well manages where feeling arises and where it vanishes and when it arises and when it vanishes. This recognition makes him that there is no self, no permanance and all are sufferings. May all beings be able to contemplate on feeling whenever it arises and wherever it arises. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 29766 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 3:26pm Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi Ken O, Ken: Do you think Buddha if without panna will attain enlightment? James: I'm afraid you would have to explain EXACTLY what you mean by `panna' before I could answer this question (and it would be pure conjecture anyway). `Panna' is one of those slippery Pali words with multiple meanings. Ken: Hey there are many ascetics during Buddha time also have jhanas - only Buddha attain enlightment and not them? how do you explain it. James: Because those ascetics were operating under the false assumption that they had a `self' which they were trying to unite with Brahman. As a consequence, they only lessened the defilements during Jhana, or suppressed them, they didn't eliminate them. The Buddha used the Jhanas to clearly understand the defilements, didn't operate under the false assumption of the other ascetics, and discovered that there isn't a self to unite with anything. Therefore he was able to completely eliminate the defilements and become enlightened. He then went to those ascetics who had practiced Jhana (those with little dust in their eyes) and gave them this vital information. They were then able to achieve enlightenment quite quickly after that. Face it Ken, Jhana or Vipassana meditation is a part of the Buddha's path. He defined Right Concentration specifically as the Four Jhanas and he extolled his bhikkhus on numerous occasions to practice Jhana. (What is the problem here? Why do I have to continue to explain this in this group??? It is getting just plain stupid to have to continue to explain this obvious fact to certain people who should know better!!!) Ken: Dont you and I have the same problem, how about those pple who study suttas with a defile mind, would it also mean like driving high speed in the fog also? James: Oh yes, I am in the fog also; but I admit and accept that I am in the fog. You on the other hand don't. That is why you are going at high speed while I am cautiously inching forward step-by-step. Metta, James 29767 From: Htoo Naing Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 3:46pm Subject: Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 01 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, If someone wants to get through the samsara, he has to realise what the samsara is. It is nothing but continuation of pieces of the present. The present that he experiences is part of life. In temporal profile, a life constitutes starts from linking consciousness ( patisandhi ) through dying consciousness ( Cuti ). That dying consciousness is again linked by another linking consciousness by means of existing Kamma which is never seen by ordinary beings. Life after life constitutes a circle of life of wheel of life and that endless circle of life is called the samsara. To get through the samsara one has to realise what are composed of life and why they are arising. Compositions are nothing but pieces of nama dhamma and rupa dhamma co-existing together and they are viewed wrongly as beings, lives and so on. These nama dhamma and rupa dhamma have to arise due to dictation of kamma. This kamma again is not created by outside but by the kamma owners. Kamma owners own kamma because they are acting, committing actions with craving or Tanha. This Tanha has to arise because of Avijja or Moha. To cut through all these, before the final eradication, what the mind constitues should be known and understood. What the mind constitues? To see all these is to watch the mind. To contemplate on the mind. To know all mind movement and to follow wherever the mind go and whener it moves. When it moves, the origional place was void of it and so on. This is impermanence. To see this is to watch the mind. May all beings contemplate on their mind whenever it moves. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 29768 From: Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 4:43am Subject: Cultivating Absorption Leads to Cessation Hello Ken O, it is once again a pleasure to hear from you, and thank-you for your excellent question. Cultivating Absorption (jhana/dhyana) Leads to Cessation (Nibbana) Yes, I have a deep faith in the teachings of the historic Buddha, as revealed in the Pali canon, because I have direct experience in the efficacy of those teachings. However, I have found the present level of translation seems to be rather unskillful, because there are a few key areas that do not reflect the experiences that I acquired through following the practices that are revealed in the canon, and therefore those few unskillful translations must be challenged. Actually, there is no evidence to support a belief that the Buddha ever taught it took "countless lives" to either arrive at a "pleasant abiding in the here and now" (jhana), which are the absorption states (jhanas); or their fruition in cessation (nibbana). He said it was indeed possible to become enlightened in this very lifetime. Maha-satipatthana Sutta, DN 22.22 "Now, if anyone would develop these Four Cornerstones of Awareness (frames of reference, or foundations of mindfulness) in this way for seven years, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis (Arahantship) right here & now, or -- if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance -- non-return." I am certain that if you want to become enlightened in this very lifetime, then all you need do is follow the Noble Eightfold Path to its logical conclusion, which is cessation. An essential part of that path is right awareness (samma-sati), which is cultivated through the practice of concentration. Awareness (Sati) is defined in the Sati suttas as awareness of the breath, body, senses and mind. These are the four cornerstones of awareness (Sati). DN 22.21 "And what is right awareness (samma-sati)? There is the case where an aspirant remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & aware -- putting aside greed & unhappiness (dukkha) with reference to the world. one remains focused on feelings in & of themselves ... one remains focused on the mind in & of itself ... one remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves -- ardent, alert, & aware -- putting aside greed & unhappiness (dukkha) with reference to the world. This is called right awareness (samma-sati)." Mindfulness is the common translation of the Pali term 'Sati.' I prefer to use 'awareness' for a translation of the term 'Sati,' because that is what we are doing when we are practicing Satipatthana, developing awareness. The word 'mindfulness' refers to the mind, which is a rather vague term in the English language that can also mean the processes of cognition. It is some of these processes of cognition, (perception, thinking, reasoning and memory) that we are attempting to bring to cessation while maintaining only the awareness component of cognition for nibbana to arise. Awareness is separated out from the aggregate of cognition and developed through the practice of concentration. The cultivation of awareness is revealed in the three Sati suttas. The Sati suttas are a series of concentration exercises that lead to the development of awareness (Sati), which leads to absorption (jhana), which leads to cessation (nibbana). The Noble Eight Fold Path requires Right Absorption (sama-samadhi), which is the cultivation of absorption states (jhanas) through the development of awareness (Sati) by practicing the concentration techniques that are revealed in the three Sati suttas. Right Absorption (sama-samadhi) is defined in terms of absorption (jhana) in the Maha-satipatthana Sutta (DN 22.21). DN 22.21 "And what is right {absorption (sama-samadhi)}? There is the case where an aspirant -- quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities -- enters & remains in the first jhana: joy & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by applied and sustained {concentration (vitakka and vicára)}. With the stilling of applied and sustained {concentration (vitakka and vicára)}, one enters & remains in the second jhana: joy & pleasure born of tranquillity, unification of awareness free from directed applied and sustained {concentration (vitakka and vicára)} -- internal assurance. With the fading of exuberance one remains in equanimity, (aware) & alert, physically sensitive of ecstasy. One enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & (aware), one has a pleasurable abiding.' With the abandoning of (grasping and aversion for) pleasure & pain -- as with the earlier disappearance of pleasure & pain -- one enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & awareness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called right absorption." If you are intent upon enlightenment (nibbana) in this very lifetime, then cultivating absorption (jhana) should be the most important thing on your mind. That however does not mean that you have to renounce all of your material possessions and relationships to arrive at a "pleasant abiding in the here and now" (jhana). All you need do is follow the Noble Eight Fold Path, which requires that one develop right awareness (samma-sati) which leads to right absorption (samma-samdhi), which leads to cessation (nibbana). What I have found is central to the practice of