30000 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 2:25am Subject: Re: Namarupa - A comment Dear Eznir: Some discriminations to chew on: Is NamaRupa internal or external or both or neither ? Is NamaRupa local or global or both or neither ? Is NamaRupa separable or inseparable or both or neither ? Is Namarupa 2 things or 1 thing or both or neither ? : - ] 30001 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 5:24am Subject: Re: Control || No Control Dear James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: < snip > As I have been explaining, that is because the Buddha didn't teach `there is no self', he taught to not view anything as `self' in order to attain liberation. Metta, James KKT: I like very much your statement, James. It's very clear. I think it would be used to sum up the many endlessly discussions about Anatta: 1. the Buddha didn't teach `there is no self' 2. he taught to not view anything as `self' in order to attain liberation. But I know many people do not agree with this conclusion :-)) Metta, KKT 30002 From: Michael Beisert Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 6:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory Hello Howard, I second your recommendation of Garfiled's translation and commentary of the Mulamadhyamakakarika. That is the book I read. Kalupahana I would recommend 'A History of Buddhist Philosophy.' Metta Michael ----- Original Message ----- From: upasaka@a... To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 6:46 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi, Michael (and Sarah) - In a message dated 2/12/04 4:42:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, mbeisert@h... writes: > Michael: > I am sure it will be fascinating. Maybe you can also be open minded and read > > Kalupahana or even better, read the Mulamadyamakakarika by Nagarjuna. > ========================= Should you ever choose to read the MMK, though Michael may disagree, I recommend that you read the translation and commentary by Garfield rather than the one by Kalupahana. (Garfield's treatment is wonderful, IMO, whereas I find Kaulpahana's commentary, although certainly having value, to be idiosyncratic.) 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) 30003 From: Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack KH: >> Where in the Tipitaka, is there any suggestion of formal vipassana meditation? >> J: > The Anapanasati Sutta lists a complete meditation "program" in 16 trainings/meditations/steps/lessons. The last four trainings are vipassana. --------------------- K:In the Buddha's day, many thousands of men and women attained enlightenment. From the suttas, we know that the vast majority attained by insight (vipassana) on its own. Of the others, some developed jhana prior to insight, some, developed jhana after insight and a very select few developed jhana and insight in tandem. The Anapanasati-sutta describes this last-named method. It may seem as if there is a watered-down version of mindfulness-of- breath, that was taught for non-jhana practitioners, but that is not the case. (If asked, I could find references (from other dsg posts) but references are not my strong point:-) ) Another way to explain the Anapanasati Sutta is that it presents a complete mental development program that includes vipassana and samadhi. Many feel that vipassana and samadhi were split apart as separate practices much later than when the Buddha taught and was not intended by him. -------------- J : > Yes, "ground under the feet" is a concept. I think this concept might be a useful teaching tool in some occasions. If used it should be followed by a more useful teaching tool, noticing hardness where your feet hit the ground. Feet and ground are also concepts but necessary, in my opinion, to teaching this. > ------------------------- K:I agree; feet and ground are concepts while hardness is a reality. But what I am saying is; the hardness I experience, when I try to direct my attention to it, is also a concept: There is the concept of an area in space that is 'occupied' by the physical feeling of hardness. You might say I need to meditate more intensely but I would say no amount of trying would succeed in catching the rupa, `hardness.' As a mere physical phenomenon, it comes and goes in less than one billionth of a second. Each arising and passing away of a citta and cetasaika does last only one billionth of a second. but, we can be aware of many arising and passing aways. It is like seeing a movie. We don't see the individual frame but we do see a picture of a horse, car, etc. J: > "I" sit down to "try" to see that phenomena arise and enter the sense doors. If one does this for a time, subject (the I) and sense object fall away and there is just seeing. Without trying nothing happens. But, without leaving trying behind at one point, the results at the end of the path don't happen either. --------------- K:`Trying' involves the concept of a self who is trying. `Not trying' involves the concept of a self who is not trying. Neither of these two paths leads to enlightenment. As the Buddha said, "Neither by striving nor by standing still did I cross the flood." (Ongha-sutta (sp?)) Right understanding comes from the Buddha, not from ritualistic practices (sorry if ritualistic is a strong word). It is acquired through hearing the Dhamma, considering it, discussing it with wise friends, and by knowing the present conditioned dhammas for what they are (anicca, dukkha and anatta). I think there is a danger in not realizing that the Buddha had many teachings that applied to people at different points of their path. At one point, trying mind is very important. At another point, one relaxes. In my opinion, the Buddha did prescribe ritualistic practices, for example, going off into the forest and sitting down by a tree to meditate. But, he made sure that people understood that rituals (and concepts) were worthless unless they pointed to something that would change us. With all that said, Ken, what is your practice? Do you meditate? Do you try to see in your own experience all that we are talking about? jack 30004 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 8:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cultivating Absorption Leads to Cessation Hi Jeff KO - sorry for the delay in answering you post bc I want to take time to think about your post. %%%%%% Jeff: Who is the author of the Abhidhamma, and how do we know he or she was enlightened? Please do not say it was the Buddha, because I believe that claim is rather flimsy. Please also do not say it was Sariputa who spoke it to the angels (devas), that rather fantastic claim is in part why I suspect its origin and thus its validity. %%%%%% KO: Jeff, i always have to explain this simple principle, only Buddha can teach before anyone can know or teach about it. I have said this before without Buddha there will no Abhidhamma, and Ven Sariputta will not have that kind of wisdom to do it. Je: just because some translator didn't get the translation right? KO: I am not an expert of pali so cant comment. I think that will depends on how it is being presented in pali what is the meaning of vicara and vitakka. I dont believe those translators will translate it wrongly bc usually they will examine whether these terms are used in different ways and what is the best definition of it. Second jhana (joy, no concentration needed): piiti (ecstasy) Sukha (joy) Ekaggatha (one-pointedness) KO: Can you explain from 2nd jhanas onwards why there is no need for concentration as written by you. Since you said concentration leads to jhanas – is there a contradiction. Jeff - Since there seems to be no evidence in the Pali canon for giving rise to the 7 factors of enlightenment without jhana, then it seems reasonable to say that absorption (jhana) is essential in giving rise to at least four of seven necessary conditions for enlightenment. KO - But the qn is, is jhana the cause of wisdom. If jhana is the cause of wisdom, then Buddha would have been enlighted earlier, I read somewhere when he was young, he enter the jhanas. Furthermore, if Jhana is the cause of wisdom, then the ascetics of the Brahmas during Buddha time will have been enlighted. If jhana is the cause of wisdom, then Buddha will have not teach the restraining of the six senses, the not-self principle. Isnt this a waste of times since in the end we just need jhanas. Ken O 30005 From: Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 3:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control Hi, Andrew - In a message dated 2/13/04 12:37:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, athel60@t... writes: > Hi Howard > > Thanks for your post - as always, very meaty! (No offence to > vegetarians). Some comments below: > > You wrote: > Either there are volitional impulses during sleep or not. But if > there > >is no consciousness (say in deep, dreamless sleep), not even at a > very low > >level, then I don't believe there could be what are normally called > thoughts - > >it would have to be just somesort of unconscious processing. But > even that is > >probably due to volition that occured when there *was* > consciousness. After > >all, when do we wake up having discovered something? Usually when > having intently > >thought about it (prior to going to sleep) with the purpose of > obtaining a > >solution. > > A: Very interesting. But I am trying to marry this new > scientific "fact" with the Abhidhammic mind-moment theory and see if > it fits. Accordingly, even when we sleep, there has to be citta and > cetasikas (always including cetana). What is different, then, > between sleeping and waking mind-moments? It seems that when we are > awake, there is much conceptual thinking about "what we are doing". > During sleep, this thinking is absent/minimal. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Certainly, except, often, when dreaming. But as far as "cittas and cetasikas" arising, if cittas arises, there is awareness - for that is what citta is. Now, of course, the level of awareness might also be *very* low, and moreover, the level may be so low as to leave no appreciable memory trace, so that upon resuming more "normal" awareness, there is no memory of the mental processing that occurred while sleeping. I don't rule out subliminal mental processes. I tend to think of them as processes that occur at such a low level that they normally escape notice - perhaps certain aspects of the processes of cittas are missing - maybe registration cittas missing, or some such thing. BTW, one thing that I have noticed in meditating, particularly when doing focussed, samatha meditation such as with a mantra, is that there seems to be a normally subliminal, "subterranean" flow of thoughts (mental images etc - very much like dream sequences) going on all the time, but escaping "conscious notice". This subterranean stream is noticed in certain stages of meditating; at least such is my experience. ---------------------------------------------------- And yet volition is > > still at work as one of the King's retinue. > You say that the volition may come from those waking moments when, > for example, we were working on the problem at hand. Yes, but there > is only one present mind-moment conditioned by the previous one and > the marking function of sanna. Given that we can't really work out > precisely what conditions are at work and how they affect the > cetasikas,we simply can't predict (or direct) the conditionality > process. Sometimes that makes us feel helpless. Sometimes it makes > us feel free. I know what you mean when you suggest we > can "influence" the process but when I think along those lines, I > sometimes think I am treating cetana as a "self" (thinking "that > volition is me and mine"). Therein lies the danger, methinks. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, sure. All "our" mental processing is impersonal, but, not being arahants, we are afflicted witha sense of self. ---------------------------------------------- > > You wrote: > As an example, when we are walking down a hall, reach > >the end, and then turn around, before the turning there is an > impulse to > >turn. We are almost never aware of that impulse, but it is there. > > A: I don't want to make too much of this issue. I am reminded of > what Stephen Jay Gould used to say about evolution i.e. that it is > both fact and theory - fact, because we know it occurs, and theory, > because we don't know exactly how it occurs. Similarly, here, I > think we both take volition as fact, but differ in our understanding > of how it operates. > I think there is some benefit to be gained by taking another Stephen > Jay Gould angle. The creationists used to point to the perfection of > living beings as an argument for creationism. Look at the beautiful > hummingbird with its bill that fits precisely into the flower that it > feeds upon. How could that perfection be the product of a haphazard > process like evolution? Surely it is the work of a perfect designer > god! Gould always answered this by saying well and good. But the > creationists must also acknowledge and explain the rank clumsiness of > some animals' adaptations eg the panda's thumb - a very poor > adaptation used by the panda to hold bamboo while chewing it. The > panda's thumb would not win any design awards! > Here, Howard, it's well and good to point to these volitional > impulses that are, lo and behold, followed by the intended behaviour. > We walk down a hall and intend to turn around and, lo and behold, we > do turn around. But we must also deal with the volitional impulses > that are NOT followed through. To my mind, it is these impulses that > expose conditionality at work. It is these impulses that demonstrate > that there is much more to the equation than "intention precedes > action" therefore one needs to bring on (force) intention and Voila! > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Certainly! An impulse is but one condition. But effective conditionality requires the coming together of (several) conditions. This is why cetana is mere influencing, and not control. -------------------------------------------------- > That's not your view, I know. All I am saying is that I think it > vital that we have a sense of dealing with a very complex phenomenon > where the illusion of "self" is very potent. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I think that it is definitely true that cetana is a phenomenon that plays a critical role in the arising of sense of self, and thus constitutes an area of "danger". This is one reason why noticing volitional impulses and seeing their impersonality is such an important aspect of "insight meditation". Soe phenomena are more critical of notice and clear mindfulness than others. Cetana is one of these. ------------------------------------------------ > > You wrote: > As I see no-control on this list, it appears frequently to me to a > >doctrine of hopelessness, leading as it does to a belief that there > is no point > >to meditating! (In fact, there is no point to do anything at all, > because > >"Whatever arises will arise when the conditions for it to arise are > present," > >ignoring entirely that volitional personal actions are among the > needed > >conditions.) > > A: Well, Howard, I will playfully accuse you of "boxing at shadows" > here. Surely the other side of this "no control" viewpoint is that, > if the conditions arise for someone to meditate, they will meditate. > I don't have a problem with that at all. The caution is one that > applies to us all - beware the creeping illusion of "self"! > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Indeed. But I do not believe I am deluded when I seem to see a sense of helplessness/hopelessness often surfacing here. --------------------------------------------- > Best wishes > Andrew > > ======================= 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) 30006 From: Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 3:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control Hi, Christine - In a message dated 2/13/04 1:11:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > Hello KenO and Howard, and all, > > This "using self to get rid of/overcome the idea of self" was > something I briefly tried to bring up in Bangkok. > People said they had heard of the expression, but moved on to other > things. There was a bit of a back log of questions. :-) Wouldn't it > be possible to start with the idea of a self who could meditate and > make states arise, and slowly move away from it. --------------------------------------------- Howard: For sure! We start where we are, not where we'd like to be. ----------------------------------------------- > It still feels pretty helpless not to have a method. Meditating is > so satisfying - one is DOING something. > > metta and peace, > Christine ========================= 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) 30007 From: icarofranca Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 8:55am Subject: Re: bodily intimation, 1 Dear Nina > I post a few sections of my Rupas, as an introduction to this subject we > shall study now in the Vis., namely: bodily intimation and verbal > intimation. -------------------------------------------------------------------- At my first readings on Abhidhamma, I always took termas like Kayaniññatti and vagiviññatti (Bodily Intimation and verbal intimation) as two of the 10 elements that are considered not Real (anipphanannarupa). Right - I thought - since Rupa is real and partakes some definitions with "matter" at a philosophical sense.This definition seemed correct for me. But... I've read with interest your preview below, Nina, and this clarified some of my ideas about it. If all anipphanannarupa are raised up and produced by Citta, so the term "Not Real" don't fit so much. If something is produced by Citta, so it is real at The Citta realm... and, stretching this argument more and more, if you consider Citta as a material process at our brains and nerves - from sense- doors to material sense organs and mind at the last end - so Rupas still partake such definitions with "matter" even only at the Citta realms: anipphanannarupa as this own word seems to significate. I read all Visuddhimagga chapter one and I am eager to jump to Chapter XIV only to follow up the discussions at a more safe distance...hahahah!!!! mettaya, Ícaro (The Nina's preview on anipphanannarupas follows below) > > Intimation through Body and Speech > > Citta is one of the four factors that produces rúpa. We look different when > we laugh, when we cry, when we are angry or when we are generous. Then we > can notice that citta produces rúpa. > Bodily intimation (kåyaviññatti) and speech intimation (vacíviññatti) are > two kinds of rúpa, originated by citta. They are not produced by the other > three factors that can produce rúpa, by kamma, temperature or nutrition. > As to bodily intimation, this is movement of the body, of the limbs, facial > movement or gestures which display our intentions, be they wholesome or > unwholesome. The intention expressed through bodily intimation can be > understood by others, even by animals. Bodily intimation itself is rúpa, it > does not know anything. We read in the ³Dhammasangani² (§ 636): > > What is that rúpa which is bodily intimation (kåyaviññatti)? > That tension, that intentness, that state of making the body tense, in > response to a thought, whether good or bad, or indeterminate (kiriyacitta), > on the part of one who advances, or recedes, or fixes the gaze, or glances > around, or retracts an arm, or stretches it forth - the intimation, the > making known, the state of having made known - this is that rúpa which > constitutes bodily intimation. > > According to the ³Atthasåliní² (I, Book I, Part III, 82, 83), in the case of > bodily intimation citta produces the ³eight inseparable rúpas² 1 and among > them the element of air (wind, oscillation or motion) plays its specific > part in supporting the body and strengthen the postures. We read: > > ... But there is a certain peculiar, unique mode of change in the primaries > (four Great Elements) when set up by mind, through which, as a condition, > mobility (the element of wind or motion) is able to strengthen, support and > agitate the coexistent body. This is intimation. ... Because it is a > capacity of communicating, it is called ³intimation². What does it > communicate? A certain wish communicable by an act of the body. If anyone > stands in the path of the eye, raises his hands or feet, shakes his head or > brow, the movement of his hands, etc. are visible. Intimation, however, is > not so visible; it is only knowable by the mind. For one sees by the eye a > colour-surface moving by virtue of the change of position in hands, etc. 2. > But by reflecting on it as intimation, one knows it by > mind-door-consciousness, thus: ³I imagine that this man wishes me to do this > or that act.²... > (to be continued) 30008 From: icarofranca Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:09am Subject: Re: bodily intimation, 1 Typo: I always took termas ----------------------------------------- Don't take me wrong!!! "Termas"are a portuguese translation of the latin "Termae"... The right word is "terms" at all senses and freudian failed acts!!!! Mettaya, :-))))))))))), Ícaro 30009 From: Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 4:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 2/13/04 2:49:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, sukinder@k... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I don't have the time right now. So I hope you don't mind if I > answer to this later on?! > > Metta, > Sukin > ======================== Of *course*! Anyway, it will take time to sift the content from the extraneous symbols! ;-) 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) 30010 From: Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 4:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Control || No Control Hi, James - In a message dated 2/13/04 4:17:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > So, according to the Buddha, body-speech-mind volition is > conditioned either by oneself or by others, until there is > enlightenment and then there is no more conditioning. How can it be > that volition is conditioned by `oneself' if there is no self? ======================= It's simply the convenient, standard mode of expression. The Buddha said "I", "me", and "mine" all the time. But he also said that he used concepts without being fooled by them. One may speak of a "rainbow in the sky", but unless one is a child or lives in a culture bereft of meteorological knowledge, one knows that there is no actual thing called "a rainbow", nor, for that matter, any actual thing called "the sky". 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) 30011 From: Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 4:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi, Michael - In a message dated 2/13/04 9:03:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, mbeisert@h... writes: > [For] Kalupahana I would recommend 'A History of Buddhist Philosophy.' > ===================== Yes, I agree. 