giving rise to jhana: is relinquishment of all grasping and aversion; developing a daily contemplative practice regimen that is "sensitive to the arising of a pleasure that is not of sense contact;" cultivating moment-to-moment awareness (Sati); giving rise to tranquility (calm abiding); and sustaining that awareness and tranquility throughout the day. At each practice session simply sit as though it is your last act in life, and sit with no intention to end the session. The session will end itself. Then either begin your day if it is the beginning of your day, or go about your day if it is the middle of your day, or go to bed, if it is the end of the day. I know that if you practice as little as 5 minutes three times a day you will have far more success than the person who attends a 10 day retreat every year, but never meditates in between. Many Buddhist traditions seem to reject the cultivation of absorption (jhana/dhyana). The vipassana community believes there is a method called "dry insight" that leads to nibbana. I am certain a belief in a "dry insight" practice is a fiction that is a product of 2 and half Millennia of corruption by a sangha who has lost the way. There are only 3 tiny references in the Pali canon that can maybe be construed to support a belief in a 'dry' practice regimen, however those three lines in thousands of pages of text that are dedicated to the cultivation of absorption (jhana) are most probably apocryphal. And, even if the historic Buddha actual uttered them, why should one throw out 10,000 pages of text that are dedicated to the cultivation of right absorption (samma-samadhi) in support of three obscure lines that claim one can avoid one of the steps in the Noble Eight Fold Path? Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translations of the above suttas are available at these URLs: Anapanasati Sutta (MN 118) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn118.html Satipatthana Sutta (MN 10) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn010.html Maha-satipatthana Sutta (DN. 22) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn22.html The alternate translations that I used are available at this URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas/files/ May you become enlightened in this very lifetime. Jeff Brooks In a message dated 2/5/04 8:03:16 PM, dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com writes: << From: Kenneth Ong Subject: Re: Re: Ecstasy and Addiction in Buddhism - Long Hi Jeff Brooks I am definitely interested in jhanas (even though I know it may be countless lives away before I experience ;-0). Definitely jhanas bring a different level of pleasant abiding than what we experience as plesant in non-jhanas momemts. I glad that you have strong faith in the Pali Cannon in Pali - If my memory does not fail me there is a method of dry insight where one does not need jhanas to be enlighted. Beside this point lets talk about jhanas. But first of all, I have not experience jhanas in my whole life and also I have not read much about jhanas bc to me this is still not a practical thing for me now. If you are interested in this, I like to explore further this with you. I like to explore the mindfullness portion with you - how do you define mindfullness. Do you think when one that is mindful, will one still long for the experience of the ecstasy of jhanas? When one is mindful, can one say let me now go to the jhanas - is it possible without the right conditions?. What do you mean by dedicated contemplative practice, what are the conditions, what are the methods? Are those said in the sutta where one must be withdraw from sensual desire first before going to the jhanas? Or one have to the right conditions as stated in the Visud before a jhanas can happen? Thats all I can think now for you kind comments please Ken O >> 29769 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 4:55pm Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Dear James, I've just read this Sutta you quoted. If you are familiar with Mahayana scriptures then you might not be surprised because such ideas as in this Sutta are expressed to satiety in the voluminous corpus of Mahayana scriptures called Maha-Prajnaparamita Sutras. This is the proof that those Mahayana Sutras are later developments from some ideas taking root in the original teachings of the Buddha. Here is an excerpt from the Heart Sutra with a similar description. Emptiness here is the domain of Buddha (and not Mara). http://members.ozemail.com.au/~mooncharts/heartsutra/english.html Then, through the power of the Buddha, venerable Shariputra said to noble Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva mahasattva, "How should a son or daughter of noble family train, who wishes to practice the profound prajnaparamita?" Addressed in this way, noble Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva mahasattva, said to venerable Shariputra, "O Shariputra, a son or daughter of noble family who wishes to practice the profound prajnaparamita should see in this way: seeing the five skandhas to be empty of nature. Form is emptiness; emptiness also is form. Emptiness is no other than form; form is no other than emptiness. In the same way, feeling, perception, formation, and consciousness are emptiness. Thus, Shariputra, all dharmas are emptiness. There are no characteristics. There is no birth and no cessation. There is no impurity and no purity. There is no decrease and no increase. Therefore, Shariputra, in emptiness, there is no form, no feeling, no perception, no formation, no consciousness; no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind; no appearance, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch, no dharmas, no eye dhatu up to no mind dhatu, no dhatu of dharmas, no mind consciousness dhatu; no ignorance, no end of ignorance up to no old age and death, no end of old age and death; no suffering, no origin of suffering, no cessation of suffering, no path, no wisdom, no attainment, and no non-attainment. Therefore, Shariputra, since the bodhisattvas have no attainment, they abide by means of prajnaparamita. Metta, KKT 29770 From: Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 6:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Why is Ignorance-Conditioned Sankhara a Condition for Consciousness? Hi Howard, I don't know how dependent arising works for an arahant. But I'm pretty sure even an arahant's body is still subject to kamma result. I suppose that all 6 sense consciousnesses are also still kamma resultant. This might tie into the sutta James is discussing. The main thing that is different is that an arahant doesn't create new kamma. Larry 29771 From: Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 6:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Ken O: "Maybe it is a bit difficult to explain. When the momemt you experience a desire or unpleasant feelings (unhappiness is to be a bit vague so I have used unpleasant), the momentary feelings of our experience of such cittas will have arise and cease a million times. By the time when we experience (we do experience it) its already a conceptual or thinking level." Hi Ken, You are saying the truth of suffering is a concept in two ways. First, it is a concept isofar as it is a theory we don't understand. Second, it is a concept insofar as what we do understand as suffering in our everyday life is itself only a conceptual construct. Is there any real suffering anywhere here? How do you know? Larry 29772 From: Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 6:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Sukin:"I believe your point is that we may be carried away by a concept and *think* that we experience `desire´, but in reality it may be something else altogether." Hi Sukin, If you can't really find desire of any kind in your experience, but instead find only a house built of concept, why look any further? Your dilemma is solved. The seeming desire is not desire. It is only something you think. Can you find that thought? Larry 29773 From: Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 3:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Why is Ignorance-Conditioned Sankhara a Condition for Consciousness? Hi, Larry - In a message dated 2/6/04 9:51:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I don't know how dependent arising works for an arahant. But I'm pretty > sure even an arahant's body is still subject to kamma result. I suppose > that all 6 sense consciousnesses are also still kamma resultant. This > might tie into the sutta James is discussing. The main thing that is > different is that an arahant doesn't create new kamma. > > Larry > ============================= It seems to me that a question is whether or not the 12-factor scheme of dependent origination leading to suffering applies only to non-arahants. Inasmuch as it includes rebirth and resulting suffering, and an arahant is not reborn and is freed of suffering, it must not. Yet during the final life of a not-yet-arahant, until final liberation is achieved, ignorance consistently arises as condition in the mindstream-to -be-liberated. That must renew the cycle of dependent origination. When the transition to arahant occurs, the die has already been cast it would seem. Why, then, do rebirth and suffering not result? The answer as I see is that for the positive aspect of dependent origination to occur, ignorance is a required condition at every step, and not just at the beginning. As soon as there is the cessation of ignorance, the positive cycle of dependent origination is stopped cold, because there immediately follows the cessation of fabrications (as defiled conditioning factors), and of the remaining ten factors - i.e., there is the toppling of the factors that lead suffering, like the knocking down of a line of dominoes. Once ignorance goes, it all goes, ignorance being a necessary condition all along, and not just at the outset. Thus, as soon as ignorance ceases, the cessation aspect is then operative instead, no longer the positive aspect. In particular, once ignorance ceases, vi~n~nana cannot arise. But, then, 'vi~n~nana' cannot just mean "consciousness", because arahants are not unconscious. Experience, kammically induced, will still flow, but it is no longer a flow consisting of a seeming self/subject grasping seemingly separate, independent objects. 