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) 30012 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:54am Subject: Re: Control || No Control Hi Howard, Howard: It's simply the convenient, standard mode of expression. The Buddha said "I", "me", and "mine" all the time. But he also said that he used concepts without being fooled by them. James: No, I believe he said that he spoke of such things without being attached to them; he didn't say `without being `fooled' by them'. This is a significant difference because it would imply that he was speaking falsehoods and knew he way lying all the while. Please quote a reference where he uses the phrase `fooled by them', or something along those lines (I know you don't like to look for sources but you have the burden of proof in this regard). Howard: One may speak of a "rainbow in the sky", but unless one is a child or lives in a culture bereft of meteorological knowledge, one knows that there is no actual thing called "a rainbow", nor, for that matter, any actual thing called "the sky". James: Ahhh…this is a perfect example to explain why there are two truths!!! Thank you. From far away, one can see a rainbow and one can see the sky, but when one is close up the rainbow is gone and the sky is just space. So, which is it? It is both--It depends on your perspective. Even though the perspective of the unenlightened is different from the perspective of the enlightened, they both have a different perspective of the same reality. It would be really weird to tell people that there aren't any rainbows wouldn't it? There are rainbows and there is a sky, and there are people and there are dhammas. It really doesn't have to be either/or. The duality of the mind creates this need to have one false and the other true. This is the one area, Howard, where I strongly disagree with you. Sorry ;-(. Metta, James 30013 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 10:44am Subject: smile of the Buddha Dear Ken Ong, Soon when I have time I shall give more texts. A. Sujin said: when ahetuka kiriya citta produces it, it arises after the Buddha's ~naa.na.It is like in tne text you quote here. Some people may not know that motivation here is a translation of hetu, root. I received more texts in Bgk about the subject. I have to run, Nina. > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > >> The smiling cittas is from the commentary to the Summary of the >> Topics of Abhidhamma chapter six number 34 >> 30014 From: Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Control || No Control Hi, James - In a message dated 2/13/04 12:58:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Howard: It's simply the convenient, standard mode of expression. The > Buddha said "I", "me", and "mine" all the time. But he also said that > he used concepts without being fooled by them. > > James: No, I believe he said that he spoke of such things without > being attached to them; he didn't say `without being `fooled' by > them'. This is a significant difference because it would imply that > he was speaking falsehoods and knew he way lying all the while. > Please quote a reference where he uses the phrase `fooled by them', > or something along those lines (I know you don't like to look for > sources but you have the burden of proof in this regard). > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I've actually seen the "not fooled by" alleged statement referred to often, but I've never seen a sutta reference. If anybody knows one, I'd be interested in hearing of it. ----------------------------------------------- > > Howard: One may speak of a "rainbow in the sky", but unless one is a > child or lives in a culture bereft of meteorological knowledge, > one knows that there is no actual thing called "a rainbow", nor, for > that matter, any actual thing called "the sky". > > James: Ahhh…this is a perfect example to explain why there are two > truths!!! Thank you. From far away, one can see a rainbow and one > can see the sky, but when one is close up the rainbow is gone and the > sky is just space. So, which is it? It is both--It depends on your > perspective. Even though the perspective of the unenlightened is > different from the perspective of the enlightened, they both have a > different perspective of the same reality. It would be really weird > to tell people that there aren't any rainbows wouldn't it? There are > rainbows and there is a sky, and there are people and there are > dhammas. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, there are all these things *so to speak*, that is - conventionally speaking. When I now make the statement "I am sitting at the computer typing on the keyboard," I am telling the truth, but the statement is so packed with abbreviational terms that to unpack it, even moderately, would probably require all the storage on my hard disk to hold the unpacked, literal formulation. I don't see conventional truth as falsehood, but as abbreviation for literal truth. -------------------------------------------------- It really doesn't have to be either/or. The duality of the > > mind creates this need to have one false and the other true. This is > the one area, Howard, where I strongly disagree with you. Sorry ;-(. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I suspect that our positions differ here, but are not diametrically opposed. ------------------------------------------------ > > Metta, James > > ====================== 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) 30015 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 3:09pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Control || No Control Hello Howard, This sutta comes to mind, perhaps it may be relevant: DN9 "these are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathaagata uses without misapprehending them.' metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I've actually seen the "not fooled by" alleged statement referred to > often, but I've never seen a sutta reference. If anybody knows one, I'd be > interested in hearing of it. > ----------------------------------------------- 30016 From: Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 3:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] bodily intimation, 1 Hi Nina, Welcome back. One question. Is the printed word considered to be bodily intimation? I expect you will say "no", but consider, it is a rupa, it "intimates a wish", and it is produced by consciousness. Larry 30017 From: Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 10:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Control || No Control Hi, Christine (and James) - In a message dated 2/13/04 6:14:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > > Hello Howard, > > This sutta comes to mind, perhaps it may be relevant: > > DN9 > "these are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations > in common use in the world, which the Tathaagata uses without > misapprehending them.' > > > metta and peace, > Christine > ============================= Thank you!! This must be it. On ATI, the formulation is as follows: ___________________________ "Citta, these are the world's designations, the world's expressions, the world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions, with which the Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping to them." [10] 10. The Commentary takes this is as the Buddha's affirmation of the idea -- which in later centuries became current in all schools of Buddhism -- that he spoke truth on two levels: conventional and ultimate. In context, though, the Buddha seems to be referring merely to the fact that he has adopted the linguistic usages of his interlocutors simply for the sake of discussion, and that they should not be interpreted out of context. ------------------------------------------------- To me, as is so often the case with me ;-), the commentary seems to be a stretch. To me, this is certainly pointing out mere manner of speaking as opposed to literality. One thing I do note, though, is that in this ATI formulation, it says "without grasping at them" (in line with what James said) as opposed to "without misapprehending them" (as you wrote, Christine). Christine, where did you find the formulation you gave? (Also, if anyone on the list has the Pali for this, I'd appreciate hearing which is the better translation.) 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) 30018 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 3:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control Hi Ken O, Indeed, Ken, it is impossible for form to control itself as form lends itself to dis-ease. Form lends itself to dis-ease preciesly because form is not self. And no one can make what is impermanent permanent, what is dukkha not dukkha, what is not self oneself. When I said one can control oneself in body, speech, and mind, I am not talking about making bodily actions, verbal actions, and mental actions permanent, not dukkha, and oneself. As what the Buddha taught in Anguttara Nikaya II.19 Kusala Sutta Skillful http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an02-019.html "Abandon what is unskillful, monks. It is possible to abandon what is unskillful. If it were not possible to abandon what is unskillful, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because it is possible to abandon what is unskillful, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' If this abandoning of what is unskillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because this abandoning of what is unskillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' "Develop what is skillful, monks. It is possible to develop what is skillful. If it were not possible to develop what is skillful, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because it is possible to develop what is skillful, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' If this development of what is skillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because this development of what is skillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.'" While it is impossible for one to make bodily actions, verbal actions, and mental actions permanent, not dukkha, oneself, it is entirely possible for one to do what is skillful/wholesome/kusala and refrain from what is unskillful/unwholesome/akusala in body, speech, and mind. In that sense, I said that it is entirely possible for one to control oneself in body, speech, and mind. In that sense, it is entirely possible for one to restrain and control his body actions, verbal actions, and mental actions, not to make them permanent, not dukkha, self, but to abandon what is unskillful and develop what is skillful. The question "what is oneself?" is to be put aside since it leads to speculation and entanglement. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Victor > > > Now, consider the following two statements: > > > > It is impossible for form to control itself. > > It is entirely possible for one to control oneself in body, speech, > > and mind. > > > > Do you think that these two statement contradict each other? > > > > You came up with the question "How do we control something that is > > not self." But I did not say we can control something that is not > > self. Nor did I say we cannot control something that is not self. > > > > Your question has nothing to do with what I said that: > > > > It is impossible for form to control itself. > > It is entirely possible for one to control oneself in body, speech, > > k: Since form cannot control itself, then how does one say that one > can control form (body and speech) in the first place? Then in > other words, if one can control oneself, then one has to ask what is > oneself? Was it me I or myself or what....? Think about it and reply > to me. > > > Ken O 30019 From: icarofranca Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 4:09pm Subject: Re: Control || No Control Dear Phamluam: > But I know many people > do not agree with this > conclusion :-)) ------------------------------------------------------------------ James really likes to point out that Buddha had focused his dispensation on human beings and their human condition of suffering and final liberation and not only on philosophical grounds. That´s O.K. if you take some one by hand, consolating his-her "Soul" and so on with some preaching adequate at some particular situation. But Buddha HAS a corpus of knowledge, well poised and frameworked on what I call "Rule of Language" , either on symbols or over the wonderful syntatical strucuture of Pali Language. But Anatta - non-self - is one of the main pillars of all Buddhism, and I dare to say: "Sariputta is the Zen of Angulimala". Mettaya, Ícaro 30020 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 4:51pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Control || No Control Hello Howard, My quote came from 'The Long Discourses of the Buddha' A translation of the Diigha Nikaaya by Maurice Walshe. The full DN 9.53 is "So too, whenever the gross acquired self is present, we do not speak of the mind-made or formless acquired self; whenever the mind-made acquired self is present, we do not speak of the gross or formless acquired self; whenever the formless acquired self is present, we do not speak of the gross acquired self or the mind-made acquired self, we speak of the formless acquired self. But, Citta, these are merely names, expressions, turns of speeh designations in common use inthe world, which the Tathaagata uses without misapprehending them.' [n. 224] Note 224: An improtant reference tot the two truths referred to in DA as 'conventional speech' (sammuti-kathaa). See Introduction, p. 31f. It is important to be aware of the level of truth at which any statements are made. In MA (ad MN5: Anangana Sutta), the following verse is quoted (source unknown): 'Two truths the Buddha, best of all who speak, declared: Conventional and ultimate - no third can be, Terms agreed are true by usage of the world; Words of ultimate significance are true In terms of dhammas. Thus the Lord, a Teacher, he Who's skilled in this world's speech, can use it, and not lie.' I'll take a look at the introduction p. 31f and post it later if relevant and not TOO long. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Christine (and James) - > > In a message dated 2/13/04 6:14:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, > cforsyth@v... writes: > > > > > Hello Howard, > > > > This sutta comes to mind, perhaps it may be relevant: > > > > DN9 > > "these are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations > > in common use in the world, which the Tathaagata uses without > > misapprehending them.' > > > > > > metta and peace, > > Christine > > > ============================= > Thank you!! This must be it. On ATI, the formulation is as follows: > ___________________________ > "Citta, these are the world's designations, the world's expressions, the > world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions, with which the Tathagata > expresses himself but without grasping to them." [10] > > 10. The Commentary takes this is as the Buddha's affirmation of the idea -- > which in later centuries became current in all schools of Buddhism - - that he > spoke truth on two levels: conventional and ultimate. In context, though, the > Buddha seems to be referring merely to the fact that he has adopted the > linguistic usages of his interlocutors simply for the sake of discussion, and that > they should not be interpreted out of context. > ------------------------------------------------- > To me, as is so often the case with me ;-), the commentary seems to be > a stretch. To me, this is certainly pointing out mere manner of speaking as > opposed to literality. One thing I do note, though, is that in this ATI > formulation, it says "without grasping at them" (in line with what James said) as > opposed to "without > misapprehending them" (as you wrote, Christine). Christine, where did you > find the formulation you gave? (Also, if anyone on the list has the Pali for > this, I'd appreciate hearing which is the better translation.) > > With metta, > Howard 30021 From: Andrew Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 4:59pm Subject: Re: Control || No Control Hello James You wrote: Let's look at what the Buddha taught about volition. AN > 84 "Volition": > (snip) > James: So, according to the Buddha, body-speech-mind volition is > conditioned either by oneself or by others, until there is > enlightenment and then there is no more conditioning. How can it be > that volition is conditioned by `oneself' if there is no self? As I > have been explaining, that is because the Buddha didn't teach `there > is no self', he taught to not view anything as `self' in order to > attain liberation. A: In all honesty, I can't claim to know what the Buddha really taught but for the sake of hopefully-elucidating discussion, I will follow your path and present a quotation from the suttas and rest my case on it. In the Bahudhatuka Sutta (MN 115.12), the Buddha tells Ananda that "it is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat ANYTHING as self" (my emphasis). If your view is right, shouldn't the Buddha have said "whilst self may or may not exist, one shouldn't treat anything as self in order to attain liberation"? Why didn't he? James, am I correct in thinking that your view says that there IS a self but we should not cling to it in order to attain liberation? If I am correct in so thinking, can you see how this view is in contradiction of my sutta reference? If there IS a self, surely a Buddha (who has right view, naturally)would treat whatever-it-is as "self"? Or do you view the existence or not of "self" as an imponderable? If so, why is it never included in the definition of acinteyya? Why don't you find any satisfaction in the view that "self" is a conventional designation/reality (like "chariot") that is impermanent and only exists through a process of derivation? Isn't any other view either sitting on the fence or Hinduism? Sorry, mate, but I think you bear the onus of proof on this one (and it is one of the "biggies" in Buddhism) and you haven't got my vote yet. LOL! Andrew 30022 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 5:12pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Control || No Control Hello Howard, and all, On p.31 in his Introduction, Walshe states: "An important and often overlooked aspect of the Buddhist teaching concerns the levels of truth, failure to appreciate which has led to many errors (see n.220). Very often the Buddha talks in the Suttas in terms of conventional or relative truth (sammuti- or vohaara- sacca), according to which people and things exist just as they appear to the naive understanding. Elsewhere, however, when addressing an audience capable of appreciating his meaning, he speaks in terms of ultimate truth (paramattha-sacca), according to which 'existence is a mere process of physical and mental phenomena within which, or beyond which, no real ego-entity nor any abiding substance can ever be found' (Buddhist Dictionary under Paramattha). In the Abhidhamma, the entire exposition is in terms of ultimate truth. It may also be observed that many 'Zen paradoxes' and the like realyl owe their puzzling character to their being put in terms of ultimate, not of relative truth. The full understanding of ultimate truth can, of course, only be gained by profound insight, but it is possible to become increasingly aware of the distinction. There would seem in fact to be a close parallel in modern times in the difference between our naive world-view and that of the physicist, both points of view having their use in their own sphere. Thus, conventionally speaking, or according to the naive world-view, there are solid objects such as tables and chairs, whereas according to physics the alleged solidity is seen to be an illusion, and whatever might turn out to be the ultimate nature of matter, it is certainly something very different from that which presents itself to our senses. However, when the physicist is off duty, he or she makes use of solid tables and chairs just like everyone else. In the same way, all such expressions as 'I', 'self' and so on are always in accordance with conventional truth, and the Buddha never hesitated to use the word attaa 'self' (and also with plural meaning: 'yourselves', etc.) in its conventional and convenient sense. In fact, despite all that has been urged to the contrary, there is not the slightest evidence that he ever used it in any other sense except when critically quoting the views of others, as should clearly emerge from several of the Suttas here translated. In point of fact, it should be stressed that conventional truth is sometimes extremely important. The whole doctrine of karma and rebirth has its validity only in the realm of conventional truth. That is why, by liberating ourselves from the view point of conventional truth we cease to be subject to karmic law. Objections to the idea of rebirth in Buddhism, too, are sometimes based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the two truths. As long as we are unenlightened 'worldlings', our minds habitually operate in terms of 'me' and 'mine', even if in theory we know better. It is not until this tendency has been completely eradicated that full enlilghtenment can dawn. At Samyutta Nikaaya 22.89 the Venerable Khemaka who is a Non-Returner, explains how 'the subtle remnant of the 'I'-conceit, or the 'I'-desire, an unextirpated lurking tendency to thin: 'I am', still persists even at that advanced stage." >>>snipped brief discussion and quotes of two books by Jayatilleke.>>> metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Howard, > > My quote came from 'The Long Discourses of the Buddha' A translation > of the Diigha Nikaaya by Maurice Walshe. The full DN 9.53 is "So > too, whenever the gross acquired self is present, we do not speak of > the mind-made or formless acquired self; whenever the mind-made > acquired self is present, we do not speak of the gross or formless > acquired self; whenever the formless acquired self is present, we do > not speak of the gross acquired self or the mind-made acquired self, > we speak of the formless acquired self. But, Citta, these are merely > names, expressions, turns of speeh designations in common use inthe > world, which the Tathaagata uses without misapprehending them.' [n. > 224] > > Note 224: An improtant reference tot the two truths referred to in > DA as 'conventional speech' (sammuti-kathaa). See Introduction, p. > 31f. It is important to be aware of the level of truth at which any > statements are made. In MA (ad MN5: Anangana Sutta), the following > verse is quoted (source unknown): > 'Two truths the Buddha, best of all who speak, declared: > Conventional and ultimate - no third can be, > Terms agreed are true by usage of the world; > Words of ultimate significance are true > In terms of dhammas. Thus the Lord, a Teacher, > he > Who's skilled in this world's speech, can use it, and not lie.' > > I'll take a look at the introduction p. 31f and post it later if > relevant and not TOO long. > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: 30023 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 5:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control Hi Christine, I think you might find the book The Wings to Awakening An Anthology from the Pali Canon Translated and Explained by Thanissaro Bhikkhu http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/wings/index.html useful. The idea "using self to get rid of/overcome the idea of self," reminds me of the discourse Anguttara Nikaya IV.235 Ariyamagga Sutta The Noble Path http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an04-235.html and Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu's exposition in Part I: Basic Principles B. Kamma & the Ending of Kamma http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/wings/1b.html Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello KenO and Howard, and all, > > This "using self to get rid of/overcome the idea of self" was > something I briefly tried to bring up in Bangkok. > People said they had heard of the expression, but moved on to other > things. There was a bit of a back log of questions. :-) Wouldn't it > be possible to start with the idea of a self who could meditate and > make states arise, and slowly move away from it. > It still feels pretty helpless not to have a method. Meditating is > so satisfying - one is DOING something. > > metta and peace, > Christine 30024 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 6:16pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Michael/Victor Hi Michael and Victor, ---------------- >> KenH: The big trap is to rewrite the Dhamma to make it the way we want it to be. Millions of people are doing this every day. >> > Michael: This is very true, but not just today. Be very careful when reading the commentaries, specially Budhaghosa commentaries. > ----------------- When you came to dsg, you honestly, and commendably, admitted you were an adherent of the Nagarjuna school of thought and your purpose here was to "sow seeds of doubt" (your exact words) amongst us Theravadins. That's fine, except your arguments have been logically met and yet you continue to state them as if they were uncontested fact. For example, you talk as if the accepted definition of sabhava is; `not subject to conditions.' You talk as if the Abhidhamma is `known to be' not the word of the Buddha. You have said it yourself, you have given your reasons and people have put the opposite case. Unless you can come up with further evidence, perhaps you should avoid throwing a spanner in the works every time there is a discussion of Abhidhamma. The same with the commentaries; like it or not, they are an accepted part of the original Theravada School of Buddhism. In this forum, I think the onus is on you to prove they are forgeries, not on others to prove they are genuine. Victor wrote: ----------------------- You might want to provide some textual reference to support your claim that according to the Dhamma, there is no self who can `try' anything – any contrived attempt at having right mindfulness would involve wrong view. ---------------------- I appreciate your posts whenever you come out and say `there is a self' and you give your reasons for saying so. I have also enjoyed answering your questions over the years; it is all good practice. Even more so, I have learnt from the answers others have given – especially all the references they have supplied proving - beyond reasonable doubt - that the Buddha believed there was no self. However, you seem to have acknowledged nothing; you continue to ask "What, no self? What a strange thing to say! Whatever gave you that idea?" (or words to that effect). I have run out enthusiasm for that particular line of questioning. Kind regards, Ken H 30025 From: Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Control || No Control Hi, Christine - Thank you very much for the following. (BTW, I own the Walshe translation! ;-) Now we need to hear from some Pali aficionados to determine which translation is better. With metta, Howard In a message dated 2/13/04 7:53:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > > Hello Howard, > > My quote came from 'The Long Discourses of the Buddha' A translation > of the Diigha Nikaaya by Maurice Walshe. The full DN 9.53 is "So > too, whenever the gross acquired self is present, we do not speak of > the mind-made or formless acquired self; whenever the mind-made > acquired self is present, we do not speak of the gross or formless > acquired self; whenever the formless acquired self is present, we do > not speak of the gross acquired self or the mind-made acquired self, > we speak of the formless acquired self. But, Citta, these are merely > names, expressions, turns of speeh designations in common use inthe > world, which the Tathaagata uses without misapprehending them.' [n. > 224] > > Note 224: An improtant reference tot the two truths referred to in > DA as 'conventional speech' (sammuti-kathaa). See Introduction, p. > 31f. It is important to be aware of the level of truth at which any > statements are made. In MA (ad MN5: Anangana Sutta), the following > verse is quoted (source unknown): > 'Two truths the Buddha, best of all who speak, declared: > Conventional and ultimate - no third can be, > Terms agreed are true by usage of the world; > Words of ultimate significance are true > In terms of dhammas. Thus the Lord, a Teacher, > he > Who's skilled in this world's speech, can use it, and not lie.' > > I'll take a look at the introduction p. 31f and post it later if > relevant and not TOO long. > > metta and peace, > Christine /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) 30026 From: Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Control || No Control Hi, Christine - In a message dated 2/13/04 8:17:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > > Hello Howard, and all, > > On p.31 in his Introduction, Walshe states: > "An important and often overlooked aspect of the Buddhist teaching > concerns the levels of truth, failure to appreciate ... > > ========================== This is very good. I particularly like the analogy made of the Buddha's distinction between ultimate and conventional language and the physicist's distinction between his technical language and his/her layperson language. 