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) 29774 From: Sarah Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 11:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi Victor (& James), --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi James, > > Thanks for typing out the discourse. I read it and this is how I > understand it: .... I've only just read your post 29739 (and not the ones after it yet).I've snipped it all for now but wish to say I think it's very clearly presented and helpful and it's the second one you've written on this thread which I fully agree with (for what that's worth!!!). Welcome to the Samyutta corner;-) Metta, Sarah ====== 29775 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 0:59am Subject: Re: Companionship Hello Dave, (Sarah), and all, Two years ago I was experiencing just the same difficulties and isolation that you are going through. In my case, I had come out of decades of being a practising Christian, was involved in all the church organisations and activities, children went to denominational high schools, and most of my friends were similar. Big change. Spiritual loneliness, disorientation. I enrolled in a beginner's meditation course (seen advertised in a health store shop window) - two actually, one Zen and one Samatha- Vipassana. Liked both, but felt more affinity with the S-V. I continued with the weekly meditation, dhamma talk and chat for a year. The leader left to become a guiding teacher elsewhere, and the group fizzled out over the next months. By this time, I had felt a growing attraction for the Dhamma. Most of the people in the meditation group didn't want to do anything other than meditation, but I had a need to know the scriptures and explore a little more. Via the internet, I found I was a Thera at heart, so joined a few yahoo discussion groups and continued private study. This was good, but I still had no face to face support. Some off-list discussion with members of dsg and DL resulted in them suggesting that I attempt to meet some of the members living within a couple of hundred kilometres of my home - Brisbane, Australia - and gave help with facilitating that. Eventually, a few of us met - a couple of the others already knew each other - and now we have a 'camping in the shed' weekend together every three or four months with about eight to ten people. (Some of the group are on this list - KenH, Andrew, Steve bodhi2500, and sometimes Azita who comes over 900 kilometres.) These weekends are at Andrew's property at Cooran a couple of hours drive north of Brisbane( thank-you Andrew), Andrew gets in the provisions and everyone shares the costs of food and petrol. The discussions are 'semi-organised' - a few leading topics, photocopies of articles, plus whatever anyone wants to bring along, and the many sidetracks that we end up taking. Some are meditators, some aren't - we live and let live. :-) Someone usually brings along buddhist dictionaries or copies of the suttas, to help settle "the debates". :-) I also attend a dhamma study group one Sunday afternoon a month, which I found out about from people who attend the weekends. These meetings are worth starting up if there is nothing in your area - ask on the Lists you belong to if anyone lives in your area, or put a notice up in a local 'new-age' shop or in the local paper. Even if it starts with two or three, it will grow. If people live a few hundred kilometres away, consider the weekend get together every few months. If I could find some dhamma friends in the wilds of Queensland - I'm sure you will discover some near you eventually. I also found a few by doing a course of study - in my case, Pali. The University of Indiana may present some subject under Religious Studies that would allow you to meet other buddhists. At other times, I found sound files and books helpful. Nothing like listening to Bhikkhu Bodhi's lectures downloaded from the internet in your study. If you need any links to sound files or articles by Theravadin teachers or to places that sell buddhist books, I'd be happy to help out. When I could, and finances allowed, I went to meditation retreats in other states. Nowadays, I don't do that, but I go to Bangkok a couple of times a year for discussions with local dsg-ers (incl. Betty, Sukin, Ivan) and anyone else who can get there (this last time Nina, KenO, Sarah and Jon from dsg list). I also try to join in any pilgrimage trips others on the List are making. I've been to Sri Lanka and Myanmar with friends from dsg, and intend to go to India in October this year. It all depends on finances, stage of life, and what other obligations you have. But there is nothing like being with some people over days/weeks to make firm friendships. A couple of url's that may be helpful (or may not) or may be able to suggest other contacts: Indiana Buddhist temple - with a couple of Sri Lankan monks - may know of other groups in the area. http://members.wri.com/shirald/slsociety/temple/ Tri-State Dharma http://tristatedharma.org/pages/classes.htm Dave, you'll find dhamma friends for sure - it just needs perseverance. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Hi all. > > I have a more practical question that I've been wrestling with for > some time. That is, how do you deal with the "lonelyness" of being a > Buddhist in a western / Christian society? Here in Indiana, we are > rather "bible-belt" and there is very little in the way of Buddhist > organizations or anything. > > Are there others who might be in a similiar situation that might have > some advice or encouraging words! I suppose there is not much that > can be done but move or deal with it. > > Anyway, just curious what others might have to offer. Thanks. > > > Peace, > > > Dave 29776 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 1:16am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Larry, > If you can't really find desire of any kind in your experience, but > instead find only a house built of concept, why look any further? Your > dilemma is solved. The seeming desire is not desire. It is only > something you think. Can you find that thought? I wouldn't look further because there *is no* further!! ;-) Was there a dilemma to be solved? Just like any ultimate reality, `thinking' also has characteristics which can be known. And here too, through familiarity one can become more and more precise. And I think this is particularly useful, because it is here where the beginning of mental proliferation can be known, which is where most of our other accumulated defilements feed upon. But are you suggesting that one can have insight with concept as object? I don't think so. I think concept or `thought' can only condition more concept and thought. The insight can take place of `thinking' and not of `thought'. Am I on the right track? Metta, Sukin. 29777 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 2:54am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" James, Thanks for posting this sutta. A good choice. --- buddhatrue wrote: > > Also, I didn't know > how to find, as it states in Note 297, Cp. 35:117, information to > learn more details about cessation of the six sense bases. This is how the translator refers to suttas in his translation -- '35' is the number of the samyutta (in this case the Salayatana-samyutta of the Salayatana-vagga) and '117' is the number of the sutta in that samyutta. See p.1190 of the translation. So the present sutta would be referenced by 4:19. The sutta at 35:117 also has many points of interest. Jon 29778 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 3:04am Subject: Philip's Questions Hi Star Kid Philip! Philip: Please, I have a few more questions that I would like someone to answer, can you guys answer them? James: I hope you had a nice Christmas and New Years! You asked these questions a while back and no one answered them. Mrs. Abbott asked if I could answer them for you, which is of course my pleasure! I wanted to wait until you were back in school though. Okay, let me try to answer these questions for you: 1. How can a person turn into a god? Answer: This question is a little tricky because it depends on how you define `god'. If you mean the Christian God, who is said to have created the whole universe, then the answer is no. But if you mean a `god' as in an entity with powers beyond human beings, like the Greek and Roman gods, then the answer is yes. In Buddhism it is taught that there are higher realms where various gods exist. However, they are very much like the Greek and Roman gods: powerful but subject to petty insecurity, jealousy, hatred, stinginess, etc. They are not enlightened and they are not all good. The way to become one of these gods is to live a life where you do a lot of good deeds, gain a lot of good karma, and to have the correct thinking when you die; but there is no guarantee that you will be reborn as one of the gods. 2. What would happen to you if you do not believe in Buddhism? Answer: Believing or not believing in Buddhism isn't the most important thing; the most important thing is to live a life that encourages you to have good thoughts and a pure mind. Let me tell you a story: There was a powerful king in India named Asoka who spent almost his whole life as a devout Buddhist. He gave money to build Buddhist temples, encouraged the codification of the Buddha's teaching (including the Abhidhamma), and lived his life and ruled his kingdom according to the principles of Buddhism. However, when he was about to die he wanted to do one final act of charity for Buddhism and give a great deal of money to the community of Buddhist monks. However, when he sent word to his treasurer to release the money to the monks, the treasurer refused to do so. When the king heard this he was extremely angry at the treasurer and he died with a lot of anger in his mind, thinking "That money is mine!! That money is mine!!" Therefore, after he died he was reborn as a huge black snake that spent all of his time in the money vaults slithering around his former money. Here was a king who had done so much for Buddhism and now he was reborn as a huge snake!! There is a lesson in this that it doesn't matter if a person believes in Buddhism or not, and it doesn't matter what that person does during his life, if his mind is not purified of evil and bad thoughts, he/she is bound for a bad destination. 3. Does the Buddha have a bible? Answer: Buddhists actually have several Bibles!! There is the Pali Canon, Mahayana Scriptures, and Tibetan Scriptures. Buddhism is actually a much more complicated religion, on the whole, than Christianity. 4. What do monks do? Answer: Nowadays there are two main types of monks: Forest monks and City monks. Forest monks spend most of their time in solitude, studying the Buddha's teaching, and meditating. City monks spend most of their time performing ceremonies for lay people (Buddhists), teaching Buddhism to lay people, and accepting gifts of merit by the lay community. But these two types of monks are not completely different because Forest monks also teach and perform ceremonies, and City monks also spend time in solitude and meditate. 5. How do people pray? Answer: I don't quite understand this question. Which people? Buddhists? Anyway, the idea behind any type of praying is to have a concentrated thought that is of a pure nature and unselfish. This thought can be memorized words, visualizations, concentration on an object, etc. People in all religions like to pray because it helps to calm and purify the mind by not letting the mind go wherever it wants. 6. Is Buddhism popular amongst Caucasians? Answer: Hmmm…I'm not sure. Among many Caucasians Buddhism is quite popular but in so much that it is like a part of `pop culture'. It is popular like the newest clothes fashion is popular! Hehehe… I would say that Buddhism, as a serious path of practice, is not very popular among Caucasians…or even among other nationalities really. True Buddhists are very rare in the world. 7. What else have you to tell me about Buddhism? Answer: the simple message of Buddhism is: Don't do evil, do only good, and purify the mind. Philip: Anyway, wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year! James: To you too Philip! Hope your New Year is a happy one! Metta, James 29779 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 3:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Yahoo "spam guard" Howard Thanks for these observations. I've not had time to look into this further, having been laid low for the past 36 hours by a sudden fever (although now well on the way to recovery). Fortunately, there are no symptoms of flu (avian or otherwise), nor of other more exotic diseases that could have been picked up in recent travels ;-)) --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > > I haven't quite figured out the basis on which some messages are > > being identified as spam. ... > ========================= > There seem to be alternative criteria. One criterion seems > to be a > dislike for typing errors that involve insertion of symbols like ) > or # in the > middle of an English phrase. Also, the spam filter clearly takes to > heart the > Buddha's instruction to teach in the vernacular - there is a clear > aversion to long Pali expressions! ;-)) Certain members will be happy with this ;-)) Jon 29780 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 5:20am Subject: Re: SN I,4,19(9) "The Farmer" -- Listening, attending to, etc Howard, Larry and All One thing that struck me about this sutta that James has posted for us is the first paragraph where it refers to *listening to, attending to, and applying one's (whole) mind to* the dhamma. It is I think is obvious from the context that this listening, attending to, and applying of the mind is being spoken of approvingly, as something that is a necessary part of the development of the path. I see this as kusala volition or effort of the 'right' kind. If the true teaching has been correctly heard, understood, and reflected upon it can condition at an appropriate time a level of direct understanding. The effort and volition here is motivated by an appreciation of the importance of the dhamma, otherwise referred to in the teachings as a sense of urgency. There is no need for any kind of deliberate 'doing' or 'practice'. Indeed, even listening or attending to done as a formality and not something arising naturally through one's appreciation of the dhamma, would not be kusala or at least not the kind that conditions direct understanding of presently arising dhammas. As I see it, anyway. Jon --- buddhatrue wrote: > At Savatthi. Now on that occasion the Blessed One was instructing, > exhorting, inspiring, and gladdening the bhikkhus with a Dhamma > talk concerning Nibbana. And those bhikkhus were listening to the > Dhamma > with eager ears, attending to it as a matter of vital concern, > applying their whole minds to it. > > Then it occurred to Mara the Evil One: "This ascetic Gotama is > instructing, exhorting, inspiring, and gladdening the bhikkhus…who > are applying their whole minds to it. Let me approach the ascetic > Gotama in order to confound them." ... 29781 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 6:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/James Victor This post of yours came in while I was away. I hope you don’t mind a late reply! --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi James and all, ... > Given the record of the Buddha's teaching on the Four Noble Truths > in the Pali Canon, the Buddha did not say that the Four Noble > Truths are ultimate, conventional, or both. It is I think well established that the terms 'paramattha' and 'pannatti' are not found in the suttas in the meaning those terms are used in the Abhidhamma and commentaries. As I see it, the distinction between dhammas/truths in the ultimate sense and things/truths in the conventional sense is one of a number of aspects of the teachings that did not need to be spelled out to those to whom the suttas were spoken at the time, since these were on the whole persons who were ready for final enlightenment and who already had a highly developed understanding of the nature of dhammas. However, according to some, the distinction itself is there to be found in the suttas, although not labelled as such. See the entry for 'paramattha' in Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary', some extracts from which are pasted below. It is the function of the commentaries explain the teaching given in the suttas so that it can be understood also by those whose understanding is less highly developed than the understanding of those to who the suttas were spoken. Jon Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' From the entry for 'paramattha' (1) The two truths -- ultimate and conventional -- ...are implied in a sutta-distinction of 'explicit (or direct) meaning' (nítattha) and 'implicit meaning (to be inferred)' (neyyattha). (2) Further, the Buddha repeatedly mentioned his reservations when using conventional speech, e.g. in D. 9: "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Perfect One (Tathágata) uses without misapprehending them." See also S. I. 25. (3) It is one of the main characteristics of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, in distinction from most of the Sutta Pitaka, that it does not employ conventional language, but deals only with ultimates, or realities in the highest sense (paramattha-dhammá). (4) But also in the Sutta Pitaka there are many expositions in terms of ultimate language (paramattha-desaná), namely, wherever these texts deal with the groups (khandha), elements (dhátu) or sense-bases (áyatana), and their components; and wherever the 3 characteristics (ti-lakkhana) are applied. (5) The majority of Sutta texts, however, use the conventional language, as appropriate in a practical or ethical context, because it "would not be right to say that 'the groups' (khandha) feel shame, etc." 29782 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 7:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: characteristics Michael I haven't forgotten that I said I would look to see how 'sabhava' is used in the Visuddhimagga. In fact, I took the Vism with me to Thailand but didn't get a lot of chances to write out messages;-)). Sorry about the delay. I'd like to start with an example of 'sabhava' used (deliberately) in the Vism to mean something fixed or lasting, just to show that the compiler was alive to that possible connotation. See the passage pasted at the end of this message (and the reference to 'wrong theories'). --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello Jon, ... M: If your interpretation is correct then I think the Pali commentators were really dumb in using the combination paramatha/sabhava to qualify dhammas. They certainly knew other ways of describing dhammas to avoid falling into some form of reification. J: There is no single term that would achieve this for all persons. This is because (a) our language is inextricably bound up with views of reification and (b) if a person has a strong reification view he will read reification into whatever term is used. M: But I don’t think you are correct. In my view the Pali commentators really regarded dhammas as paramatha/sabhava and the reason I believe that is the strong reaction against those ideas that was engendered by the early Mahayana commentators, in particular Nagarjuna. J: But is it appropriate to base a view of the teachings on the reactions of another individual (or group of individuals), and not on a study of the texts themselves? The problem with the views of others is that there is no way of taking account of any possible wrong view the other may have. M: One should also keep in mind the interpretations of modern Theravada commentators which clearly read paramatha/sabhava as truly existent, within a context of substantiality. J: Again, I would want to know the particular textual passages from the tipitaka and commentaries that these later commentators rely on for their conclusions. M: I also don’t agree with your argument that dhammas are not capable of further reduction but, would rather argue that they are capable of further reduction, but it is not necessary to do so in order to see the nature of things as they are, i.e., viewing the 3 characteristics of the aggregates with proper insight is enough for liberation, one does not have to dwell deeper. But that doesn’t mean this is not possible. I would rather say that the development of the path is the understanding of these dhammas because that is the most practical, not that it is the only possibility. J: I'd be interested to know what textual support there is for the view that dhammas are not capable of further reduction. M: Again, if the commentators used ‘essence’ without the intention of meaning ‘essence’ then simply they should not have used it. J: I have pasted below the complete definition of 'essence' from the 'Concise Oxford Dictionary'. As you will notice, permanence is not a necessary connotation. The meaning of 'quality which determines something's character' or 'property of something without which it would not be what it is' would fit well here. In fact of course it is not the modern-day meaning of 'essence' that is the issue, but meaning of 'sabhava' as sued in the texts. What light can you throw on this? M: I would prefer to say that features are due to the regularity of the dhamma. It is not something intrinsic to the dhamma but when that dhamma arises with its characteristics, both due to causes and conditions, the feature of regularity makes that dhamma have that characteristic. And because of regularity we are mistaken to take that characteristic as unique, being part of the essence of that dhamma. J: The Buddha never said that characteristics arise -- only that dhammas arise. Nor did he speak of the causes and conditions of characteristics -- only of dhammas. Again, there is no textual support for this, as I see it. Jon ********************* Visuddhi-Magga, XVI DESCRIPTION OF THE TRUTHS GENERAL 84. 9. 'As to knowledge's functions': the expositions should be understood according to knowledge of the truths. ... 85. When this knowledge is mundane, then ... knowledge of origin forestalls wrong theories of cause that occur as finding a reason where there is none, such as 'The world occurs owing to an Overlord, a Basic Principle, Time, Nature (Individual Essence)', etc.;[23] Footnote: [23] Those who hold the theory of Nature (sabhava -- individual essence) say, "The world appears and disappears (sambhoti vibhoti ca) just because of its nature (individual essence), like the sharp nature (essence) of thorns, like the roundness of apples, like the variedness of wild bests, birds, snakes, and so on". ********************* Concise Oxford Dictionary, 10th ed, 1999, OUP essence: 1. the intrinsic nature of something; the quality which determines something's character; [philosophy] a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is. 2. an abstract or concentrate obtained from a plant or other substance and used for flavouring or scent. ********************* 29783 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 7:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi James > James: Because those ascetics were operating under the false > assumption that they had a `self' which they were trying to unite > with Brahman. As a consequence, they only lessened the defilements > > during Jhana, or suppressed them, they didn't eliminate them. The Buddha used the Jhanas to clearly understand the defilements, > didn't operate under the false assumption of the other ascetics, and discovered that there isn't a self to unite with anything. k: James isn't it amazing that you have just define the word panna. - Hence no enlightment without panna. Even if you have a million jhanas entry in your lifetime, still no enlightment - it may provide you a very long life in your next kamma rebirth (was it 80,000 aeons - couldn't remember it very well) Face it Ken, Jhana or Vipassana meditation is > a part of the Buddha's path. He defined Right Concentration > specifically as the Four Jhanas and he extolled his bhikkhus on > numerous occasions to practice Jhana. (What is the problem here? > Why do I have to continue to explain this in this group??? It is > getting just plain stupid to have to continue to explain this > obvious fact to certain people who should know better!!!) k: Dont be angry man ;-) I am born stupid so you have to be patient with me. > James: Oh yes, I am in the fog also; but I admit and accept that I > am in the fog. You on the other hand don't. That is why you are > going at high speed while I am cautiously inching forward step-by-step. k: Hmm I didn't say I am not in the fog. Maybe my fog is thicker than you. The road travel by Abhidhamma is safer as the vehicle has anti-fog lights(the books of Abhidhamma), information on the buttion is bright so that we can know the characteristics of the various buttions of the car during the thick fog, its windscreen is constantly clean by the wiper just like considering of dhamma by studying it, it drives very slowly (in fact it is in crawling pace) bc the road of enlightement cannot be push foward as it is anatta Ken O 29784 From: Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 3:36am Subject: Addendum: [dsg] Why is Ignorance-Conditioned ... Condition for Consciousness? Hi again, Larry and all - In a message dated 2/7/04 12:01:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > It seems to me that a question is whether or not the 12-factor scheme > of dependent origination leading to suffering applies only to non-arahants. > Inasmuch as it includes rebirth and resulting suffering, and an arahant is > not > reborn and is freed of suffering, it must not. Yet during the final life of > a > not-yet-arahant, until final liberation is achieved, ignorance consistently > arises as condition in the mindstream-to -be-liberated. That must renew the > cycle > of dependent origination. When the transition to arahant occurs, the die has > > already been cast it would seem. Why, then, do rebirth and suffering not > result? > ======================== Now I proposed an answer to that question to the effect that during a person's final lifetime, the lifetime in which s/he becomes an arahant, though ignorance arises at multiple times, the moment it is uprooted, the positive cycle of dependent origination is stopped cold, and the negative/cessation cycle takes over (based on the proposition that ignorance must occur at every step - being passed along). If, for some reason, that is hard to accept, because it is felt that once the positive cycle is entered into, the full cycle of positive conditioning, running to completion, is inevitable, there is yet at least one more way to look at the matter. Another understanding of patticasamupada, other than the three-lifetime interpretation of Buddhaghosa's, is the "momentary interpretation" that considers the 12-step scheme of dependent origination to explain the rebirth of suffering and (sense of) self in a single moment or over the course of a few moments. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu understood the scheme that way *only*, and the eminent Thai scholar-monk, Venerable P.A. Payutto, also accepts that as *one* viable understanding. In this view, the positive cycle occurs repeatedly in a non-arahant until the moment that ignorance is uprooted. (So the cyclical wandering of samsara occurs again and again even within a single lifetime.) On the occasion that ignorance is fully uprooted, also momentarily, right then all the cessation steps occur, and the non-arahant attains complete and final liberation, becoming an arahant with ignorance dead and buried, never to rise again. It is this scenario that makes most sense to me - though, of course, what "makes sense to me" and what is true need bear no relation to each other! ;-) It should be noted that in this scenario as well, without ignorance as condition, vi~n~nana could not arise. So, still, 'vi~n~nana' cannot mean just "awareness", for the living arahant is most definitely aware. 