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) 30027 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 7:37pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Ken H Hi Ken H, You might want to provide some reference on what I actually said and consider what you said in the following you continue to ask "What, no self? What a strange thing to say! Whatever gave you that idea?" (or words to that effect). truthful. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi Michael and Victor, [snip] > Victor wrote: > ----------------------- > You might want to provide some textual reference to support your > claim that according to the Dhamma, there is no self who can `try' > anything – any contrived attempt at having right mindfulness would > involve wrong view. > ---------------------- > > I appreciate your posts whenever you come out and say `there is a > self' and you give your reasons for saying so. I have also enjoyed > answering your questions over the years; it is all good practice. > Even more so, I have learnt from the answers others have given – > especially all the references they have supplied proving - beyond > reasonable doubt - that the Buddha believed there was no self. > However, you seem to have acknowledged nothing; you continue to > ask "What, no self? What a strange thing to say! Whatever gave you > that idea?" (or words to that effect). I have run out enthusiasm > for that particular line of questioning. > > Kind regards, > Ken H 30028 From: Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 7:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control Hi Christine, This idea of "using self to get rid of/overcome the idea of self," reminds me of the metaphor of using a thorn to remove a thorn. One example would be to use analysis to dispel the belief in a self. In this analogy both the "belief in self" and "analysis" are thorns. Another way of looking at this: In "Selfless Persons" Steven Collins writes: p.73 "The instrumental "attanaa" is often used to contrast what a man does 'by', 'in', or 'in relation to himself', with what he does to others, or advises others to do. It can be used to express the idea that a man achieves certain religious advances 'by his own efforts', and the idea that all men are 'in themselves', or 'inherently' subject to old age and death." L: He then gives this sutta as example: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-052.html "Just as if a great mass of fire of ten... twenty... thirty or forty cartloads of timber were burning, into which a man simply would not time & again throw dried grass, dried cow dung, or dried timber, so that the great mass of fire -- its original sustenance being consumed, and no other being offered -- would, without nutriment, go out. In the same way, in one who keeps focusing on the drawbacks of clingable phenomena, craving ceases. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging, illness & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress." Larry 30029 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 7:47pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Ken H Hi Ken H, I just caught some mistakes in the previous message I wrote. So once again, Ken, you might want to provide some reference on what I actually said and consider whether what you said in the following you continue to ask "What, no self? What a strange thing to say! Whatever gave you that idea?" (or words to that effect). is truthful or not. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Ken H, > > You might want to provide some reference on what I actually said and > consider what you said in the following > > you continue to ask "What, no self? What a strange thing to say! > Whatever gave you that idea?" (or words to that effect). > > truthful. > > Metta, > Victor 30030 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 7:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control Hi Larry and Christine, Could you explain what you mean by "belief in self" or "idea or self"? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Christine, > > This idea of "using self to get rid of/overcome the idea of self," > reminds me of the metaphor of using a thorn to remove a thorn. One > example would be to use analysis to dispel the belief in a self. In this > analogy both the "belief in self" and "analysis" are thorns. > > Another way of looking at this: In "Selfless Persons" Steven Collins > writes: p.73 "The instrumental "attanaa" is often used to contrast what > a man does 'by', 'in', or 'in relation to himself', with what he does to > others, or advises others to do. It can be used to express the idea that > a man achieves certain religious advances 'by his own efforts', and the > idea that all men are 'in themselves', or 'inherently' subject to old > age and death." > > L: He then gives this sutta as example: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-052.html > > "Just as if a great mass of fire of ten... twenty... thirty or forty > cartloads of timber were burning, into which a man simply would not time > & again throw dried grass, dried cow dung, or dried timber, so that the > great mass of fire -- its original sustenance being consumed, and no > other being offered -- would, without nutriment, go out. In the same > way, in one who keeps focusing on the drawbacks of clingable phenomena, > craving ceases. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of > clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the > cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the > cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging, illness & > death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is > the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress." > > Larry 30031 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 8:23pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Control || No Control Hi Howard, Howard, I think that in order not to misrepresent what the Buddha said you might want to find a reference in which the Buddha actually said that he used concepts without being fooled by them. You said that: "One may speak of a "rainbow in the sky", but unless one is a child or lives in a culture bereft of meteorological knowledge, one knows that there is no actual thing called "a rainbow", nor, for that matter, any actual thing called "the sky". Could you explain what the point is? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James - > > In a message dated 2/13/04 4:17:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, > buddhatrue@y... writes: > > > So, according to the Buddha, body-speech-mind volition is > > conditioned either by oneself or by others, until there is > > enlightenment and then there is no more conditioning. How can it be > > that volition is conditioned by `oneself' if there is no self? > ======================= > It's simply the convenient, standard mode of expression. The Buddha > said "I", "me", and "mine" all the time. But he also said that he used concepts > without being fooled by them. One may speak of a "rainbow in the sky", but > unless one is a child or lives in a culture bereft of meteorological knowledge, > one knows that there is no actual thing called "a rainbow", nor, for that > matter, any actual thing called "the sky". > > With metta, > Howard 30032 From: Carl Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 8:29pm Subject: Andy, Love lost Andy, My heart goes out to you. Your despair is large. You are suffering as a death. Andy, I have been a faithful lurker on DSG for several monthes now. I can tell you that this is the deep end of the pool as far as Buddhism is concerned. Not an easy place to begin your study of Buddhism. Here is a link to an ongoing self-study group that has recently begun. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BuddhismBeginners9/ This is a six month e-mail study that will give you a more overall picture of buddhism. Just sign in and start at the first(second?) lesson. Has buddhism helped me? Actually, it was deep sadness and overwhelming despair that led me to seek help. I found my help through the door of psycology. It saved my life. I did not start as a buddhist. The intense despair that drove me through many readings of "pop" psycology led me to buddhism. Buddhism is healthy psycology. I was about 20 at the beginning of the process and now I am 60. I am grateful to have traveled the road I am on. The learning begins at the difficult times of your life. It is the intensity of depression that can awake a seeker such as you self. Once started, there is no turning back. I can tell from your words that you are ready to begin the journey. Carl 30033 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 8:36pm Subject: bodily intimation 2 Hi Larry and friends, bodily intimation 2: The intention expressed through bodily intimation is intelligible to others, not through the eye-door but through the mind-door. Knowing, for example, that someone waves is cognition through the mind-door and this cognition is conditioned by seeing-consciousness that experiences visible object or colour. The meaning of what has been intimated is known after reflection on it, thus it can only be cognized through the mind-door. The ³Visuddhimagga² (XIV, 61) defines intimation in a similar way and then states about its function, manifestation and proximate cause: ... Its function is to display intention. It is manifested as the cause of bodily excitement. Its proximate cause is the consciousness-originated air-element. As to the proximate cause, as we have seen, the element of wind or air plays its specific role in the intimating of intention by bodily movement or gestures. We are inclined to take intimation as belonging to self, but bodily intimation is only a kind of rúpa, originated by citta. There is no person who communicates by gestures. Are we aware of nåma and rúpa when we gesticulate? Are there kusala cittas or akusala cittas at such moments? Most of the time there are akusala cittas, but we do not notice it. Do we realize which type of citta conditions the bodily intimation when we wave to someone else in order to greet him, when we gesticulate in order to tell him to come nearer, when we nod our head while we agree with something or shake it while we deny something? Such gestures are part of our daily routine and it seems that we make them automatically. Perhaps we never considered what types of citta condition them. Akusala citta conditions bodily intimation, for example, when we with mimics ridicule someone else or show our contempt for him. In such cases it is obvious that there is akusala citta. We should remember that bodily intimation is more often conditioned by akusala citta than by kusala citta. There may be subtle clinging that is not so obvious while we are expressing our intention by gestures. When there is mindfulness we can find out whether there is kusala citta or akusala citta. There may also be the performing of akusala kamma through bodily intimation, for example when someone gives by gesture orders to kill. There may be kusala cittas that condition bodily intimation when we, for example, stretch out our arms to welcome people to our home, when we stretch out our hand in order to give something, when we point out the way to someone who is in a strange city, when we by our gestures express courtesy or when we show respect to someone who deserves respect. However, there may also be selfish motives while we are doing so, or we may be insincere, and then there are akusala cittas that condition bodily intimation. More knowledge about citta and rúpas which are conditioned by citta can remind us to be aware of whatever reality appears, also while gesticulating. Then there is at such a moment no opportunity for akusala citta. ***** Nina. 30034 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 8:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: harsh speech among friends Dear Andrew and Ken H, > --- Andrew wrote: > To: > dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com >> 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;-) >> (Btw, I assured Nina that you were really the best of friends in real >>> life;-)) N: I had said that you, Andrew, seemed a bit harsh, saying that Ken surfed too much. I wanted to help Ken! Jonothan told me in Bgk that this was the way to show friendship among Aussies, being a bit rough. I had to laugh! But I learnt on this list that very kind-hearted people may have harsh speech:-)) I read about an arahat who used to abuse non brahmans in former lives, and when he became an arahat he continued such speech, but not with akusala citta, since he had eradicated all akusala. It was just a habit, called vasana, and only a Buddha can eradicate this. It teaches me a lesson. I sure will have no more misunderstandings in the future!!! I shall think of future arahats. Nina. 30035 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 8:44pm Subject: [dsg] Re: harsh speech among friends Hi Nina and all, Isn't abusive, harsh speech wrong speech? Isn't it akusala? If it is wrong speech, how could an arahant still had it? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: [snip] > I read about an arahat who used to abuse non brahmans in former lives, and > when he became an arahat he continued such speech, but not with akusala > citta, since he had eradicated all akusala. It was just a habit, called > vasana, and only a Buddha can eradicate this. It teaches me a lesson. I sure > will have no more misunderstandings in the future!!! I shall think of future > arahats. > Nina. 30036 From: Andrew Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:03pm Subject: Re: Control || No Control Hi Howard and James In the context of this thread, I consulted the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta on AccesstoInsight. James wrote: How can it be > that volition is conditioned by `oneself' if there is no self? As I > have been explaining, that is because the Buddha didn't teach `there > is no self', he taught to not view anything as `self' in order to > attain liberation. A: James' view has some appeal, but is it right? I did the following little exercise with the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta. The following is a quotation where I have deleted "mental fabrications" and inserted "volition". I have done this to bring it down to our specific topic: volition (cetana) is a mental fabrication (sankhara), is it not? So the substitution should hold true. Here goes: "Volition is not self. If volition were the self, this volition would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to volition 'Let my volition be thus. Let my volition not be thus.' But precisely because volition is not self, volition lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to volition 'Let my volition be thus. Let my volition not be thus.'" So: 1. regarding "no control", is not the Buddha here stating that it is not possible to control or direct volition? 2. if there is NOTHING in any of the Buddha's extensive listing of phenomena of which it may be said "this is mine; this is my self; this is what I am", can we really argue (as does James, for example) that "the Buddha didn't teach there is no self"? 3. since everyone is asking for references, I might too. Where is the reference for the Buddha stating either that (a) there IS a self that is not just a conventional designation; or (b) whether there is a self or not is an imponderable question? Hmmm. Best wishes Andrew 30037 From: Andrew Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:14pm Subject: [dsg] Re: harsh speech among friends Hello Nina Thank you for sharing this fascinating piece of information. Yes, I was giving KenH what we Aussies call "a friendly dig" (forgetting that there were foreigners on the list!). I suspect that friendly digs are in most cases akusala, so I have jokingly told KenH that I will direct my cetana not to do it again! He understands. > N: I had said that you, Andrew, seemed a bit harsh, saying that Ken surfed > too much. I wanted to help Ken! Jonothan told me in Bgk that this was the > way to show friendship among Aussies, being a bit rough. I had to laugh! But > I learnt on this list that very kind-hearted people may have harsh > speech:-)) > I read about an arahat who used to abuse non brahmans in former lives, and > when he became an arahat he continued such speech, but not with akusala > citta, since he had eradicated all akusala. It was just a habit, called > vasana, and only a Buddha can eradicate this. It teaches me a lesson. I sure > will have no more misunderstandings in the future!!! I shall think of future > arahats. This is a testament to the power of habits, isn't it. In my case, harsh speech is definitely to be avoided. With best wishes Andrew 30038 From: Carl Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:17pm Subject: Re: bodily intimation, 1 Dear Nina, so glad you are back, I read only this: Nina: "Citta is one of the four factors that produces rúpa." Carl: Is rupa produced? I think this is my understanding: Question: Is anything really real? Answer: Yes! Question: Yes but, is anything really really really real? Answer: Well, not really! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Hi Larry and friends, > I came back from Bgk about an hour ago. > I post a few sections of my Rupas, as an introduction to this subject we > shall study now in the Vis., namely: bodily intimation and verbal > intimation. > > Intimation through Body and Speech > > Citta is one of the four factors that produces rúpa. We look different when > we laugh, when we cry, when we are angry or when we are generous. Then we > can notice that citta produces rúpa. > Bodily intimation (kåyaviññatti) and speech intimation (vacíviññatti) are > two kinds of rúpa, originated by citta. They are not produced by the other > three factors that can produce rúpa, by kamma, temperature or nutrition. > As to bodily intimation, this is movement of the body, of the limbs, facial > movement or gestures which display our intentions, be they wholesome or > unwholesome. The intention expressed through bodily intimation can be > understood by others, even by animals. Bodily intimation itself is rúpa, it > does not know anything. We read in the ³Dhammasangani² (§ 636): > > What is that rúpa which is bodily intimation (kåyaviññatti)? > That tension, that intentness, that state of making the body tense, in > response to a thought, whether good or bad, or indeterminate (kiriyacitta), > on the part of one who advances, or recedes, or fixes the gaze, or glances > around, or retracts an arm, or stretches it forth - the intimation, the > making known, the state of having made known - this is that rúpa which > constitutes bodily intimation. > > According to the ³Atthasåliní² (I, Book I, Part III, 82, 83), in the case of > bodily intimation citta produces the ³eight inseparable rúpas² 1 and among > them the element of air (wind, oscillation or motion) plays its specific > part in supporting the body and strengthen the postures. We read: > > ... But there is a certain peculiar, unique mode of change in the primaries > (four Great Elements) when set up by mind, through which, as a condition, > mobility (the element of wind or motion) is able to strengthen, support and > agitate the coexistent body. This is intimation. ... Because it is a > capacity of communicating, it is called ³intimation². What does it > communicate? A certain wish communicable by an act of the body. If anyone > stands in the path of the eye, raises his hands or feet, shakes his head or > brow, the movement of his hands, etc. are visible. Intimation, however, is > not so visible; it is only knowable by the mind. For one sees by the eye a > colour-surface moving by virtue of the change of position in hands, etc. 2. > But by reflecting on it as intimation, one knows it by > mind-door-consciousness, thus: ³I imagine that this man wishes me to do this > or that act.²... > (to be continued) 30039 From: Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control Hi Victor, Belief in self is this: sakkáya-ditthi: 'personality-belief', is the first of the 10 fetters (samyojana). It is entirely abandoned only on reaching the path of Stream-winning (sotápatti-magga; s. ariya-puggala). There are 20 kinds of personality-belief, which are obtained by applying 4 types of that belief to each of the 5 groups of existence (khandha, q.v.): (1-5) the belief to be identical with corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations or consciousness; (6-10) to be contained in them; (11-15) to be independent of them; (16-20) to be the owner of them (M. 44; S. XXII. 1). See prec., ditthi, upádána 4. L: It comes from this: tanhá: (lit. 'thirst'): 'craving', is the chief root of suffering, and of the ever-continuing cycle of rebirths. "What, o monks, is the origin of suffering? It is that craving which gives rise to ever-fresh rebirth and, bound up with pleasure and lust, now here, now there, finds ever fresh delight. It is the sensual craving (káma-tanhá), the craving for existence (bhava-tanhá), the craving for non-existence (vibhava-tanhá)'' (D. 22). T. is the 8th link in the formula of the dependent origination (paticcasamuppáda, q.v.). Cf. sacca. Corresponding to the 6 sense-objects, there are 6 kinds of craving craving for visible objects, for sounds, odours, tastes, bodily impressions, mental impressions (rúpa-, sadda-, gandha-, rasa-, photthabba-, dhamma-tanhá). (M. 9; D. 15) Corresponding to the 3-fold existence, there are 3 kinds: craving for sensual existence (káma-tanhá), for fine-material existence (rúpa-tanhá), for immaterial existence (arúpa-tanhá). (D. 33) There are 18 'thought-channels of craving' (tanhá-vicarita) induced internally, and 18 induced externally; and as occurring in past, present and future, they total 108; see A. IV, 199; Vibh., Ch. 17 (Khuddakavatthu-Vibhanga). According to the dependent origination, craving is conditioned by feeling; on this see D. 22 (section on the 2nd Truth). Of craving for existence (bhava-tanhá ) it is said (A. X, 62): "No first beginning of the craving for existence can be perceived, o monks, before which it was not and after which it came to be. But it can he perceived that craving for existence has its specific condition. I say, o monks, that also craving for existence has its condition that feeds it (sáharam) and is not without it. And what is it? 'Ignorance', one has to reply." - Craving for existence and ignorance are called "the outstanding causes that lead to happy and unhappy destinies (courses of existence)" (s. Vis.M. XVII, 36-42). The most frequent synonyms of tanhá are rága (q.v.) and lobha (s. múla). http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/bud-dict/dic_idx.htm Larry 30040 From: Carl Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 10:03pm Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" The title is striking "The Farmer" and then it seems to me a description of where mara can be found (grown as a crop) follows. No where else but in the senses. Mara is not to be found outside of the senses. As quoted from below: "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)"............ --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "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." 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. 30041 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 10:17pm Subject: Buddhism James: Thanks a lot for your answer to my questions. If I have any more questions, I would e-mail you about it. Anyway, have you got anthing else you want to tell me regarding Buddhism? Philip Chui 30042 From: Sarah Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 10:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi Michael, --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Michael: > I had a cursory look at the Kathavatthu during my stay at the BCBS last > weekend and have decided to buy it. I have already ordered from > Paryiatti. I > have also ordered the Commentary. I will write again after I read it > properly. ..... Excellent! Perhaps we can have a "Kathavatthu & comy Study Corner" and do them justice! If anyone else is interested to join in, these texts are available from the PTS or Pariyatti (see DSG bookmark links). Kathaavatthu transl as 'Points of Controversy' by Shwe Zan Aung & Mrs Rhys Davids Kathaavatthuppakara.na-A.t.thakathaa as 'The Debates Commentary' by Bimala Churn Law Any DSG posters will feel very at home with these texts;-) Metta, Sarah ======= 30043 From: Sarah Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 10:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi Michael, --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Michael: > I don’t agree that the Tipitaka deals with ultimate realities, this > places > conditionality in the background while it should be at the forefront. > Conditionality is the key teaching of the Buddha. ..... S: I think we need to discuss this area in some depth. How about you start by explaining why you think that ultimate dhammas (aka paramattha dhammas or namas and rupas or khandhas or ayatanas or dhatus) 'places conditionality in the background'. ..... M: > In my cursory look at the Kathavatthu I have found nothing that > justifies > your argument that paramattha are ‘real and ultimate facts.’ In one of > your > messages containing extracts from the Kathavatthu it reads > “‘Ultimate’(paramattho): highest sense, not taken from tradition, or > hearsay,” highest sense has to do with language which is very different > from > facts which has to do with ontology. .... S: On the contrary, 'highest sense' is beyond language, i.e 'not taken from tradition, or hearsay'. It means that regardless of anything said or known about them, paramattha dhammas are still 'ultimates' or 'realities' as shown to us by the Buddha. ..... M: >Karunadasa also does support your > view > when he says “the early Buddhist idea of sammuti is not based on a > formulated doctrine of real existents. Although what is analysed is > called > sammuti, that into which it is analysed is not called paramattha. Such > a > development is found only in the Abhidhamma.” .... S: I'm rushing now - I'll come back to this later when I have a chance to look at it. I'd think he's indicating that the use of the word 'paramattha' is only used in the Abh and coms. Also see Christine's and Howard's discussion on sammuti sacca (conventional truth) and pls add anything further on it if you wish. .... M: > In relation to your last statement that “theravadins admit that the > khandhas > or dhammas are known in a real and ultimate sense” I have a suspicion > this > comes from the commentary. And the commentary to the Kathavatthu was > compiled by Buddhaghosa. I would be quite suspicious of that. .... S: This was Karunadasa's comment about the Kathavatthu itself as indicated by his reference as I recall. .... M: >But > anyway, I > will leave my final judgment out until I read the Kathavatthu. .... S: I'll be particularly glad to discuss it with you based on what it and the comy say, rather than what others say it says;-) .... > Michael: > I am sure it will be fascinating. Maybe you can also be open minded and > read > Kalupahana or even better, read the Mulamadyamakakarika by Nagarjuna. ..... S: Certainly if I decide to join and post on a list which describes itself as discussing the Buddha's teachings according to Nagarjuna, I will endeavour to read the Mulamadyamakakarika before criticising it as wrong on hearsay;-) Metta, Sarah ====== 30044 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 11:00pm Subject: Re: Control || No Control Hi Andrew, Hope you don't mind me jumping into your discussion with Howard and James. My respond to your questions are as following: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > Hi Howard and James [snip] > 1. regarding "no control", is not the Buddha here stating that it is > not possible to control or direct volition? This is how I understand it: The "control" relation needs to be clarified: namely, it is impossible for whom or what to control volition? Given the context in the discourse, it is impossible for volition to control itself because volition lends itself to dis-ease. Volition lends itself to dis-ease precicely because volition is not self. It is impossible for volition to control itself in the sense that it is impossible for volition to make itself permanent and not dukkha as volition lends itself to dis-ease. On the other hand, it is entirely possible for one to control oneself in body, speech, and mind. It is entirely possible for one not to do what is unskillful and do what is skillful. In that sense, it is possible for one to control bodily actions, verbal actions, and mental actions, not to make actions permanent, not dukkha, self, but to make them skillful such that they will lead to the cessation of actions. That is how I see it. > 2. if there is NOTHING in any of the Buddha's extensive listing of > phenomena of which it may be said "this is mine; this is my self; > this is what I am", can we really argue (as does James, for example) > that "the Buddha didn't teach there is no self"? Can we really argue that the Buddha did teach that there is no self? When one claimed that the Buddha did teach that there is no self or, for that matter, there is self, the burden of finding a reference to support such claim is on the one who made the claim. If one claimed as such, it is best if he or she could come up with a textual reference to support such claim in order to avoid the risk of misrepresenting the Buddha teaching. As far as I can see in the discourses, I have not found any passage in which the Buddha taught that there is no self or there is self. I see that both "there is no self" and "there is self" as metaphysical assertions: they have nothing to do with the Dhamma that the Buddha taught and are to be abandoned. > 3. since everyone is asking for references, I might too. Where is > the reference for the Buddha stating either that > (a) there IS a self that is not just a conventional designation; or Please see above. > (b) whether there is a self or not is an imponderable question? Not sure if anyone claimed that whether there is a self or not is an imponderable question. On the other hand, I see the question "Is there a self or not?" not so much an imponderable question. I see it as a question that leads to speculation and proliferation in thoughts not connected to the Buddha's teaching. > Best wishes > Andrew Metta, Victor 30045 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 11:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control Hi Larry, Do you mean it is the self-identity view with which one regards something as "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Belief in self is this: > > sakkáya-ditthi: 'personality-belief', is the first of the 10 fetters > (samyojana). It is entirely abandoned only on reaching the path of > Stream-winning (sotápatti-magga; s. ariya-puggala). There are 20 kinds > of personality-belief, which are obtained by applying 4 types of that > belief to each of the 5 groups of existence (khandha, q.v.): (1-5) the > belief to be identical with corporeality, feeling, perception, mental > formations or consciousness; (6-10) to be contained in them; (11- 15) to > be independent of them; (16-20) to be the owner of them (M. 44; S. XXII. > 1). See prec., ditthi, upádána 4. > > L: It comes from this: > > tanhá: (lit. 'thirst'): 'craving', is the chief root of suffering, and > of the ever-continuing cycle of rebirths. "What, o monks, is the origin > of suffering? It is that craving which gives rise to ever-fresh rebirth > and, bound up with pleasure and lust, now here, now there, finds ever > fresh delight. It is the sensual craving (káma-tanhá), the craving > for existence (bhava-tanhá), the craving for non-existence > (vibhava-tanhá)'' (D. 22). T. is the 8th link in the formula of the > dependent origination (paticcasamuppáda, q.v.). Cf. sacca. > Corresponding to the 6 sense-objects, there are 6 kinds of craving > craving for visible objects, for sounds, odours, tastes, bodily > impressions, mental impressions (rúpa-, sadda-, gandha-, rasa-, > photthabba-, dhamma-tanhá). (M. 9; D. 15) > Corresponding to the 3-fold existence, there are 3 kinds: craving for > sensual existence (káma-tanhá), for fine-material existence > (rúpa-tanhá), for immaterial existence (arúpa-tanhá). (D. 33) > There are 18 'thought-channels of craving' (tanhá-vicarita) induced > internally, and 18 induced externally; and as occurring in past, present > and future, they total 108; see A. IV, 199; Vibh., Ch. 17 > (Khuddakavatthu-Vibhanga). > According to the dependent origination, craving is conditioned by > feeling; on this see D. 22 (section on the 2nd Truth). > Of craving for existence (bhava-tanhá ) it is said (A. X, 62): "No > first beginning of the craving for existence can be perceived, o monks, > before which it was not and after which it came to be. But it can he > perceived that craving for existence has its specific condition. I say, > o monks, that also craving for existence has its condition that feeds it > (sáharam) and is not without it. And what is it? 'Ignorance', one has > to reply." - Craving for existence and ignorance are called "the > outstanding causes that lead to happy and unhappy destinies (courses of > existence)" (s. Vis.M. XVII, 36-42). > The most frequent synonyms of tanhá are rága (q.v.) and lobha (s. > múla). http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/bud-dict/dic_idx.htm > > Larry 30046 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 11:15pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Control || No Control Hi Howard, Howard: I suspect that our positions differ here, but are not diametrically opposed. James: Yea, I guess so. It seems to me that you describe your position a little differently each time. Perhaps we hold very similar positions but differ in our emphasis. Of course I don't believe that samsara is the complete picture (something fueled by ignorance is by design not complete) but I choose to describe my position differently in this group because many members hold the belief that paramattha dhammas are the only things that are real, ontologically, and everything else isn't. In a different group I would probably posit a different emphasis. Metta, James 30047 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 0:06am Subject: Re: Control || No Control Hi Andrew, Andrew: James, am I correct in thinking that your view says that there IS a self but we should not cling to it in order to attain liberation? James: NO, NO, NO, NO!! Goodness gracious, that isn't my position! ;- )) My position is what the Buddha taught. The Buddha didn't teach that there is no self and he didn't teach that there is a self. Both of these are metaphysical positions and they do no lead to liberation or insight. I don't say that there isn't a self or that there is a self. What difference does it make? The only thing I know is that taking anything as self, be that anything: body, mind, feelings, consciousness, bank account, employment, relationships, age, car, clothes, etc., will lead to suffering. Let me tell you a little story (which Howard will enjoy I'm sure). I belonged to another Internet group and I got into an argument with the members of that group over this same issue (but this group is much more polite than that group ;-)). Anyway, a bhikkhu wrote me a post that asked just one question "How do you practice anatta in your life?" To be a little ornery (I admit) but to also tell him the truth, I replied "I mind my own business." (Got in trouble for that but, oh well ;-) What did I mean? I meant that I don't go around telling people that they don't have a self or that what they take for self isn't self. That isn't what Buddhism is about. I focus only on what I take for self and try to eliminate my desire and attachment to it. Andrew: Why don't you find any satisfaction in the view that "self" is a conventional designation/reality (like "chariot") that is impermanent and only exists through a process of derivation? James: I just don't like that metaphor of people being like a `chariot' composed of parts; I think it is overly simplistic. For example, if the wheels are removed from a chariot is it still a chariot? Of course. It is just a chariot without wheels. What about the axel, or the reins, or the harness, what if each of those things are removed, is is still a chariot? Yes, it is a chariot that is missing certain parts but it is still a chariot. Are people the same way? Can you remove any of the five khandas and still have a person? I don't think so. What about if you remove consciousness? Well, then you have a dead person who will be worm meat within a day or two. So you see, I just think that it is an inadequate metaphor and shouldn't be taken literally. Andrew: Isn't any other view either sitting on the fence or Hinduism? James: Well, I am not a Hindu because I don't believe in atman or soul. But, I know it is frustrating when someone sits on the fence and then you begin to wonder if they are just trying to be clever and really have no clue about what their position is. Okay, if you want to know my position: I don't think that there is no self and I don't think that there is self, I only think that there exists a `sense of self' which is fueled by ignorance and creates suffering and all of samsara. I think that you want some kind of `standard' ontological position but, believe it or not, this is an ontological position. Andrew: Sorry, mate, but I think you bear the onus of proof on this one (and it is one of the "biggies" in Buddhism) and you haven't got my vote yet. LOL! James: Hehehe…that's okay. I'm not looking for votes. Metta, James 30048 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 0:28am Subject: Re: Control || No Control Hi Andrew, This is an interesting mental exercise, and demonstrates that you are a deep thinker I believe, but it is a dangerous precedent to start rewriting suttas to prove a particular point. (Then I would have to start referring to you as `Buddhaghosa' LOL!). I gave you the sutta where the Buddha described volition. Only suttas where he described volition specifically should be considered. Not all of the terms are interchangeable, I don't think. Metta, James --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > Hi Howard and James > > In the context of this thread, I consulted the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta > on AccesstoInsight. 30049 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 0:33am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Hi Carl, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Carl" wrote: > The title is striking "The Farmer" and then it seems to me a > description of where mara can be found (grown as a crop) follows. > No where else but in the senses. Mara is not to be found outside of > the senses. Very interesting perspective! I didn't consider that. I will have to ponder this viewpoint more. Thanks, you have added more depth of meaning to this sutta for me. Metta, James 30050 From: Andrew Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 0:45am Subject: Re: Control || No Control Hello Victor and James Thank you both for your posts. Please jump in anytime, Victor. Your insight is always appreciated. I think I can see where you are both coming from - and I don't mean to imply that your positions are identical. Victor wrote: > The "control" relation needs to be clarified: namely, it is > impossible for whom or what to control volition? Given the context > in the discourse, it is impossible for volition to control itself > because volition lends itself to dis-ease. Volition lends itself to > dis-ease precicely because volition is not self. > > It is impossible for volition to control itself in the sense that it > is impossible for volition to make itself permanent and not dukkha > as volition lends itself to dis-ease. Andrew: My reading of these sutta lines is that "self-belief" is incompatible with conditionality and impermanence. If there were a "self", there would be something permanent that could manipulate conditions from one moment to the next. I suspect you and James are relying upon the use of "not self" in the sutta rather than "no self". But surely this is entirely consistent with the conventional/ultimate reality distinction? "Self" is not an ultimate reality, but it is a conventional reality - and a Noble One does not misapprehend "self" [as being ultimately real] nor cling to it. Do you agree with that last sentence? Victor: As far as I can see in the discourses, I have not found any passage > in which the Buddha taught that there is no self or there is self. > I see that both "there is no self" and "there is self" as > metaphysical assertions: they have nothing to do with the Dhamma > that the Buddha taught and are to be abandoned. Andrew: Do you find it perplexing that Buddha did not deal with anatta in the same manner in which he dismissed other metaphysical assertions? Why didn't he just come out with it and say "Look, these questions 'is there self' and 'is there no self' are irrelevant to my Dhamma and are to be abandoned." Victor: Not sure if anyone claimed that whether there is a self or not is an > imponderable question. > > On the other hand, I see the question "Is there a self or not?" not > so much an imponderable question. I see it as a question that leads > to speculation and proliferation in thoughts not connected to the > Buddha's teaching. Andrew: That seems to fit Nyanatiloka's definition of "acinteyya" (p.5) - which leads me to repeat my question: why didn't the Buddha say that "self" or "no self" was an unthinkable? It would have been easy for him to have made that point. Why didn't he? Best wishes Andrew 30051 From: icarofranca Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 1:04am Subject: Re: Andy, Love lost Dear Carl > Andy, My heart goes out to you. Your despair is large. You are > suffering as a death. > Andy, I have been a faithful lurker on DSG for several monthes now. > I can tell you that this is the deep end of the pool as far as > Buddhism is concerned. Not an easy place to begin your study of > Buddhism. -------------------------------------------------------------------- I could suggest a good plunge on Dhammasangani... ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Has buddhism helped me? Actually, it was deep sadness and > overwhelming despair that led me to seek help. I found my help > through the door of psycology. It saved my life. I did not start as > a buddhist. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ...Or a reading out at the Patthanapali. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The intense despair that drove me through many readings > of "pop" psycology led me to buddhism. Buddhism is healthy > psycology. I was about 20 at the beginning of the process and now I > am 60. I am grateful to have traveled the road I am on. > > The learning begins at the difficult times of your life. It is the > intensity of depression that can awake a seeker such as you self. > Once started, there is no turning back. I can tell from your words > that you are ready to begin the journey. Carl -------------------------------------------------------------------- Is there necessary so many efforts only to get rid of akusala patterns ? Mettaya, Ícaro 30052 From: Date: Fri Feb 13, 2004 8:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control In a message dated 2/13/04 7:22:26 PM Central Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: The idea "using self to get rid of/overcome the idea of self," reminds me of the discourse all, I have heard this expressed as, "using a thorn to remove a thorn stuck in our skin. Then when it removed, throw both thorns away." jack 30053 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 2:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control Hi Victor > While it is impossible for one to make bodily actions, verbal > actions, and mental actions permanent, not dukkha, oneself, it is > entirely possible for one to do what is skillful/wholesome/kusala > and refrain from what is unskillful/unwholesome/akusala in body, > speech, and mind. In that sense, I said that it is entirely > possible for one to control oneself in body, speech, and mind. In > that sense, it is entirely possible for one to restrain and control > his body actions, verbal actions, and mental actions, not to make > them permanent, not dukkha, self, but to abandon what is unskillful > and develop what is skillful. k: I dont get you. In your first statement you said <>, then in the above you said, <>. In my opinion it is a contradiction, could you explain this please. k: I think I have to say even though there is anatta, there is still salvation. When Buddha say control, what does he meant. He does not meant controlling of what conventional thinking of "controlling", he is saying that one that is mindful, of wise consideration, or in simple terms satipatthana. I dont think you will buy that :-) rgds Ken O 30054 From: icarofranca Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 3:05am Subject: Re: SNI,4,19(9) "The Farmer" Dear Carl > The title is striking "The Farmer" and then it seems to me a > description of where mara can be found (grown as a crop) follows. > No where else but in the senses. Mara is not to be found outside of > the senses. ------------------------------------------------------------------ That´s a commonplace at Comparative Beliefs´ issues. At "Dhaniya Sutta" (Sutta Niipata) we get a very impressive description of Mara as a being(?) that is even worse than a Yakka: not only refuses help to the poor Dhaniya as even bolsters his power and "grandeur" at this harsh hour. Buddha only reflects the own words of Dhaniya, smiling as usual... Mettaya, Ícaro bases. 30055 From: icarofranca Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 3:39am Subject: Re: Control || No Control Dear Andrew and a Noble One > does not misapprehend "self" [as being ultimately real] nor cling to > it. Do you agree with that last sentence? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Respectfully butting in, Andrew... Self is not a conventional or ultimate reality or whatever: it´s a wrong point of view. -------------------------------------------------------------------- > didn't he just come out with it and say "Look, these questions 'is > there self' and 'is there no self' are irrelevant to my Dhamma and > are to be abandoned." --------------------------------------------------------------------- No, he didn´t say it at this way or whatever. Buddha states clearly that the "Self" is a misconception and a false idea itself, and that must to be abandoned at once. --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Andrew: > That seems to fit Nyanatiloka's definition of "acinteyya" (p.5) - > which leads me to repeat my question: why didn't the Buddha say > that "self" or "no self" was an unthinkable? It would have been easy > for him to have made that point. Why didn't he? --------------------------------------------------------------------- This point of doctrine is fully explained in all buddhistic canon: Dukkha, Anicca and Anatta are de main pillars of all Buddhism. Mettaya, Ícaro > Best wishes > Andrew 30056 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 4:13am Subject: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi Howard, > post in context. At the end I will copy material given in two suttas in the > Anguttara Nikaya which I sent to DSG (to Jon) a couple years ago, and which > indicate the importance of concentration. I couldn't make out these two Suttas from your post. And I mistakenly associated the Anupada Sutta with Anguttara Nikaya and this is why I couldn't find it in ATI yesterday. Anyway, I vaguely remember once reading that Sutta elsewhere and the impression I had then. I will go by those impressions and if I am mistaken I hope you won't mind and will correct me. Comments are between yours. > > There seem to be an implicit belief that a mind well concentrated is > > in a better position to penetrate the nature of the rising and > > falling phenomena. > > > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Perhaps that is due to the Buddha having > explicity stated such. > ----------------------------------------------- Sukin: I won't ask for references because it will require that we then go through the process of analyzing Suttas, which I am not good at. I talked about my understanding of Right and Wrong concentration in my post to James. What do you think of it? I do not deny that concentration is a necessary part of the Eightfold Path and I also do not deny that during Magga citta, the concentration is of the intensity of Jhana. However, as everything else in the Tipitaka, I think understanding of what the Buddha means when he says to the effect "Right concentration is necessary" hinges upon how we understand such statements to be. Is it descriptive or is it a "thing to do"? > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: Yep, no such name. But the Buddha taught the cultivation of concentration and calm throughout his life, and he didn't spend 45 years only repeating the content of the Satipatthana Sutta. > ---------------------------------------------- Sukin: I wonder what James meant when he made a similar statement in his post to me. I know that the Buddha taught many aspects of Dhamma and from many perspectives, and this is why I think it is useful to study the texts as much as possible just to gain greater and greater familiarity with dhammas. But Satipatthana is the *only* way, do you agree? If so, what could be more important at any given moment? I am not discounting the importance of other kinds of kusala, one cannot force satipatthana. But is there any citta which wears away ignorance other than a moment of satipatthana? Would the Buddha give priority to anything else? > > Jhana is very high degree of kusala and requires a corresponding > > degree of panna, but does it have any direct connection with > > vipassana panna? No! > > The objects are very different. > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > First of all, that isn't the point. > Mastering the jhanas is a matter of cultivating the mind. Secondly, the jhanas > have been prominent as a base for investigation of dhammas. In particular, seethe > Anupada Sutta which shows how the jhanas were vehicles for Sariputta's > liberation. And consider how the 4th jhana was used by the Buddha himself as base for investigation of dhammas. > ----------------------------------------------------- Sukin: `Cultivating the mind', for what? You know that Jhana can at best lead to the very fine mental states of the Brahmas. As a base for vipassana? I agree that those liberated by Jhana are superior to those who are not. But are you thinking that it is easier? Perhaps, for those to whom it is a natural thing, being already very developed in this regard. But isn't it taking the extremely longer route for those who aren't? The reason why I said that those who entertain such a view will get nowhere, is because the aim is enlightenment, but the practice is not in accord with the goal. If one understands the significance of Satipatthana, he will not think beyond this moment in terms of practice! > Is jhana then being practiced as a `tool' or is it being practiced > > as a `support factor'? > > > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > A tool for cultivating the mind, and as > base for investigation of dhammas. > ------------------------------------------------ Sukin: A `base for investigation of dhammas'? Would this faculty be inherent in Jhana cittas or is it more likely the panna which understands realities as they are? > With metta, > Howard Metta, Sukin. 30057 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 4:14am Subject: Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi James, > James: My reply is also. If you respond, please don't respond in a > manner to proliferate any of the issues I have raised in this post. > Try to narrow and focus. Sukin: Whew!! Many thanks James. It is quite exhausting for me too. :-) So I will focus on just one point in this post. > Sukin: I think you will agree that only Satipatthana leads to the > goal. > > James: Why would you think that? I haven't been brainwashed by K. > Sujin (not yet anyway…knock on wood! ;-)). There are A LOT more > suttas than the Satipatthana Sutta; Buddhism isn't as simplistic as > you are implying. Sukin: Are you talking about other paths or are you talking about other perspective of the same thing? I think you have read many times here, that the whole Tipitaka is about the development of satipatthana. I feel inclined to agree with this. Do you object to the idea that it is understanding of the present arising dhamma which constitute the development of wisdom? I may have the habit of being simplistic, and this is to be expected due to the accumulated ignorance and wrong view. However as Ivan a friend, often says, "Dhamma is really simple, but *hard* to see", I grow also more and more appreciative of this comment of his. After all, what is there but the present moment to be known and understood? The Buddha's teachings all point to this. It is our lack of accumulated panna which causes us to complicate matters, proliferating and indulging in well sounding theories. It is this very same lack of wisdom which leads us to not appreciate that the teachings on conditionality is about *now*. Not realizing this, we insist on the *word*. And this word can either make us complacent or otherwise be overly critical. The concept of `Emptiness' by Nagarjuna is one example of the latter. If the practice is right then there is no doubt, and I don't think one will see discrepancies where there are none. In a hurry to go, so I will end here. Metta, Sukin. 30058 From: icarofranca Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 4:15am Subject: A HAPPY VALENTINE´S DAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "Roses are red Violets are ble..." But many people may prefer something more hot and vivid as "Benny the Bouncer" "Benny was a bouncer at the Palais de Dance He could slash your granny´s face without give her a chance He thought he was the meanest untill he met Savage Syd! Now Benny will show to Syd his nasty roots He poured a pint of Guiness at Syd boots Benny looked at Syd Syd looked back to Benny Benny took his switchblade And Syd his 'Cold Meat Pie' - O What a terrible sight! - Much of people´s delight! - One Hell of fight!" (And the Honky Tonk continues to being played on!!!) A Happy Valentine´s Day for all DSG !!!!!! Mettaya, Ícaro 30059 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 3:27am Subject: What is the World ? Friends; What is this Appearance of the World ? The world is that by which one Perceives the world! The world is that by which one Conceives the world! This is the so-called 'World' in the Noble One's teaching. By what, do one perceive & conceive the world ? By the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body & by the mind do one perceive & conceive the world ... This is the 'World' in the Noble One's teaching. Samyutta Nikaya IV [95] ____________________________________________________ World as 'Experience of world' World as 'Artificial construction' World as 'Internal representation' World as 'Terror of changing noise' It is (thus) within this fathom long frame of body endowed with conscious experience, senses & mind, that the world can be found! Here it is originated, unfolded & manifested & here it also ends .. Consequently is also here the method to end this world is found! The Wise, knowing the world to be thus, therefore ends the world, by fulfilling the Noble Life. In the Peace of having ended this world, all calmed, all stilled, he do not Long for this or any other World! Samyutta Nikaya I [62] ____________________________________________________ Comments: Radical Empiricism: If one would postulate a World - 'out there' - completely independent of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body & mind, not relying on any seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching or thinking and thus as if invisible, silent, smell & tasteless, intangible & unconceivable, such world would indeed be utterly groundless, lacking any reference & wholly unverifiable. Such world - stable or changing - would be an irrelevant metaphysical construction: - a Castle in the Air! - We 'make up' the world by experiencing it! The world is thus not an external substance or entity, but an internal representation... an ideation... A mentally constructed & mind created neural 'film' or 'recording' of an external condition of which our only witness & knowledge is this 'recorded film' itself... What is behind this curtain of perception or what was 'filmed' cannot ever be known nor communicated... Nibbana may be likened to the blissful peace in the dark cinema after the film have ended & all others have rushed out in the streets, driven by the urge for new experience ... The interesting is not this boring, monotonous & repetitious Film itself, but the salient End of it ... To realize that fully takes incalculable aeons ... : - ] - The End - All yours in the Dhamma. Constructions Decay & Vanish. Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ 30060 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 4:59am Subject: Re: What is the World ? Dear Bhikkhu Samahita, Could you please explain what you meant by perceive and conceive in your post in connection with eye, ear, etc etc? Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Bhikkhu Samahita wrote: > Friends; > What is this Appearance of the World ? > The world is that by which one Perceives the world! > The world is that by which one Conceives the world! > This is the so-called 'World' in the Noble One's teaching. > > By what, do one perceive & conceive the world ? > By the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body & by the mind > do one perceive & conceive the world ... > This is the 'World' in the Noble One's teaching. > > Samyutta Nikaya IV [95] > ____________________________________________________ > > > World as 'Experience of world' > World as 'Artificial construction' > World as 'Internal representation' > World as 'Terror of changing noise' > It is (thus) within this fathom long frame of body endowed with > conscious experience, senses & mind, that the world can be found! > Here it is originated, unfolded & manifested & here it also ends .. > Consequently is also here the method to end this world is found! > > The Wise, knowing the world to be thus, therefore ends the world, > by fulfilling the Noble Life. In the Peace of having ended this world, > all calmed, all stilled, he do not Long for this or any other World! > Samyutta Nikaya I [62] > > ____________________________________________________ > > Comments: > > > Radical Empiricism: > > If one would postulate a World - 'out there' - completely > independent of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body & mind, > not relying on any seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, > touching or thinking and thus as if invisible, silent, smell & > tasteless, intangible & unconceivable, such world would > indeed be utterly groundless, lacking any reference & wholly > unverifiable. Such world - stable or changing - would be an > irrelevant metaphysical construction: - a Castle in the Air! - > > We 'make up' the world by experiencing it! > The world is thus not an external substance or entity, > but an internal representation... an ideation... > A mentally constructed & mind created neural 'film' or > 'recording' of an external condition of which our only > witness & knowledge is this 'recorded film' itself... > What is behind this curtain of perception or what was > 'filmed' cannot ever be known nor communicated... > Nibbana may be likened to the blissful peace in the dark > cinema after the film have ended & all others have rushed > out in the streets, driven by the urge for new experience ... > > The interesting is not this boring, monotonous & > repetitious Film itself, but the salient End of it ... > To realize that fully takes incalculable aeons ... > > > > : - ] > > > - The End - > > All yours in the Dhamma. > Constructions Decay & Vanish. > Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ 30061 From: Htoo Naing Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 6:40am Subject: Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 06 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, ' The meditator ' is practising mindfulness on mind. 'He' perceives his meditational practice. He knows that he is now practising mindfulness exercise on mind. He is aware of outside world through 5 sense doors. He is also aware of inside world that is what are happening inside his mind. He is mindful on any matter outside or inside wise. Whenever mind goes outside or inside, he notes that a mind state arises such and such. After that he reorientates back to his breath. He is attending at his breath but he also knows whenever mind moves outside or inside wise. This means he notices after a while when a mind state arises at outside ( that is at sight, sound, smell, taste, touch ) or inside ( that is arising of thoughts which is not at the breath ). He may not know immediately these mind states because there is some delay before he notices that he is no longer at his breath. But due to his long practice, he can recognize earlier than he was able to do so. Different mind states arises one after another. At a time, all arise at the breath and at that time, people would say that the meditator is well concentrated. The meditator is practising mindfulness on his breath and he thinks that he is well concentrated himself. But at a time, he feels fatigue that is both physically and mentally. Mentally here means that his mind state is not as alert as previous mind states while he is at the present state. But after a while he notices that a mind state has arisen which is slothful ( Samkhittacitta ). When he recognizes that mind state, another mind state has replaced already. He is alert again. And he continues to practise his mindfulness on his mind states. At a time, he is no lomger at his breath. Instead he is wandering away. That is mind states of different knids arise successively and they all do not attend the breath. So this state can be called as distracted mind. After a while, the meditator notices that he has drafted away and he notices that a mind state that is distracted from his breath has arisen. This mind state is also known as Vikkhittacitta that is distracted mind. May all beings practise mindfulness on own mind state and develop wisdom. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htootintnaing@y... JourneyToNibbana@yahoogroups.com 30062 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 8:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Michael/Victor Hello KenH, KenH: When you came to dsg, you honestly, and commendably, admitted you were an adherent of the Nagarjuna school of thought and your purpose here was to "sow seeds of doubt" (your exact words) amongst us Theravadins. Michael: I think you put me in the wrong box. I don't recall having said that "I am an adherent of the school of thought of Nagarjuna". What I probably said, and say again, is that in my view Nagarjuna is a true representative of the teachings of the Buddha found in the Pali Canon. Although he has been adopted as a foremost philosopher of Mahayana in my view he was truly defending the ideas expressed by the Buddha found in the suttas. KenH: You talk as if the Abhidhamma is `known to be' not the word of the Buddha. You have said it yourself, you have given your reasons and people have put the opposite case. Unless you can come up with further evidence, perhaps you should avoid throwing a spanner in the works every time there is a discussion of Abhidhamma. The same with the commentaries; like it or not, they are an accepted part of the original Theravada School of Buddhism. In this forum, I think the onus is on you to prove they are forgeries, not on others to prove they are genuine. Michael: I don't recall saying that the Abhidhamma 'is known to not have been the word of the Buddha.' I don't have any problems with the Abhidhamma Canonical works, quite the opposite, I have found them quite useful and quite often in my day to day refer to what I have learned to help me understand what is happening inside my mind. My big problem is in relation to the commentaries specially those compiled by Buddhaghosa. His writings are a mixed bag of good things and very bad things borrowed from other schools of thought which contradict the teachings of the Canonical texts. To prove something depends on the listener, even the Buddha was not capable of convincing everybody. If someone adheres firmly to his views and does not let go of them, nothing in this world will change them. So, I put my ideas forward, if someone does not like them simply throw them away. KenH: That's fine, except your arguments have been logically met and yet you continue to state them as if they were uncontested fact. For example, you talk as if the accepted definition of sabhava is; `not subject to conditions.' Michael: If that is your view simply disregard my messages that deal with this subject. I will be quiet for a while anyway until I finish reading the Katthavatthu which I have not even received yet. Metta Michael 30063 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 9:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory Hello Sarah, Sarah: I think we need to discuss this area in some depth. How about you start by explaining why you think that ultimate dhammas (aka paramattha dhammas or namas and rupas or khandhas or ayatanas or dhatus) 'places conditionality in the background'.. Michael: This is what I notice in the discussions in the list. There is much greater emphasis placed on 'paramatha dhammas' than on conditionality. It is also reflected in the practice of the Dhamma. As I understand many of the 'believers in paramatha dhammas' don't practice meditation. I think this is your case also. To be honest I don't fully understand how you practice the Dhamma but it must be influenced by the view about paramatha dhammas. The disregard for meditation falls within that view and shows to me that conditionality is not considered very highly. Sarah: On the contrary, 'highest sense' is beyond language, i.e 'not taken from tradition, or hearsay'. It means that regardless of anything said or known about them, paramattha dhammas are still 'ultimates' or 'realities' as shown to us by the Buddha. Michael: If it were beyond language no one would be able to talk about it, but quite the contrary there is a lot of talk about it. The Buddha did not show paramatha dhammas, this is not found in the Suttas, but let's see what can be found in the Katthavatthu. Metta Michael 30064 From: Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 4:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Control || No Control Hi, Victor - In a message dated 2/13/04 11:24:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Howard, I think that in order not to misrepresent what the Buddha > said you might want to find a reference in which the Buddha actually > said that he used concepts without being fooled by them. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Victor, haven't you seen the four or so follow-up posts of mine on this? If not, you might consider reading them. If yes, then you might consider rereading them. If you see and understand what I wrote, there should be no question of misrepresentation but only one of my searching for the facts. ------------------------------------------------- > > You said that: > > "One may speak of a "rainbow in the sky", but unless one is a child > or lives in a culture bereft of meteorological knowledge, one knows > that there is no actual thing called "a rainbow", nor, for that > matter, any actual thing called "the sky". > > > Could you explain what the point is? ------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, sorry. It is clear. ------------------------------------------------- > > Metta, > Victor > > ====================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 30065 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 9:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control Hi Ken O, Let me try to explain first in more general and abstract terms. As I see it, there are two aspects to the issue of control. The first aspect concerns whether it is possible or impossible for whom or what controls whom or what. I called that the control relation. Take form and self in question, we have the following permutation of control relations: 1. It is impossible for form to control form itself. 2. It is possible for form to control form itself. 3. It is impossible for form to control oneself. 4. It is possible for form to control oneself. 5. It is impossible for one to control form. 6. It is possible for one to control form. 7. It is impossible for one to control oneself. 8. It is possible for one to control oneself. The second aspect concerns the domain of qualities that qualifies the "controlled"/"not controlled" in question in the the control relation. Let me use some symbols to explain what I mean. By saying it is possible or impossible for X to control Y, I mean it is possible or impossible for X to control Y in specific qualities. Two domains of qualities qualify "controlled"/"not controlled" in the control relation are considered: the characteristics of being impermanent or permanent, dukkha or not dukkha, not self or self, and the qualities of being unskillful/unwholesome/akusala or skillful/wholesome/kusala in body, speech, and mind. Now let me go back to the list of permutation of the control relations. With the domain of qualities in consideration, I will list what I consider as true statements: 1. It is impossible for form to control form itself in the characteristics of being impermanent, dukkha, not self. 2. It is impossible for form to control oneself in the qualities of being skillful/wholesome/kusala in body, speech, and mind. 3. It is impossible for one to control form in it's characteristics of being impermanent, dukkha, not self. (But it is entirely possible for one to LOSE control of oneself to form.) 4. It is possible for one to control oneself in the qualities of being skillful/wholesome/kusala in bodily action, verbal actions, and mental actions. In terms of the five aggregates, the aggregate of fabrications is thus the one and only one aggregate to which both domains of qualities are applicable: while fabrications are characterized as impermanent, dukkha, not self, they can be characterized as skillful/wholesome/kusala or unskillful/unwholesome/akusala. The Buddha taught the relation between self and actions in the following passage for contemplation: 'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an05-057.html In that sense, while it is impossible for one to control bodily, verbal, and mental fabrications in their characteristics of being impermanent, dukkha, not self, it is entirely possible for one to control bodily, verbal, and mental fabrications in the qualities of being skillful/wholesom/kusala. Let me list the control relations with their applicable qualifications regarding fabrications and self: 1. It is impossible for fabrications to control fabrications themselve in their characteristics of being impermanent, dukkha, not self. 2. It is impossible for fabrications to control oneself in the qualities of being skillful/wholesome/kusala in body, speech, and mind. 3. It is impossible for one to control fabrications in their characteristics of being impermanent, dukkha, not self. (But again, it is entirely possible for one to LOSE control to fabrications.) 4. It is possible for one to control fabrications in the qualities of being skillful/wholesome/kusala. 5. It is possible for one to control oneself in the qualities of being skillful/wholesome/kusala in bodily action, verbal actions, and mental actions. The relation in 4 and 5 are equivalent. Let me know if I can clarify further what I mean for you. Feedback and suggestions are welcome. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Victor > > > > While it is impossible for one to make bodily actions, verbal > > actions, and mental actions permanent, not dukkha, oneself, it is > > entirely possible for one to do what is skillful/wholesome/kusala > > and refrain from what is unskillful/unwholesome/akusala in body, > > speech, and mind. In that sense, I said that it is entirely > > possible for one to control oneself in body, speech, and mind. In > > that sense, it is entirely possible for one to restrain and control > > his body actions, verbal actions, and mental actions, not to make > > them permanent, not dukkha, self, but to abandon what is unskillful > > and develop what is skillful. > > k: I dont get you. In your first statement you said < it is impossible for form to control itself as form lends itself to > dis-ease. Form lends itself to dis-ease preciesly because form is > not self.>>, then in the above you said, < it is entirely possible for one to control oneself in body, speech, > and mind.