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) 29785 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 8:53am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi Ken O, Ken: James isn't it amazing that you have just define the word panna. James: I did not just define the word `panna'. A definition is a concise statement conveying the fundamental meaning of a word. I didn't make any such statement. What is amazing is that you think I did! ;-)) Ken: Hence no enlightment without panna. Even if you have a million jhanas entry in your lifetime, still no enlightment - it may provide you a very long life in your next kamma rebirth James: Whatever. I am tired of explaining it to you. Ken: Dont be angry man ;-) I am born stupid so you have to be patient with me. James: Ken, I am not angry. As the Buddha said, "And if I were to teach the Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me." I think I know what he meant. Also, I shouldn't have used the word `stupid'. I wasn't describing you as stupid. Right before writing that post I had gone to the movies with an Egyptian friend who doesn't use English very well and whenever I joked, which is quite often ;-), he would say, "You're stupid" to which I would reply, "I'm not stupid, you're stupid." And then we would both laugh. So I had that word `stupid' in my mind from so much usage and put it in the post I wrote afterwards. That was most regrettable and I apologize. Ken: Hmm I didn't say I am not in the fog. Maybe my fog is thicker than you. The road travel by Abhidhamma is safer as the vehicle has anti-fog lights(the books of Abhidhamma), information on the buttion is bright so that we can know the characteristics of the various buttions of the car during the thick fog, its windscreen is constantly clean by the wiper just like considering of dhamma by studying it, it drives very slowly (in fact it is in crawling pace) bc the road of enlightement cannot be push foward as it is anatta James: LOL! Okay, this metaphor I invented is starting to get outta hand! ;-)) Let's just drop it. Metta, James 29786 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 9:03am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi KKT, Yes, this Mahayana sutta is very similar. Most Mahayana suttas are at a very high level of understanding and seem to be in reaction to incorrect thoughts of previous generations of Buddhists. It is hard to learn from them solely and can lead to misunderstanding (like that there are no defilements or defilements are enlightenment). I know a Mahayana monk, from Vietnam, who has his own temple in Arizona who I used to meditate with on occasion. One time I went to visit him and he was so excited because he had recently been reading suttas from the Pali Canon and consequently so many things in the Mahayana suttas were becoming clearer for him. He told me that he found the Pali suttas much better and deeper in meaning than the Mahayana ones! LOL! Metta, James --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > > Dear James, > > I've just read this > Sutta you quoted. > > If you are familiar > with Mahayana scriptures > then you might not be > surprised because such > ideas as in this Sutta > are expressed to satiety > in the voluminous corpus of > Mahayana scriptures called > Maha-Prajnaparamita Sutras. > 29787 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 9:16am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > James, > > Thanks for posting this sutta. A good choice. > > --- buddhatrue wrote: > > > Also, I didn't know > > how to find, as it states in Note 297, Cp. 35:117, information to > > learn more details about cessation of the six sense bases. > > This is how the translator refers to suttas in his translation -- > '35' is the number of the samyutta (in this case the > Salayatana-samyutta of the Salayatana-vagga) and '117' is the number > of the sutta in that samyutta. See p.1190 of the translation. So > the present sutta would be referenced by 4:19. > > The sutta at 35:117 also has many points of interest. > > Jon Thank you so much for explaining this to me! I will check it out. (Perhaps I have been referencing the suttas in the SN incorrectly then. I will start to use this method. It is much easier to understand. However, I am not sure if it will match everyone's edition of the SN??) Metta, James 29788 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 11:06am Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/Jon Hi Jon, Not a problem at all. Let me point out the assumption as I see it in your message: 1. The distinction between dhammas/truths in the ultimate sense and things/truths in the conventional sense is one of a number of aspects of the teachings. Many discussions in DSG are based on the acceptance of this assumption. I have abandoned it. Let me quote SN 1.25 The Arahant: "If a bhikkhu is an arahant, Consummate, with taints destroyed, One who bears his final body, Would he still say, 'I speak'? And would he say, 'They speak to me'?" "If a bhikkhu is an arahant, Consummate, with taints destroyed, One who bears his final body, He might still say, 'I speak,' And he might say, 'They speak to me.' Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions." "When a bhikkhu is an arahant, Consummate, with taints destroyed, One who bears his final body, Is it because he has come upon conceit That he would say, 'I speak,' That he would say, 'They speak to me'?" "No knots exist for one with conceit abandoned; For him all knots of conceit are consumed. 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." [1] The deva asked the Buddha the first question: "If a bhikkhu is an arahant, Consummate, with taints destroyed, One who bears his final body, w Would he still say, 'I speak'? And would he say, 'They speak to me'?" The Buddha's reply was that: "If a bhikkhu is an arahant, Consummate, with taints destroyed, One who bears his final body, He might still say, 'I speak,' And he might say, 'They speak to me.' Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions." The deva asked a direct question. The Buddha gave a direct answer. The deva then asked the second question: "When a bhikkhu is an arahant, Consummate, with taints destroyed, One who bears his final body, Is it because he has come upon conceit That he would say, 'I speak,' That he would say, 'They speak to me'?" The Buddha reply as following: "No knots exist for one with conceit abandoned; For him all knots of conceit are consumed. 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." In reply to the deva's second question, the Buddha did not reply that when a bhikkhu is an arahant, consummate, with taints destroyed, one who bears his final body, whether or not it is because he has come upon conceit that he would say, 'I speak,' that he would say, 'They speak to me.' The second question has an implicit assumption: Even when a bhikkhu is an arahant, consummate, with taints destroyed, one who bears his final body, he still has come upon conceit. The Buddha did not take up that assumption and answer the deva's question directly. Rather, the Buddha started the reply with saying that: "No knots exist for one with conceit abandoned; For him all knots of conceit are consumed." Without taking up the assumption in the second question, the Buddha continued in his reply: "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." One observation I would make is that the Buddha ended his replies to both questions with: "Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions." Nevertheless, he did not suggest any other particular manner of speaking, nor is it implied in this discourse. That is how I understand it. Your comments are welcome. Metta, Victor [1] Samyutta Nikaya, translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi, p.102 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > This post of yours came in while I was away. I hope you don't mind a > late reply! > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > > Hi James and all, > ... > > Given the record of the Buddha's teaching on the Four Noble Truths > > in the Pali Canon, the Buddha did not say that the Four Noble > > Truths are ultimate, conventional, or both. > > It is I think well established that the terms 'paramattha' and > 'pannatti' are not found in the suttas in the meaning those terms are > used in the Abhidhamma and commentaries. > > As I see it, the distinction between dhammas/truths in the ultimate > sense and things/truths in the conventional sense is one of a number > of aspects of the teachings that did not need to be spelled out to > those to whom the suttas were spoken at the time, since these were on > the whole persons who were ready for final enlightenment and who > already had a highly developed understanding of the nature of > dhammas. > > However, according to some, the distinction itself is there to be > found in the suttas, although not labelled as such. See the entry > for 'paramattha' in Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary', some > extracts from which are pasted below. > > It is the function of the commentaries explain the teaching given in > the suttas so that it can be understood also by those whose > understanding is less highly developed than the understanding of > those to who the suttas were spoken. > > Jon > > Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' > From the entry for 'paramattha' > (1) The two