>>. In my opinion it is a contradiction, could you explain > this please. > > k: I think I have to say even though there is anatta, there is still > salvation. When Buddha say control, what does he meant. He does not > meant controlling of what conventional thinking of "controlling", he > is saying that one that is mindful, of wise consideration, or in > simple terms satipatthana. I dont think you will buy that :-) > > rgds > Ken O 30066 From: Larry Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 10:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control Hi Victor, Yes. Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Larry, > > Do you mean it is the self-identity view with which one regards > something as "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? > > Metta, > Victor > > 30067 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 10:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: bodily intimation, 1 Hi Larry and Icaro, op 14-02-2004 00:27 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: Is the printed word considered to be bodily > intimation? I expect you will say "no", but consider, it is a rupa, it > "intimates a wish", and it is produced by consciousness. N: I first answer Icaro, your questions are related. op 13-02-2004 17:55 schreef icarofranca op icarofranca@y...: ----------------------------------------------------------- > At my first readings on Abhidhamma, I always took terms like > Kayaviññatti and vaciviññatti (Bodily Intimation and verbal > intimation) as two of the 10 elements that are considered not Real > (anipphanannarupa). N: Both nipphannarupa, produced rupas, also called sabhava rupas, rupas with their own distinct nature, and anipphanannarupas, unproduced rupas, also called asabhava rupas, without their own distinct nature, are rupa dhammas, they are realities, see your packing list complete with all 28 rupas! The distinction is: anipphanannarupas are not separate concrete matter, but, they are specific characteristics of rupas, such as a change in the elements or characteristics of rupa such as origination, etc. But they are rupas, not abstract entities, not concepts. The Buddha taught Rahula the four great Elements and other rupas. He would not teach concepts, since people know concepts already, but he taught dhammas, elements, realities which are non-self. Icaro: If all anipphanannarupa are > raised up and produced by Citta, so the term "Not Real" don't fit so > much. If something is produced by Citta, so it is real at The Citta > realm... N: I would not say, real at the citta realm, but they are just dhammas. I: if you consider > Citta as a material process at our brains and nerves - from sense- > doors to material sense organs and mind at the last end... N: I do not consider citta as a material porocess, citta is mental, and the process of citta goes on according to citta nyama. Brains, nerves, these are conventional terms, they do not help us to understand citta, cetasika and rupa. Larry: as to the printed word: here we think of an effect of an action in conventional sense. You probably think of the act of typing, which is directed by citta. It is in the same way as painting, or building a house, different actions by which citta creates something. But in order to understand the rupa of bodily intimation, we have to consider the rupa which has as function to convey a meaning. As we read in the ³Dhammasangani² (§ 636): >> >> What is that rúpa which is bodily intimation (kåyaviññatti)? >> That tension, that intentness, that state of making the body tense, > in >> response to a thought, whether good or bad, or indeterminate > (kiriyacitta), >> on the part of one who advances, or recedes, or fixes the gaze, or > glances >> around, or retracts an arm, or stretches it forth - the intimation, > the >> making known, the state of having made known - this is that rúpa > which >> constitutes bodily intimation. There are seven javana cittas, kusala cittas or akusala cittas in the process of cittas, and six of them cause bodily tension or motion, but only the seventh javana citta is the cause of the rupa that is bodily intimation, and this rupa falls away with that citta. It is the only rupa lasting for just one moment of citta. It is hard to pinpoint, but we know it is the cause of gestures or facial expression which display a meaning or intention. In order to understand this rupa it is not helpful to think of a whole situation or story, such as: I type and then I make known a wish, etc. Then we shall not know that rupa. It is not a word or term, it is not theoretical, but it is rupa, it is an element, it is real. It is a very subtle rupa, arising and falling away with one moment of citta. It can be directly known by insight, but it depends on whether it appears to the insight knowledge or not. Not all rupas have to be known by vipassana ~naa.na, but we should not say that it is impossible to know it. Nina. 30068 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 10:33am Subject: [dsg] Re: Control || No Control Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 2/13/04 11:24:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > Hi Howard, > > > > Howard, I think that in order not to misrepresent what the Buddha > > said you might want to find a reference in which the Buddha actually > > said that he used concepts without being fooled by them. > > > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Victor, haven't you seen the four or so follow-up posts of mine on > this? If not, you might consider reading them. If yes, then you might consider > rereading them. If you see and understand what I wrote, there should be no > question of misrepresentation but only one of my searching for the facts. > ------------------------------------------------- I find it questionable if what you attributed to the Buddha have the same meaning as what the Buddha actually said as recorded in the discourses. I find it quesionable if what you attributed the Buddha fits into the context of the passage quoted out of a long and involved discourse. "Citta, these are the world's designations, the world's expressions, the world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions, with which the Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping to them." [10] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn09.html As I see it, the discourse itself is long and involved. Perhaps it is better to understand this passage in the context of the whole discourse, not out of context. > > > > > You said that: > > > > "One may speak of a "rainbow in the sky", but unless one is a child > > or lives in a culture bereft of meteorological knowledge, one knows > > that there is no actual thing called "a rainbow", nor, for that > > matter, any actual thing called "the sky". > > > > > > Could you explain what the point is? > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > No, sorry. It is clear. > ------------------------------------------------- I see no connection between what you wrote in quote and what the Buddha taught on dukkha and cessation of dukkha. Metta, Victor 30069 From: Larry Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 10:43am Subject: Re: bodily intimation, 1 Hi Nina, Thanks for your reply. I take it that bodily intimation is confined to the body and doesn't include other rupas in the world that convey an intimation, such as a traffic sign. What about sign language? I suppose music is out, but what about dance? Also, it seems to me the two intimations are bound by convention. What is a meaningful gesture in one culture means something else in another, or is meaningless. Is this an aspect of rupa without individual characteristic (sabhava)? Larry 30070 From: Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 5:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Control || No Control Hi, Andrew (and James, and Victor, and all) - In a message dated 2/14/04 12:04:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, athel60@t... writes: > Hi Howard and James > > In the context of this thread, I consulted the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta > on AccesstoInsight. > > James wrote: > > How can it be > >that volition is conditioned by `oneself' if there is no self? As > I > >have been explaining, that is because the Buddha didn't teach > `there > >is no self', he taught to not view anything as `self' in order to > >attain liberation. > > A: James' view has some appeal, but is it right? I did the following > little exercise with the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta. The following is a > quotation where I have deleted "mental fabrications" and > inserted "volition". I have done this to bring it down to our > specific topic: volition (cetana) is a mental fabrication (sankhara), > is it not? So the substitution should hold true. > > Here goes: > > "Volition is not self. If volition were the self, this volition would > not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with > regard to volition 'Let my volition be thus. Let my volition not be > thus.' But precisely because volition is not self, volition lends > itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to > volition 'Let my volition be thus. Let my volition not be thus.'" > > So: > 1. regarding "no control", is not the Buddha here stating that it is > not possible to control or direct volition? > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: He is saying that with regard to volition as anything else, one cannot truthfully just say "My wish is my command." Volition, as all other phenomena, arises due to impersonal causes and conditions, among which, of course, can be prior instances of volition. It is all impersonal. I don't claim otherwise. --------------------------------------------------- > 2. if there is NOTHING in any of the Buddha's extensive listing of > phenomena of which it may be said "this is mine; this is my self; > this is what I am", can we really argue (as does James, for example) > that "the Buddha didn't teach there is no self"? > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't think we can. (But more about this below.) In fact, the content of the Sabba Sutta together with all the repeated assertions by the Buddha that no phenomena mentioned therein are self is sufficient to infer there is no self. -------------------------------------------------- > 3. since everyone is asking for references, I might too. Where is > the reference for the Buddha stating either that > (a) there IS a self that is not just a conventional designation; or > (b) whether there is a self or not is an imponderable question? > > Hmmm. > > Best wishes > Andrew > > ============================= What is the case, however, is that the Buddha did not, so far as I know, directly a specifically state "There is no self". I believe that he never directly stated that for two reasons: 1) He didn't wish to terrify people, and 2) He wanted to avoid the consequence of people accepting that as a belief which will substitute for direct knowing. The Buddha didn't wish to inculcate beliefs, but to guide people towards direct realization, enlightenment, and liberation. With metta, Howard P.S. I lost the original of this post when Windows froze up. This is my best attempt at a repetition of it. If the original should come through as well, my apologies for the repetition. /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) 30071 From: Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 6:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Control || No Control Hi, James - In a message dated 2/14/04 2:16:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > It seems to me that you describe your > position a little differently each time. ==================== I started doing that after I sat in on the course EEL WRIGGLING 101 at my college! ;-) Actually, I think that anything, to be properly described, must be described in many alternative ways. Nothing with any reality to it is simply describable. 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) 30072 From: Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 6:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 2/14/04 7:13:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, sukinder@k... writes: > I couldn't make out these two Suttas from your post ============================= The content of the two suttas was as follows (hope no odd sysmbols): Sense control -> Virtue -> Right concentration -> Knowledge and vision of things as they really are -> Revulsion and dispassion -> Knowledge and vision of liberation. and Virtuous ways of conduct -> Non-remorse -> Gladness -> Joy -> Serenity -> Happiness -> Concentration of the mind -> Knowledge and vision of things as they really are -> Revulsion and dispassion -> Knowledge and vision of liberation. ============================== 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) 30073 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 11:22am Subject: [dsg] Re: Control || No Control Hi Howard, Do you mean that what the Buddha taught implicitly and indirectly imply that there is no self? Do you mean that in direct knowing people will see that there is no self? As you see it, are the views "there is no self" and "there is self" what the Buddha taught? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Andrew (and James, and Victor, and all) - [snip] > ============================= > What is the case, however, is that the Buddha did not, so far as I > know, directly a specifically state "There is no self". I believe that he never > directly stated that for two reasons: > 1) He didn't wish to terrify people, and > 2) He wanted to avoid the consequence of people accepting that as a > belief which will substitute for direct knowing. The Buddha didn't wish to > inculcate beliefs, but to guide people towards direct realization, enlightenment, > and liberation. > > With metta, > Howard 30074 From: Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 6:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Control || No Control Hi, Victor - In a message dated 2/14/04 2:23:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Do you mean that what the Buddha taught implicitly and indirectly > imply that there is no self? > --------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. -------------------------------------- > > Do you mean that in direct knowing people will see that there is no > self? > --------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. --------------------------------------- > > As you see it, are the views "there is no self" and "there is self" > what the Buddha taught? > --------------------------------------- Howard: The Buddha directly taught that no phenomena are self. (Sabbe dhamma anatta.) But his intent, as I inderstand him, was not to inculcate belief, but to encourage proper practice and cultivation. --------------------------------------- > > Metta, > ===================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 30075 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 0:53pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Control || No Control Hi Howard, So you mean that what the Buddha taught implicitly and indirectly imply that there is no self and people will see as such in direct knowing. How do you know that in direct knowing people will see that there is no self? Have you been in direct knowing? I asked that As you see it, are the views "there is no self" and "there is self" what the Buddha taught? You replied: The Buddha directly taught that no phenomena are self. (Sabbe dhamma anatta.) But his intent, as I inderstand him, was not to inculcate belief, but to encourage proper practice and cultivation. Well, is the view "there is no self" what the Buddha taught or not? is the view "there is self" what the Buddha taught or not? Is "Sabbe dhamma anatta" directly translated as "no phenomena are self"? How do you know the Buddha's intent? Did you read his mind? Or did the Buddha said so as recorded in the discourses? Do you mean that if the Buddha teach the view "there is no self" explicitly, then he would be inculcating belief and would not encourage proper practice and cultivation? Do you mean that "there is no self" is a teaching that the Buddha could get across to his disciples implicitly and indirectly without stating it explicitly and directly such that they would see this teaching in direct knowing? What else do you think one would see in direct knowing, beside seeing that there is no self? This is a passage in which one's knowledge on release is explicitly stated as: With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world. This is a passage in which the Buddha explicitly stated his knowledge & vision on his release: And, monks, as long as this knowledge & vision of mine -- with its three rounds & twelve permutations concerning these four noble truths as they actually are present -- was not pure, I did not claim to have directly awakened to the right self-awakening unexcelled in the cosmos with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, with its contemplatives & priests, its royalty & commonfolk. But as soon as this knowledge & vision of mine -- with its three rounds & twelve permutations concerning these four noble truths as they actually are present -- was truly pure, then I did claim to have directly awakened to the right self-awakening unexcelled in the cosmos with its devas, Maras & Brahmas, with its contemplatives & priests, its royalty & commonfolk. Knowledge & vision arose in me: 'Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'" Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 2/14/04 2:23:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > > > Hi Howard, > > > > Do you mean that what the Buddha taught implicitly and indirectly > > imply that there is no self? > > > --------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes. > -------------------------------------- > > > > > Do you mean that in direct knowing people will see that there is no > > self? > > > --------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes. > --------------------------------------- > > > > > As you see it, are the views "there is no self" and "there is self" > > what the Buddha taught? > > > --------------------------------------- > Howard: > The Buddha directly taught that no phenomena are self. (Sabbe dhamma > anatta.) But his intent, as I inderstand him, was not to inculcate belief, but > to encourage proper practice and cultivation. > --------------------------------------- > > > > > Metta, > > > ===================== > With metta, > Howard 30076 From: icarofranca Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 1:33pm Subject: [dsg] Re: bodily intimation, 1 Dear Nina> N: Both nipphannarupa, produced rupas, also called sabhava rupas, rupas with > their own distinct nature, and anipphanannarupas, unproduced rupas, also > called asabhava rupas, without their own distinct nature, are rupa dhammas, > they are realities, see your packing list complete with all 28 rupas! -------------------------------------------------------------------- Right on! My own mind, by nature, follows up a materialistic way to translate such terms, but such viewpoint is only a matter of concept. More than "Real" or "Not Real" "entities" ( at Citta realms or not) your statement as "Realities" or sets of meaning goes toward at a more definite path! (Well remembered about packing doing! Above all dualistic viewpoints of Nyama´s meaning, for example, all grounded on a loose feeling of ´No Control´ there is the unique and sure definition: definite order!!!) --------------------------------------------------------------------- > The distinction is: anipphanannarupas are not separate concrete matter, but, > they are specific characteristics of rupas, such as a change in the elements > or characteristics of rupa such as origination, etc. But they are rupas, not > abstract entities, not concepts. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Like Euler´s mathematics: The set or group of Rupas includes concrete matter set, not the opposite! --------------------------------------------------------------------- > The Buddha taught Rahula the four great Elements and other rupas. He would > not teach concepts, since people know concepts already, but he taught > dhammas, elements, realities which are non-self. ------------------------------------------------------------------- This unique remark on Buddha´s dispensation makes me consider that Poetry is the true vehicle of Buddha´s expression of truth... I am reading Duroseille´s Pali Grammar too much!!!! ------------------------------------------------------------------- > N: I would not say, real at the citta realm, but they are just dhammas. --------------------------------------------------------------------- By definition, Mana conjoined with the object of Mind. --------------------------------------------------------------------- > N: I do not consider citta as a material porocess, citta is mental, and the > process of citta goes on according to citta nyama. Brains, nerves, these are > conventional terms, they do not help us to understand citta, cetasika and > rupa. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Wow!!! That´s a direful judgment!!! I always keep a secret smile with all fuss people makes with such ill-assimilated scientifical concepts. Dialectical materialism, for example, falls down on these stumblingblocks - all that scientifical description of chemical and biological process don´t make the feeling that raise in ours when we contemplate a beautiful flower! --------------------------------------------------------------------- > There are seven javana cittas, kusala cittas or akusala cittas in the > process of cittas, and six of them cause bodily tension or motion, but only > the seventh javana citta is the cause of the rupa that is bodily intimation, > and this rupa falls away with that citta. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This matter of registering conscience (tadarammana) like writing, printing, painting, composing and so on, and the respective effects on Citta are a bit slippery. Is Tadarammana function deal on directly with such Rupas ? As the last term on a definite sequence, is correct identify Tadarammana with a material form of communication ? Mettaya, Ícaro 30077 From: Andrew Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 3:19pm Subject: Re: Control || No Control Hello Icaro Thank you for respectfully butting in - please do it more often!! You wrote: > Self is not a conventional or ultimate reality or whatever: it´s a > wrong point of view. Andrew: What I was thinking was that "self" is a concept and I was classifying this as "conventional reality". Have I got this wrong? Icaro, you may be able to clarify something else for me (if not, perhaps there is someone else out there who can respectfully butt in?). I have the impression that some DSG-posters don't like to see the word "reality" in the expression "conventional reality". Is there only one reality or are there two? I have also been thinking about James's "two truths" theory in this regard. If you are listening in James (naughty, naughty), can you equate your theory to the conventional/ultimate reality distinction or am I way off beam with this suggestion? Best wishes Andrew 30078 From: Andrew Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 3:32pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Michael/Victor Hi Michael You have helped me in the past and I do like your presence on this list. Admittedly, your bone of contention with Buddhaghosa is now well-gnawed and, for me, pretty much clean of marrow. Like Ken H, I did read your "sowing the seeds of doubt" post. Since I am in the meadow where these seeds are being cast, I hope you don't mind me asking you about your motivation. Do you believe you are accruing good karma by this endeavour? Why is it important to you in terms of your practice of Dharma? I won't be offended if you don't feel like answering these questions. Best wishes Andrew 30079 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 3:33pm Subject: Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi Sukin, Sukin: I think you have read many times here, that the whole Tipitaka is about the development of satipatthana. James: Yes, I have read that many times in this group. But I haven't read it anywhere else and I haven't read where the Buddha said that. Why would you say that the whole Tipitaka is about the development of satipatthana? Predominately, the Satipatthana Sutta is about the development of Satipatthana. For instance, right now in the SN corner we are studying suttas about Mara. They are not specifically about the development of satipatthana. However, I am not suggesting that satipatthana isn't extremely important, it is. The Buddha described it as the `only direct path' to discovering what he taught. Unfortunately, what K. Sujin teaches as satipatthana I don't believe is true satipatthana. Satipatthana is about the Four Foundations of Mindfulness and a systematic method of meditation and supporting activities to follow in order to gain insight into reality. For example, the first section of the sutta begins: "And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu abide contemplating the body as a body? Here a bhikkhu, gone to the forest or to the root of a tree or to an empty hut, sits down; having folded his legs crosswise, set his body erect, and established mindfulness in front of him, ever mindful he breathes in, mindful he breathes out." Now, it doesn't take a genius to understand this description as meditation instructions; but no, K. Sujinians claim that it is just a description of something that spontaneously occurs! LOL! I have rarely seen such ridiculous denial in my life! It goes right up there with `filtered cigarettes don't cause cancer'! ;-)) If you don't want to meditate, fine, but for goodness sakes don't claim that the Buddha didn't teach meditation or that the Satipatthana Sutta doesn't contain meditation instructions. I used to practice satipatthana (vipassana) but I took it as far as I could so I am switching to jhana. I find that jhana helps to calm my mind down into order to deal with the `shock' of seeing reality as it is. Sukin: Do you object to the idea that it is understanding of the present arising dhamma which constitute the development of wisdom? James: No. That is the only way to develop wisdom as taught by the Buddha. However, I don't think it can be done just anywhere at anytime. There shouldn't be any unnecessary distractions. That is why the Buddha suggested the forest, the foot of a tree (they have really big trees in India that are very secluded underneath), or an empty hut. So, could it be done while grocery shopping? Obviously not very well. Sukin: However as Ivan a friend, often says, "Dhamma is really simple, but *hard* to see", I grow also more and more appreciative of this comment of his. After all, what is there but the present moment to be known and understood? James: Well, I guess it is relative. To me just the Satipatthana Sutta is complex (and there are also two versions). But Buddhism can be summed up as: Don't do evil, do only good, and purify the mind. That sounds pretty simple, but so hard to do. So I guess I see both sides on that issue. Metta, James 30080 From: gazita2002 Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 3:39pm Subject: Re: Andy, Love lost --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "icarofranca" wrote: > Dear Carl > > > Andy, My heart goes out to you. Your despair is large. You are > > suffering as a death. > > Andy, I have been a faithful lurker on DSG for several monthes > now. > > I can tell you that this is the deep end of the pool as far as > > Buddhism is concerned. Not an easy place to begin your study of > > Buddhism. Dear Carl and Andy, Maybe Andy is not a beginner, maybe he has listened to the Dhamma in the past and just needs a 'memory jog'. Andy, your sad post was a condition for me to remember my own times of despair from a long term relationship end. Luckily, I have good dhamma friends who helped me. Really tho, what I want to write about are the 5 Khandhas or aggregates of clinging. I queried once, why was Vedanakhandha [feeling - past, present, future] and Sannakhandha [memory -past, present, future] singled out from the other Sankharakhandhas [ joy, anger, conceit, doubt, generosity etc. etc. etc.]