truths -- ultimate and conventional -- ...are implied in > a sutta-distinction of 'explicit (or direct) meaning' (nítattha) and > 'implicit meaning (to be inferred)' (neyyattha). > > (2) Further, the Buddha repeatedly mentioned his reservations when > using conventional speech, e.g. in D. 9: "These are merely names, > expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the > world, which the Perfect One (Tathágata) uses without misapprehending > them." See also S. I. 25. > > (3) It is one of the main characteristics of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, > in distinction from most of the Sutta Pitaka, that it does not employ > conventional language, but deals only with ultimates, or realities in > the highest sense (paramattha-dhammá). > > (4) But also in the Sutta Pitaka there are many expositions in terms > of ultimate language (paramattha-desaná), namely, wherever these > texts deal with the groups (khandha), elements (dhátu) or sense- bases > (áyatana), and their components; and wherever the 3 characteristics > (ti-lakkhana) are applied. > > (5) The majority of Sutta texts, however, use the conventional > language, as appropriate in a practical or ethical context, because > it "would not be right to say that 'the groups' (khandha) feel shame, > etc." 29789 From: Harry Mueller Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 9:56am Subject: A few questions As a relative newcomer to Buddhism I've encountered a few issues that I haven't been able to put away. I hope that someone in the group can help me address these questions. As I understand it there exist at this time at least a few enlightened beings. If this is true, and I understand that these beings would have a perfect understanding of the Buddha's intent in all his teachings, why don't they provide the true contemporary interpretation of the Buddha's words. This could effectively put an end to the confusion that exists between the many different interpretations of the best path to enlightenment today. I have read some authors that suggest that the sutras were written shortly after the Buddha's death while others suggest that the Buddha's words were not preserved in written form until hundreds of years after his death. Does any proof exist about when the Buddha's words were put to paper? I've read a bit about the five aggregates and have seen the order of them presented differently by different authorities. Is there any inherent importance in the order, or are they merely signposts within the process of being. Thanks, Harry 29790 From: Htoo Naing Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 1:16pm Subject: Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 02 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, Mind here is just a reference to a phenomena that can be aware of any object. Object here include sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch ( temperature, solidity, compressivity ) and consciousness and its associated mental factors like hatred, craving, ignorance, etc etc, some subtle materials which cannot be sensed through 5 primary sense doors. Subtle materials are paramattha rupa. For example maleness cannot be sensed through 5 doors but through mind-door. Maleness here refers to Purisattabhava Rupa. There are 16 such materials. 5 Pasada or 5 sense organs cannot be sense through 5 doors but through mind-door. Other objects are Pannatta or concept and Nibbana or absolute peace. Mind always takes an object. In the first post of this series, events were refered to material events which are quite evident and apparent to viewers. So, I used ' a mind' voids and when it voided, its place is empty. Actually mind has no form and some think this is not that right. Anyway, clarity, intelligibility. and understandability will works for all levels, I do hope. The Dhamma practitioner, meditator has been practising Mahasatipatthana ( Vipassana ) for a long time and he acquires a good concentration. Now he is able to see all mental phenomena whenever they arise. Now he is contemplating on mind and mind phenomena. 'Moving of mind' means arising of mind which takes a different object as compared to the lost mind who took other objects. This shifting of object is just refered to as movement of mind. Actually no mind can move, travel, walk, run, rush, hit, etc as they do not have any form. Each arises and immediately passes away. The meditator is very attentive to mental phenomena. He is practisinfg Mahasatipatthana. He is on breathing meditation. An object arises. He takes that object. From that object, he may deviate from his origional meditative object. This may go far unnoticed. But as soon as he notices that he has been distracted, he reorientates to his primary meditational object and at the same time, he notes that a mind with greed or Raga arose and passed away. He is practising Cittanupassana Satipatthana. He is contemplating on mind. While he is meditating, sometimes distraction occurs. But as soon as he notices that he reapproaches to his origional object and notes that a mind with greed arise. And when he has been back to his origional meditational object, he notices that the present mind is free from greed or Raga and he notes that a mind without greed or Raga arises. May all beings be able to practise contemplation on mind. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 29791 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 3:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" James --- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Jon, ... > Thank you so much for explaining this to me! I will check it out. > (Perhaps I have been referencing the suttas in the SN incorrectly > then. I will start to use this method. It is much easier to > understand. However, I am not sure if it will match everyone's > edition of the SN??) You're welcome. I appreciate the good work you're doing with the SN corner. This form of referencing matches the ATI one but not the PTS one. However, I think it has become the general standard, so it's OK to go with it. Perhaps we can give the PTS reference occasionally (eg when posting a new sutta for the first time). Jon 29792 From: Ajahn Jose Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 3:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Companionship Hello Dave, My name is Ajahn Jose , I am American but live in Australia, I am a Buddhist monk, never feel lonely, Christine is a wonderful person and she will always give you the right advice, I am here to be for any help you need, it doesn't matter whow trivial it is. We all have to start somewhere. Metta. Ajahn Jose christine_forsyth wrote:Hello Dave, (Sarah), and all, Two years ago I was experiencing just the same difficulties and isolation that you are going through. In my case, I had come out of decades of being a practising Christian, was involved in all the church organisations and activities, children went to denominational high schools, and most of my friends were similar. Big change. Spiritual loneliness, disorientation. 29793 From: Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 4:26pm Subject: Re: Addendum: [dsg] Why is Ignorance-Conditioned ... Condition for Consciousness? Hi Howard, I think we'll have to wait until Nina gets back to sort this out. One point I still disagree with though: H: "It should be noted that in this scenario as well, without ignorance as condition, vi~n~nana could not arise. So, still, 'vi~n~nana' cannot mean just "awareness", for the living arahant is most definitely aware." I think the consciousness link refers to resultant consciousness and it continues as before for an arahant as a result of previous volition. Otherwise, what would condition it? Larry 29794 From: Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 11:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] A few questions In a message dated 2/7/2004 12:14:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, mexico_harry@h... writes: > As a relative newcomer to Buddhism I've encountered a few issues > that I haven't been able to put away. I hope that someone in the > group can help me address these questions. > > As I understand it there exist at this time at least a few > enlightened beings. If this is true, and I understand that these > beings would have a perfect understanding of the Buddha's intent in > all his teachings, why don't they provide the true contemporary > interpretation of the Buddha's words. This could effectively put an > end to the confusion that exists between the many different > interpretations of the best path to enlightenment today. > Hi Harry 1) I'm not aware of any current enlightened beings personally. There may or may not be such people. 2) An enlightened being may or may not have the ability to teach the Buddha's teaching. Even if they have the ability to teach the Buddha's teaching, they are not equal to the scope of the Buddha's understanding. The highest enlightened disciple in terms of wisdom in recorded history...Sariputta, was considered a 'lightweight' compared to the Buddha. 3) I know of no reason to assume that the Buddha's teaching, as they currently exist in the Suttas, could be better presented or understood with a modern interpretation. It might be that they would just get more muddled. The Buddha's teachings are hard to understand and there's probably no getting around it. > I have read some authors that suggest that the sutras were written > shortly after the Buddha's death while others suggest that the > Buddha's words were not preserved in written form until hundreds of > years after his death. Does any proof exist about when the Buddha's > words were put to paper? > A better scholar than myself is needed to answer this with any certainty. But 200 to 400 years after seems to be seems to be a general consensus from a variety of scholars. However, they were committed to memory very systematically from the start. > I've read a bit about the five aggregates and have seen the order of > them presented differently by different authorities. Is there any > inherent importance in the order, or are they merely signposts > within the process of being. > The 5 Aggregates are usually written in this order: 1) Form 2) Feeling 3) Perception 4) Mental Formations 5) Consciousness I think the primary reason for this order is for 'ease of analysis.' However, it would be possible to come up with many (dozens I would think) suitable explanations that would justify the order as having an 'internal logic.' > Thanks, Harry > TG 29795 From: Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 4:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Hi Sukin, All I'm saying is the next time you have a problem with suffering or desire, try to find that suffering or desire. If you don't have such problems, then, good for you. Whether these problems are real or imaginary, if you can't find them after a careful search, then they are no longer problems. However just saying "there are no problems" doesn't do the trick. You have to really investigate. Larry 29796 From: Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 4:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: SN I,4,19(9) "The Farmer" -- Listening, attending to, etc Hi Jon, I agree with this: Jon: "The effort and volition here is motivated by an appreciation of the importance of the dhamma, otherwise referred to in the teachings as a sense of urgency." L: but I don't understand this: J: "There is no need for any kind of deliberate 'doing' or 'practice'. Indeed, even listening or attending to done as a formality and not something arising naturally through one's appreciation of the dhamma, would not be kusala or at least not the kind that conditions direct understanding of presently arising dhammas." L: I agree that ultimately there is no need for volition, if that is what you are saying. That is basically a path consciousness. However, I think all wholesome consciousness is volitional. Larry 29797 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 5:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/Jon Victor Thanks for your reply and for the interesting sutta. As I see it, the sutta explains how it can be that arahants who are without an idea of self still speak using words such as "I". I do not see this as in any sense inconsistent with the distinction between conventional and ultimate. To be honest I rather see this sutta as supporting that distinction ;-)). It explains that while for the arahant dhammas are seen as they truly are (at the absolute/ultimate level), his/her speech may still use conventional modes of expression. Apologies if I've misssed your point! The footnotes to the translation contain some interesting passages from the commentary ('Spk'). I have copied them below. Jon > Let me quote SN 1.25 The Arahant: Q.1 > "If a bhikkhu is an arahant, > Consummate, with taints destroyed, > One who bears his final body, > Would he still say, 'I speak'? > And would he say, 'They speak to me'?" Spk: This deva, who dwelt in a forest grove, heard the forest bhikkhus using such expressions as "I eat, I sit, my bowl, my robe," etc. Thinking, "I had imagined these bhikkhus to be arahants, but can arahants speak in ways that imply belief in a self?" he approached the Buddha and posed his question. A.1 > "If a bhikkhu is an arahant, > Consummate, with taints destroyed, > One who bears his final body, > He might still say, 'I speak,' > And he might say, 'They speak to me.' > Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, > He uses such terms as mere expressions." Spk: Although arahants have abandoned talk that implies belief in a self, they do not violate conventional discourse by saying, `The aggregates eat, the aggregates sit, the aggregates' bowl, the aggregates' robe'; for no one would understand them. Q.2 > "When a bhikkhu is an arahant, > Consummate, with taints destroyed, > One who bears his final body, > Is it because he has come upon conceit > That he would say, 'I speak,' > That he would say, 'They speak to me'?" Spk: At this point the deva thought that while arahants may not speak thus because they hold a view of self, they might still do so because they have conceit (i.e., asmimaana, the conceit 'I am'). Hence he asked the second question, and the Buddha's reply indicates arahants have abandoned the ninefold conceit. A.2 > "No knots exist for one with conceit abandoned; > For him all knots of conceit are consumed. > 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." Spk explains that he has transcended the threefold conceiving due to craving, views and conceit. 29798 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 5:07pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Companionship Dear Bhante, Thank you for your kind words :-) and nice to see you on this List again. Thailand seems so long ago, though it is only a week or so since we were there. I'm just coming out of my usual post-Bangkok malaise, brought on by the change from having dhamma friends all around to getting back to the same old daily grind. Did you get any photos of Dhammanando Bhikkhu's Ordination that would be suitable for the dsg photo section? I'm sure it was a lovely ceremony, though, no doubt, you go to many of them. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ajahn Jose wrote: > Hello Dave, My name is Ajahn Jose , I am American but live in Australia, I am a Buddhist monk, never feel lonely, Christine is a wonderful person and she will always give you the right advice, I am here to be for any help you need, it doesn't matter whow trivial it is. We all have to start somewhere. Metta. Ajahn Jose > > christine_forsyth wrote:Hello Dave, (Sarah), and all, > > Two years ago I was experiencing just the same difficulties and > isolation that you are going through. In my case, I had come out of > decades of being a practising Christian, was involved in all the > church organisations and activities, children went to denominational > high schools, and most of my friends were similar. Big change. > Spiritual loneliness, disorientation. > > 29799 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 5:49pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Contemplation On Own Body ( 01 )/Jon Hi Jon, No problem, and thank you for bringing the discourse to my attention in the first place. I've presented how I understand this discourse, and I know your point of view. It is ok if you missed my point. Let me know if I can further clarify how I understand the discourse for you. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > Thanks for your reply and for the interesting sutta. > > As I see it, the sutta explains how it can be that arahants who are > without an idea of self still speak using words such as "I". I do > not see this as in any sense inconsistent with the distinction > between conventional and ultimate. > > To be honest I rather see this sutta as supporting that distinction > ;-)). It explains that while for the arahant dhammas are seen as > they truly are (at the absolute/ultimate level), his/her speech may > still use conventional modes of expression. > > Apologies if I've misssed your point! > > The footnotes to the translation contain some interesting passages > from the commentary ('Spk'). I have copied them below. > > Jon > > > Let me quote SN 1.25 The Arahant: > Q.1 > > "If a bhikkhu is an arahant, > > Consummate, with taints destroyed, > > One who bears his final body, > > Would he still say, 'I speak'? > > And would he say, 'They speak to me'?" > > Spk: This deva, who dwelt in a forest grove, heard the forest > bhikkhus using such expressions as "I eat, I sit, my bowl, my robe," > etc. Thinking, "I had imagined these bhikkhus to be arahants, but > can arahants speak in ways that imply belief in a self?" he > approached the Buddha and posed his question. > > A.1 > > "If a bhikkhu is an arahant, > > Consummate, with taints destroyed, > > One who bears his final body, > > He might still say, 'I speak,' > > And he might say, 'They speak to me.' > > Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, > > He uses such terms as mere expressions." > > Spk: Although arahants have abandoned talk that implies belief in a > self, they do not violate conventional discourse by saying, `The > aggregates eat, the aggregates sit, the aggregates' bowl, the > aggregates' robe'; for no one would understand them. > > Q.2 > > "When a bhikkhu is an arahant, > > Consummate, with taints destroyed, > > One who bears his final body, > > Is it because he has come upon conceit > > That he would say, 'I speak,' > > That he would say, 'They speak to me'?" > > Spk: At this point the deva thought that while arahants may not > speak thus because they hold a view of self, they might still do so > because they have conceit (i.e., asmimaana, the conceit 'I am'). > Hence he asked the second question, and the Buddha's reply indicates > arahants have abandoned the ninefold conceit. > > A.2 > > "No knots exist for one with conceit abandoned; > > For him all knots of conceit are consumed. > > 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." > > Spk explains that he has transcended the threefold conceiving due to > craving, views and conceit.