. Your post was not only a condition for me to remember, but also to think about Sannakhandha,even more than Vedanakhandha,for me anyway, and how the memories and the ass. feelings are so strong - the events are long gone but feeling and memory are real. So dear Andy, I want to thank you for your post bec. it has helped me to understand the Dhamma a little more. Hang around, it may seem like a heavy duty site but one never knows when understanding can arise and it is only in those moments when it does arise that it can grow. Sad moments are very real but they can be known for what they are - real and impermanent!! Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita 30081 From: icarofranca Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 4:05pm Subject: Re: A HAPPY VALENTINE´S DAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was trying to quote "Benny the Bouncer" by memory! I am not an Arahant for such brain feats!!! And Now...the Complete "Benny The Bouncer"!!! " Benny was the bouncer at the Palais de Danse He'd slash your granny's face up given half a chance. He'd sell you back the pieces, all for loss than half a quiiiid He thought he was the meanest- Until he met with Savage Sid. Now Sidney was a greaser with some nasty roots He poured a pint of Guinness over Benny's boots Benny looked at Sidney: Sidney stared right back in his eye. Sidney chose a switchblade and Benny got a cold meat pie. Oh! what a terrible sight, Much to the people's delight. One hell of a fight. (The Honky Tonk continues to play!!!) Sidney grabbed a hatchet, buried it .... in Benny's head. The people gasped as he bled: The end of a Ted? Well, they dragged him from the wreckage of the Palais in bits. They tried to stick together all the bits that would fit. But some of him was missing and "part of him" arrived too late, So now he works for Jesus As the bouncer at St. Peter's Gate." (Yeah !!!!! Finally Benny put an end to his series of ressurrections, becoming an Arahant, a guardian of the humanity at St. Peter´s gate. Buddha states that everyone that becomes an Arahant must take his vows everyday in his life or die...and if he is not so Ted as Sid, now is at a more high level!!!) Mettaya, Ícaro 30082 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 4:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Michael/Victor Hello Andrew, Andrew: I hope you don't mind me asking you about your motivation. Do you believe you are accruing good karma by this endeavour? Why is it important to you in terms of your practice of Dharma? I won't be offended if you don't feel like answering these questions. Michael: Thanks for asking those questions. First of all, as I said many times before, in my view paramatha dhammas have no place in the teachings of the Buddha. My motivation is to first test my understanding of the Dhamma, to put my ideas to the test. Second is to challenge the understanding of other participants and maybe stimulate them to look at entrenched ideas through new angles. This could be helpful in terms of practice for them. Accruing good karma? I don't know. Of course I think in terms of karma but not so much in 'accruing' karma as to purify the mind. Metta Michael 30083 From: gazita2002 Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 4:22pm Subject: Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Sukin, > Sukin: Do you object to the idea that it is understanding of the > present arising dhamma which constitute the development of wisdom? > > James: No. That is the only way to develop wisdom as taught by the > Buddha. However, I don't think it can be done just anywhere at > anytime. There shouldn't be any unnecessary distractions. That is > why the Buddha suggested the forest, the foot of a tree (they have > really big trees in India that are very secluded underneath), or an > empty hut. So, could it be done while grocery shopping? Obviously > not very well. Dear James and Sukin, James, it is my understanding that these 'unnecessary distractions' are to be known too. For example,in the noise and bustle of a city, one can still develop understanding of the present moment. Even while grocery shopping, hardness appears, sound appears, visible object appears [i did,however, comment to a friend that there seemed to be more visible object in Bkk's China Town than anywhere else i had seen ;) ;) ;)!!! Joking aside, I don't want to waste this present moment and the opportunity to develop wisdom now, by going to the foot of a tree - and getting bitten by ants - and 'trying' to do something which is not my accummulations. I tried meditating and it just made me really angry so it was better not to do it. I want to get to know my accummulations better and to understand those latent tendencies which are so deep and sutle and I believe that I can only do that by living my natural lifestyle, and keeping in mind the 5 precepts, and other things that I learn about Dhamma. Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 30084 From: icarofranca Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 4:31pm Subject: Re: Control || No Control Dear Andrew > > Thank you for respectfully butting in - please do it more often!! --------------------------------------------------------------------- I ever take these questions of Butting in this or that with all respect! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- . > > Andrew: > What I was thinking was that "self" is a concept and I was > classifying this as "conventional reality". Have I got this wrong? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes. As a matter of Fact, Conventional Realities - sammuit-sacca in Pali - are a concept, something that either makes known or is known, for example: 1) Santhana pannati - forms like land, mountains, etc, 2) Samuha Pannati - Collective concepts, group of things and so on, 3) Disa pannati - Concepts of locality, 4) Kala Pannati - Concepts of time, 5) Akasa Pannati - objetive concepts of space, like caves, wells, etc, 6) Nimitta pannati - conceptualized or visualized images. "Real" or "Ultimate" truths - Paramattha-Sacca - are: 1) Lokiya - "Mundane" Truths a) Viññana - consciousness, b) Cetasika - mental properties and... 2) Nibbana. So, the "Self", either as a concept or an objetive reality, is a misplaced viewpiont, a real error that must to be abandoned at once. If you could read the excellent Rob Moult´s essay on Free Will, you´ll get much more subsides about the true nature of Self and non- self! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Icaro, you may be able to clarify something else for me (if not, > perhaps there is someone else out there who can respectfully butt > in?). I have the impression that some DSG-posters don't like to see > the word "reality" in the expression "conventional reality". Is > there only one reality or are there two? I have also been thinking > about James's "two truths" theory in this regard. If you are > listening in James (naughty, naughty), can you equate your theory to > the conventional/ultimate reality distinction or am I way off beam > with this suggestion? --------------------------------------------------------------------- This ill-posed ideas of "Two Truths" and a disregard of Reality can be clarified if you get the knack of thinking on concepts as concepts - only artificial conventions - and about the "Ultimate Realities", as The Reality at all senses, from the mundane views to Nibbana. I could say to you "Simple!", but without some reading and thinking about it this buddhistic ideas are perhaps too much philosophical to get some appeal for laypersons... mettaya, Ícaro 30085 From: Andrew Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 5:00pm Subject: Re: Control || No Control Hi Icaro Thank you for your answer. I just want to be clear on this - can "self" be classified as a samuha pannati (collective concept)? Do we not usually take the 5 aggregates (khandas - paramattha dhammas) and form a collective concept of 'self' as the object of our thinking (vicara?)? Starting to get confused a bit here. You wrote: Conventional Realities - sammuit-sacca in > Pali - are a concept, something that either makes known or is known, > for example: > 1) Santhana pannati - forms like land, mountains, etc, > 2) Samuha Pannati - Collective concepts, group of things and so > on, > 3) Disa pannati - Concepts of locality, > 4) Kala Pannati - Concepts of time, > 5) Akasa Pannati - objetive concepts of space, like caves, wells, > etc, > 6) Nimitta pannati - conceptualized or visualized images. > > "Real" or "Ultimate" truths - Paramattha-Sacca - are: > > 1) Lokiya - "Mundane" Truths > a) Viññana - consciousness, > b) Cetasika - mental properties and... > 2) Nibbana. > > So, the "Self", either as a concept or an objetive reality, is a > misplaced viewpiont, a real error that must to be abandoned at once. Best wishes Andrew 30086 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 5:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Control || No Control Hi Victor > 4. It is possible for one to control oneself in the qualities of > being skillful/wholesome/kusala in bodily action, verbal actions, > and mental actions. k: So what is oneself then ;-) in your own words please. Another question isn't bodily and verbal actions dependent on form. I am sure bodily actions do, maybe some pple can communicate via ESP so there is no need for verbal actions. Or are your telling me, one can separate bodily actions from form. Ken O 30087 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 5:22pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack Hi Jack, ------------------------- J: > Many feel that vipassana and samadhi were split apart as separate practices much later than when the Buddha taught and was not intended by him. -------------- Well, that would be an important issue to settle. But I think it is clear, from the suttas, that many ariyans attained enlightenment without ever practising jhana. -------------- J: > Each arising and passing away of a citta and cetasaika does last only one billionth of a second. but, we can be aware of many arising and passing aways. It is like seeing a movie. We don't see the individual frame but we do see a picture of a horse, car, etc. --------------------------- True, but that's still a conceptual way of knowing, isn't it? The direct way of knowing is the arising of the cetasika, panna to see that whatever arises and passes away is either a nama or a rupa. All too often, in the place of panna (amoha), there is ignorance (moha). At these times, we are ignorant of the difference between concept and reality. For example, we wonder; 'is visible object like a still-frame image on a movie film? Or is it like a pixel of colour on a TV screen? Or both? Or neither?' We are not blind, we have our eyes open, we are able to read words and avoid bumping into things – so we *know* there must be the eye, visible object, eye contact, eye-consciousness and so on. So, there is not necessarily moha all the time. But when we try to direct our mind to any one of those realities (try to have satipatthana), there is immediately concept (thinking) and ignorance (of the difference between thinking and reality). `Visible object' for example, becomes conceptualised as areas of colour, curved, straight, rounded, pointed, horse-like, car- like and so on. --------------- J: > I think there is a danger in not realizing that the Buddha had many teachings that applied to people at different points of their path. At one point, trying mind is very important. At another point, one relaxes. ---------------- If the Buddha has said that `trying' is not the way to cross the flood, wouldn't it be obstinate and contrary of us to go ahead and try to cross the flood? ----------------- J: > In my opinion, the Buddha did prescribe ritualistic practices, for example, going off into the forest and sitting down by a tree to meditate. ----------------------------- Sorry to be disagreeing so much, but sitting down (for example) is not a ritual that the Buddha prescribed for jhana cultivation. It is an activity that the Buddha described as being part of the jhana practitioner's method. There is a big difference. ---------------------------- J: > But, he made sure that people understood that rituals (and concepts) were worthless unless they pointed to something that would change us. --------------------------- Hmmm, hard to disagree with that :-) Let's remember, though, that rite and ritual are ultimately ineffective. --------------- J: > With all that said, Ken, what is your practice? Do you meditate? --------------- No, I don't have a formal practice. But, little by little, I am learning. So there must be a practice of some sort. ------------------------- J: > Do you try to see in your own experience all that we are talking about? ------------------------ Occasionally, against my better judgement, I `try' to experience reality. On some of these occasions, there is the recognition, "This is not right effort," and I remember that right effort is dependent upon right understanding -- not upon a controlling self. So, perhaps, moments like those are right practice. :-) Kind regards, Ken H 30088 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 5:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Michael/Victor Hi Michael > Thanks for asking those questions. First of all, as I said many > times before, in my view paramatha dhammas have no place in the > teachings of the Buddha. My motivation is to first test my > understanding of the Dhamma, to put my ideas to the test. Second is > to challenge the understanding of other participants and maybe > stimulate them to look at entrenched ideas through new angles. This > could be helpful in terms of practice for them. Accruing good > karma? I don't know. Of course I think in terms of karma but not so > much in 'accruing' karma as to purify the mind. k: You are always welcome to challenge my beliefs anytime. I think your challenge has been beneificial, it brings me more confidence in the ancient texts that I have read. Furthermore, soon I will buy Nagarjuna books since you are sincere to read the ancient text, I will read Nagarjuna also. Ken O 30089 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 5:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack Hi Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: [snip] But I think it is > clear, from the suttas, that many ariyans attained enlightenment > without ever practising jhana. Any reference to the discourse to support your claim? Ken, is it true that many ariyans attained enlightenment without ever practising jhana? [snip] > > Kind regards, > Ken H Metta, Victor 30090 From: Andrew Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 5:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: harsh speech among friends Hello Victor You wrote: Isn't abusive, harsh speech wrong speech? Isn't it akusala? If it > is wrong speech, how could an arahant still had it? > Nina wrote: I read about an arahat who used to abuse non brahmans in former > lives, and > > when he became an arahat he continued such speech, but not with > akusala > > citta, since he had eradicated all akusala. It was just a habit, > called > > vasana, and only a Buddha can eradicate this. Andrew: Since Herman isn't posting much these days, I will devise a little test or experiment in his fashion. Let's assume: 1. you and I speak the same language; 2. our language is spoken in lots of different places around the world; 3. there is a noun in our language - let's call it "so-and-so" to avoid any possibility of giving offence - and this noun is generally considered to be rude and harsh. 4. however, in my country, "so-and-so" is not considered rude and harsh, but rather is used in a friendly manner. 5. let's also assume that "so-and-so" is very context-specific ie in certain contexts, there really is no other word commonly used. 6. you visit my country in order to explain the Dhamma to my compatriots. You are aware of the usage of "so-and-so" in my country and the context arises wherein it would be locally used. QUESTION: Do you use the word? TEST RESULTS: If you answered "no" - you fail. If you answered "yes" - you pass. My (all-important) reference for this is Aranavibhanga Sutta (MN139.12) which I interpret as the Buddha advising the bhikkhus to be open to communicating in the local language and normal usage. A bit contrived? Well ... yes. And it really addresses a situation where "harsh speech" is not really "harsh speech" at all. So was the arahant Nina spoke of merely conforming to local usages or was he, out of habit, using genuinely harsh speech? Like Victor, I would have thought that an arahant's speech would have to be Right Speech, but I am open to the possibility that Right Speech may include words that are, to some, harsh. Surely, an arahant can see this far more clearly than a worldling. And we worldlings can take little succour from knowing that harsh words can come out of the mouth of an arahant because our situation is so much different! Victor, I have also read some suttas where the Buddha gives a bhikkhu a real roasting over misrepresenting the Dhamma or some other fault. He really could be quite severe in his language at times! So maybe we shouldn't be surprised to hear about Nina's arahant? Best wishes Andrew 30091 From: Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 1:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Control || No Control Hi, Victor - In a message dated 2/14/04 3:55:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > So you mean that what the Buddha taught implicitly and indirectly > imply that there is no self and people will see as such in direct > knowing. > > How do you know that in direct knowing people will see that there is > no self? Have you been in direct knowing? > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: First of all, Victor, I don't know why you feel compelled to interrogate me or why you think you have the right to. Secondly, I think the Buddha's message is a clear one of there not being a self to be found in anything anywhere. That is how I see it, it is clear to me, and it is my prerogative to see matters so. Thirdly - yes, I have directly experienced no-self. I don't suppose you wish to debate that, do you? I'm telling you, straight out, that I have experienced it. (I'm not claiming enlightenment or anything so grandiose, though. I am very, very far from that. ---------------------------------------------- > > I asked that > > As you see it, are the views "there is no self" and "there is self" > what the Buddha taught? > > > You replied: > > The Buddha directly taught that no phenomena are self. (Sabbe dhamma > anatta.) But his intent, as I inderstand him, was not to inculcate > belief, but to encourage proper practice and cultivation. > > > Well, is the view "there is no self" what the Buddha taught or not? > is the view "there is self" what the Buddha taught or not? > Is "Sabbe dhamma anatta" directly translated as "no phenomena are > self"? > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: The direct translation is "Every dhamma is not self." Knowing that all buddhas are ariyans, would you challenge me were I to say that no buddha is a worldling? Do you always require exact wording, never allowing for paraphrase, even when the paraphrase is logically equivalent? ----------------------------------------------- > > How do you know the Buddha's intent? Did you read his mind? Or did > the Buddha said so as recorded in the discourses? > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Cute - nice sarcasm!. I'm now tiring of the interrogation to the extent that I won't continue. I frankly think you have a nerve in continuing in this fashion. ---------------------------------------------- > > Do you mean that if the Buddha teach the view "there is no self" > explicitly, then he would be inculcating belief and would not > encourage proper practice and cultivation? > > Do you mean that "there is no self" is a teaching that the Buddha > could get across to his disciples implicitly and indirectly without > stating it explicitly and directly such that they would see this > teaching in direct knowing? > > What else do you think one would see in direct knowing, beside > seeing that there is no self? > > This is a passage in which one's knowledge on release is explicitly > stated as: > > With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He > discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task > done. There is nothing further for this world. > > > This is a passage in which the Buddha explicitly stated his > knowledge &vision on his release: > > And, monks, as long as this knowledge &vision of mine -- with its > three rounds &twelve permutations concerning these four noble > truths as they actually are present -- was not pure, I did not claim > to have directly awakened to the right self-awakening unexcelled in > the cosmos with its devas, Maras, &Brahmas, with its contemplatives > &priests, its royalty &commonfolk. But as soon as this knowledge & > vision of mine -- with its three rounds &twelve permutations > concerning these four noble truths as they actually are present -- > was truly pure, then I did claim to have directly awakened to the > right self-awakening unexcelled in the cosmos with its devas, Maras > &Brahmas, with its contemplatives &priests, its royalty & > commonfolk. Knowledge &vision arose in me: 'Unprovoked is my > release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'" > > > Metta, > Victor > > ============================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 30092 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 7:57pm Subject: Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* Hello Sukin, and all, As you say, 'the whole Tipitaka is about the development of satipatthana' i.e. "The only way that leads to the attainment of purity, to the overcoming of sorrow and lamentation, to the end of pain and grief, to the entering of the right path, and to the realization of Nibbaana is the 4 foundations of mindfulness". So important was this point that this verse both begins and ends each of the Satipatthana Suttas DN 22 and MN 10. Sukin, I'm glad of your courteous, honest posts, free from atimaana. I learn a lot from you. You treat those who come from different perspectives on the Teachings with the respect that is a basic sign of the metta and adhivaasanaa that true practice instils. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" > > Sukin: > the whole Tipitaka is about the development of > satipatthana. I feel inclined to agree with this. 30093 From: Sarah Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 8:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: harsh speech among friends Hi Andrew, Victor and Nina, --- Andrew wrote: > Hello Victor > > You wrote: > Isn't abusive, harsh speech wrong speech? Isn't it akusala? If it > > is wrong speech, how could an arahant still had it? > > > Nina wrote: > I read about an arahat who used to abuse non brahmans in former > > lives, and > > > when he became an arahat he continued such speech, but not with > > akusala > > > citta, since he had eradicated all akusala. It was just a habit, > > called > > > vasana, and only a Buddha can eradicate this. .... Herman and I were discussing Pilinda (nicknamed Vaccha) in the Pilinda Udana 3-6 who addressed other monks as ‘outcastes’. I added more detail from the commentary in this post: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m24518.html Also see more details about Pilinda here: http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/pu/pilinda_vaccha.htm Metta, Sarah p.s Having met you, Andrew, it’s easy for me to assure others of your kindly and friendly-intended speech;-) ========================= 30094 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 8:45pm Subject: The World is a Representation! Friend htootintnaing asks: > Could you please explain what you meant by perceive > and conceive in connection with eye, ear, nose etc? This Udana I-10 may serve good here: So have I heard: When the Blessed One, on repeated requests from the Venerable Bahiya instructed him, standing in the street, in what were Venerable Bahiya's last minutes of life, the result was that he, Bahiya - the Bark-Clothed Recluse - attained final Nibbana! This direct, clear-cut & acutely express admonition was so simply expounded: In the seen is merely (the process of seeing &) what is seen. In the heard is merely (hearing &) what is heard. In the sensed is merely (sensing &) what is sensed. In the thought is merely (thinking &) what is thought. So knowing, you will not be (connected) `with that'. So disconnected you will not be (absorbed) `in that'. So neither `with that' nor `in that' you are! not `by that' sensation. # When there is no `you' (or "outside world") inferred!, deduced assumed or conjectured -By That- sensation, then `you' are neither `here', `there', `both', `beyond' nor `in between...' On realizing the importance of this incident the Blessed One exclaimed: `Where neither solidity, fluidity, heat or diffusion find footing, there no sun, moon nor star shines. There is neither any light yet nor is there any darkness. When the Noble, through stilling of all construction, through quieting of all mental formation, directly experiences this, then is he freed from both form & formlessness, then is he released from both pleasure & pain …' --ooOoo-- # Comments: The Train of Radical Empiricism. A gold-nugget of an instruction! Brevity is clarity! There is no-one who senses, even though sensing occurs! Seeing is just a selfless event of contact: between eye, object & visual consciousness. No `person' or `onlooker' is involved or can be inferred from that! No subject or `I' is created, just because there is an object, or just because there occurs the process of seeing … Similarly; No external world is implied by the perception itself! From seeing a film of a train one cannot conclude: this train exists! The fact that there is an image projected, does per se imply, in or by itself, that any-one actually is `looking in' or `is behind' the camera … Just camera is there. `By that' perception no `perceiver' is thereby present or created! Similarly; that there is an image projected, does per se imply, in or by itself, that there is any existing substance in front of the camera - out there - ! Just image is there. So the `personal entity' we assume, suppose, deduce, expect & believe to enjoy the experience is merely a mental construct, an idea, a concept, & not a reality … The passive impersonal process of sensing, perception & experiencing cannot thereby be `instrumental' for neither creating nor inferring any `being in existence' or "substance in existence" !!! "'I' am not, just because there is experience." "'World' is neither, just because there is experience." " What there IS is momentary Experience. No more is Fact!" The fact of this fundamental `selflessness' & "substancelessness" is far the most essential core of the Buddha-Dhamma. Outmost important to grasp yet subtle, counterintuitive & thereby difficult & somewhat `nasty' to comprehend. Keep trying, since this central Anatta doctrine is the `opener, releaser & freer' of any mind. Being hopelessly in love with an imagined idea of `I' is both fatal, tragic & sardonically comic … Besides it is the first severe hindrance in the form the fetter of "Sakkaya-Ditthi" = "I am my own body View" to Entering the Stream of safety. 30095 From: Eznir Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 10:23pm Subject: Re: Namarupa - A comment Dear Bhante and Friends! Yes Bhante, there are those discriminations and more! But what ever the Dhamma that one 'chews on' will have to be in the realm of Sankhara, not outside. Hence I said, 'The designation of a thing that is learnt over time accounts for the Sankhãrã(mental fabrications) of a person. If a Thing is rightly learnt that would constitute Right Knowledge and Right Deliverance for that person". Because, if one does not grasp the Teachings in the right way, verification of what one has learnt(which eventually eradicates ignorance), in ones 'private moments(experience/direct seeing)' will be impossible, wouldn't it Bhante? So far in that illustration, all that is said is of Matter and Consciousness of the ultimate realities. These will have to be further elaborated. Matter in its most fundamental structure as an element of extension, cohesion, maturization and motion was said. Because these are the qualities of matter that one could verify in ones mind, viz., the qualties of hardness/lightness, viscosity or gripping or binding, heat/cold and supporting or moving respectively. Which one perceives as earth, water, fire and air. From which all that is matter is supported, including this body. Hence it is said that matter as matter is fabricated. What has been written so for is not possible if not for Sankhara! And Sankhara have not yet been formerly discussed. All that has been said is of Matter. So one can imagine how complex a thing Sankhara can be! It seems to be there in all of these words that have been written so far! As one reads this message, it must be conjuring up ideas and/or images of what is being said in these words if one is able to follow my line of thinking. Even these ideas and/or images are forms of rupa, the mind-objects, that ones mind engages with. The two leading contenders of Sankhara are Feelings & Perceptions. Which is why they are termed Mental Fabrications. These two are the last to cease in the path to Nibbana. The first to go are the verbal fabrications of thinking and pondering, then the bodily fabrications of the 5 sensual cords. Which still leaves mental activity that finally ceases, in the sense one is equanamous in ones dealings with 'the world'. Neither pushes nor pulls, likes nor dislikes, desires nor hates. In this way, one is not ignorant but wise. Being wise one stays aloof from the root of all unwholesome thought, viz., attachments, aversions and ignorance. This, broadly speaking, is Nama, without the sense of duality in Bhante's queries. Metta eznir --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Bhikkhu Samahita" wrote: > Dear Eznir: > > Some discriminations to chew on: > > Is NamaRupa internal or external or both or neither ? > Is NamaRupa local or global or both or neither ? > Is NamaRupa separable or inseparable or both or neither ? > Is Namarupa 2 things or 1 thing or both or neither ? > > : - ] 30096 From: Eznir Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 10:42pm Subject: Re: The World is a Representation! Dear Bhante & Friends! The presence or 'is-ness' of Things is Consciousness. When one perceives and conceives presence of things to be 'mine' 'I am' or 'myself' the world arises! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Bhikkhu Samahita" wrote: > Friend htootintnaing asks: 30097 From: Date: Sat Feb 14, 2004 6:55pm Subject: Apology Re: [dsg] Re: Control || No Control Hi, Victor (and all) - I am writing with regard to my previous reply to you on this thread, Victor. It was a reply made in anger, and I apologize for that. I do not wish to change the objective content of that post of mine, which I still think is valid, but I very much regret the anger that underlay it and that I expressed. There is no excuse for that. It is wrong speech, I very much regret it, and I apologize for it. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 30098 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 0:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Dhamma Theory - Sabhava Michael Many thanks for this. It is interesting to read your take on things in the light of your reading of Karunadasa's article. However, this of course puts the discussion on a basis some steps removed from the texts in question themselves, so I hope you don't mind if I decline to comment directly but go back to basics, as it were, instead. Below is passage from Visuddhi-Magga and its commentary (Nanamole translation). Please see the reference to 'individual essence' (sabhava) in the last sentence of the commentary passage, in the footnote. My reading of that part of the passage is as follows: The experience of visible datum by eye consciousness occurs where the individual essence of visible datum is revealed to eye consciousness by the presence of light. Here 'sabhava' simply means 'distinctive characteristic'. As far as I can see, it carries no connotation of 'fixed', 'lasting' or whatever. Do you find anything objectionable in the use of 'sabhava' in this particular instance? Jon ************* Vism I, 53 53. 'On seeing a visible object with the eye': on seeing a visible object with the eye-consciousness ... But when there is the impingement of door and object he sees by means of the consciousness that has eye-sensitivity as its physical basis. ... So the meaning here is this: "On seeing a visible object with eye-consciousness."'[14] [14] ... “One sees”: one looks (oloketi); for when the consciousness that has eye-sensitivity as its material support is disclosing (obhaasente) by means of the special quality of its support a visible datum as object that is assisted by light (aaloka), then it is said that a person possessed of that sees the visible datum. And here the illuminating is the revealing of the visible datum according to its individual essence, in other words, the apprehending of it experientially (paccakkhato). ...' (Pm. 40-41). ************* --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello Sarah, Jon, and all others interested in this topic, > > I am writing in relation to the essay “The Dhamma Theory” written > by Prof. Y > Karunadasa (link below). The essay presents a valuable and > comprehensive > view of the development of the dhamma theory. Based on that essay > my take on sabhava and paramatha is as follows: 30099 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 0:13am Subject: Re: Namarupa - A comment Hello Eznir, and all, Eznir says: "As one reads this message, it must be conjuring up ideas and/or images of what is being said in these words if one is able to follow my line of thinking. Even these ideas and/or images are forms of rupa, the mind-objects, that ones mind engages with". My limited understanding is that mental formations (sankhara) are 'nama'. Was the word 'rupa' a mistype? If not, could you explain a little more to me where I am confused about how 'ideas' are rupa please? Also - you say "The two leading contenders of Sankhara are Feelings & Perceptions. Which is why they are termed Mental Fabrications." I don't understand this either, (sorry), maybe I'm unclear about what you mean by 'contenders'... the 5 groups of khandas are (1) rupa- khandha corporeality group (2) vedana-khanda the feeling group (3) sanna-khanda the perception group (4) sankhara-khanda the mental formations group and (5)vinnana-khanda the consciousness group. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Eznir" > Sankhara have not yet been formerly discussed. All that has been said > is of Matter. So one can imagine how complex a thing Sankhara can be! > It seems to be there in all of these words that have been written so > far! As one reads this message, it must be conjuring up ideas and/or > images of what is being said in these words if one is able to follow > my line of thinking. Even these ideas and/or images are forms of > rupa, the mind-objects, that ones mind engages with. > > The two leading contenders of Sankhara are Feelings & Perceptions. > Which is why they are termed Mental Fabrications. These two are the > last to cease in the path to Nibbana. The first to go are the verbal > fabrications of thinking and pondering, then the bodily fabrications > of the 5 sensual cords. Which still leaves mental activity that > finally ceases, in the sense one is equanamous in ones dealings > with 'the world'. Neither pushes nor pulls, likes nor dislikes, > desires nor hates. In this way, one is not ignorant but wise. Being > wise one stays aloof from the root of all unwholesome thought, viz., > attachments, aversions and ignorance. > > This, broadly speaking, is Nama, without the sense of duality in > Bhante's queries. > > Metta > > eznir 30100 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 0:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Dhamma Theory -- Paramattha Michael In the suttas, we find frequent mention of 'dhammas' and of dhammas classified as the five aggregates (pancakhandha), the sense-bases (ayatanas), the elements (dhatu); in the Abhidhamma dhammas are generally classified as citta, cetasika and rupa [and nibbana]. The (later) term 'paramattha' is used to refer collectively to these dhammas and the truths about them; nothing more and nothing less. Why not stick with just 'dhammas'? I think because 'dhammas' is used in so many different ways in the suttas. Why 'in the ultimate sense'? I think to emphasise the fact that only these can be the object of panna of the level of vipassana: since this panna is understanding of the highest (ultimate) level (no disagreement here, I take it?), its object is referred to as reality in the highest sense. For textual support for some of the foregoing, see the quote from STA pasted below. The importance of a correct intellectual understanding of what is encompassed by the various terms aggregates (khandha), sense-bases (ayatanas), elements (dhatu), and citta, cetasika and rupa cannot be underestimated. The Buddha did not expound at length on these for nothing! His underlying message to we beginners, to my reading, is that there is no correspondence between conventional notions of things, people, or places (= collectively, the 'conventional world') and these dhammas (the world in the 'ultimate' sense). While each has validity in its own sense (samutti sacca, paramattha sacca), there is no overlap between the two. For example, there is nothing in common *in reality* between conventional eye and the dhamma that is eye-base, between conventional 'things seen' and the dhamma that is visible-object. Likewise, 'table' is not an instance of rupa-khandha, and nor can rupa khandha be found in table. Jon STA (translation of the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha (Anuruddha) and its commentary the Abhidhammatthavibhaavinii (Suma.ngala)) [Emphasis given by *use of asterisks* is mine] ******************** Prologue (2) The topics of Abhidhamma spoken of therein in full are from the ultimate standpoint four: consciousness, mentalities, materiality, and nibbaana. Commentary [THE EXPLANATION OF ULTIMATE DHAMMAS] 2. ... 'Therein' -- in the Abhidhamma 'the topics of Abhidhamma spoken of in full' -- as wholesome and so on, and *as aggregates and so on*, 'from the ultimate standpoint' [paramatthato] -- by way of ultimate exposition, setting aside conventional talk 'are four' -- are classified in four ways, namely: 'consciousness (citta)', the *aggregate of consciousness* (vi~n~naa.na); 'mentalities', the *three aggregates beginning with feeling*; 'materiality', the *aggregate of materiality* differentiated as the elements and dependent materialities; 'nibbaana', the unconditioned dhamma which become the object of the paths and fruits. This is the grammatical construction. 'Ultimate' means in the ultimate, highest and undistorted sense; or it is the sense that *comes within the sphere of knowledge that is highest and ultimate*. ******************** --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello Sarah, Jon, and all others interested in this topic, > > I am writing in relation to the essay “The Dhamma Theory” written > by Prof. Y > Karunadasa (link below). The essay presents a valuable and > comprehensive > view of the development of the dhamma theory. Based on that essay > my take on sabhava and paramatha is as follows: 30101 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 0:41am Subject: Catching Anger Dear Group, I wonder, as Howard's experience of anger is so close, if anyone would have some comments about anger in general? I would be interested in anyone's views on my 'incident'. You see, yesterday I visited some relatives and a similar thing happened where anger overcame me because of a remark someone made, which revealed a rather prejudiced view they had of another group. I said something quite firmly but politely (which I considered necessary). Tenseness was evident, the atmosphere could have been cut with a knife. Within ten minutes or so, amends were made, hugs all round, casual chatting re-started. But, driving home later I still felt disturbed feelings in the abdomen, chest and throat - and was re-living the story in my mind. Then I became aware of each of the different bodily feelings and thoughts, watched them, and things began to 'evaporate'. But there were new emotions like regret, and the wish that I had been equanimous, that it would have been kinder to say nothing. But why is there no awareness earlier, at the very time things are occuring? Wouldn't any new kamma formation already be created during the 'flare-up' of initial emotion. The actual words I said were not wrong speech - though the tone and cadence were evidence of irritation, as was body posture. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 30102 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 0:55am Subject: Re: Control || No Control Hi Andrew, Andrew: I have also been thinking about James's "two truths" theory in this regard. If you are listening in James (naughty, naughty), can you equate your theory to the conventional/ultimate reality distinction or am I way off beam with this suggestion? James: Hehehe…yes, I am listening in. First, the `two truths' isn't my theory, it has been pondered, analyzed, and explained for the entire history of Buddhism. Second, each school of Buddhism has a slightly different view of these two truths- this is predominately the aspect that separates the various schools. And, of course, each school believes that only they have the right view and that all others are wrong. ;-)) And yes, the two truths relate specifically to the conventional/ultimate reality distinction. My position has been, and continues to be, that for the sake of convenience, the two truths should both be considered true. Why do I have this position? I just realize that the Buddha spoke of the two levels of truth at various times to various audiences and he never spoke of one as being false and one as being true. He spoke of them both as being true. Since he could not lie this is what I have determined. I don't trust my own viewpoint because I am not enlightened and I consider all viewpoints (of the unenlightened) to be absurd. Metta, James 30103 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 1:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: bodily intimation, 1 op 14-02-2004 06:17 schreef Carl op c7carl@y...: > I read only this: > > Nina: "Citta is one of the four factors that produces rúpa." > > Carl: Is rupa produced? N: yes, some rupas originate from citta. C: I think this is my understanding: > Question: Is anything really real? > Answer: Yes! > > Question: Yes but, is anything really really really real? > Answer: Well, not really! N: No need to argue, but it is best to verify for oneself. How? Only by developing understanding of the present reality, be it nama or rupa. If there is intellectual understanding sati can arise sometimes, though very rarely. It does not matter, so long as we do not try with an idea of self who tries so hard. As you already know, pariyatti conditions patipatti, going along the Path, and finally there can be pativedha, the realization of the truth. Nina. > 30104 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 1:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: harsh speech among friends Dear Andrew and Victor, op 14-02-2004 06:14 schreef Andrew op athel60@t...: > > This is a testament to the power of habits, isn't it. In my case, > harsh speech is definitely to be avoided. N: Victor, the arahat cannot have any akusala. It is just a remnant of accumulated habit. Ven. Bodhi refers to it in a note to the Co to the Caryapitaka. So, with all these things we have to consider the citta that motivates speech. How can we know someone else's citta. And even less the arahat's citta. Now, this should not be an excuse for us, though. The Buddha taught us to cultivate gentle, kind speech, and this is kusala sila. Sila are actions through body and speech. Sometimes we are hearers, and then if there are conditions for kusala citta we can have kind thoughts with compassion for the speaker. We do not necessarily have aversion, but it is difficult to pass the test. Sometimes we are speakers, then we can cultivate gentle, kind speech, pleasant for the hearer. Andrew, today we had to hear harsh speech from my father. His mind is not good with 103 years, and he had a waterfall of reproaches, saying that Lodewijk had left him in a great mess when we went away suddenly, without telling him ahead of time. Now, Lodewijk worked so hard with all the administration of his financial affairs, and all the shopping. The opposite was true. This was a real test, and how difficult to pass it. We talked about similar experiences with our Thai friends. One friend, Lisa (I hope she will be a member) says, yes, her father is her best teacher, because of all his dosa. How we remembered this today. We can learn how much conceit arises: how can *he* do this to *me*. Still he and me, and it can condition dosa. Satipatthana is the only way to pass the test. We have to learn that there are in the absolute sense no persons. It was stressed very much in Thailand that we have to be courageous to keep on developing satipatthana. It is difficult because it has to be in daily life. The matter with my father is only small compared to grief because of a loss, death in the family. I shall try to write more about all my experiences, but I need a lot of time. Nina. 30105 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 1:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Andy, Love lost Dear Andy, you came when I was away, a belated welcome to you. I do not know your background, but Icaro was referring to the Patthana, the last book of the Abhidhamma. This deals with all the conditions for the realities in our life. I think Icaro wanted to tell you that instead of trying to get rid of sadness we should understand the conditions for it. op 14-02-2004 10:04 schreef icarofranca op icarofranca@y...: > > ...Or a reading out at the Patthanapali. Is there necessary so many efforts only to get rid of akusala > patterns ? > Mettaya, Ícaro Nina: Only the anagami has eradicated dosa. Sadness or grief is a form of dosa. We should also understand that attachment conditions dosa: when things are not the way we would like them to be there are conditions for aversion. And ignorance is a condiiton; ignorance of the four noble truths, of realities. Understanding conditions even intellectually is helpful. You may like to read, . I write about grief. It is on line, I believe on http://www.abhidhamma.org/ You asked how to sign off a letter, there is no rule. I let it depend on the citta at that moment, I feel very free. Sometimes I may end with a good wish or (in the Buddhist way). Nina. 30106 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 1:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:minding one's own business. Hi James, excellent reminder! I love this expression and was discussing it with Lodewijk. Great. When there are people in our lives, so much conceit. And we have to develop the Path ourselves. Nina. op 14-02-2004 09:06 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > Anyway, a bhikkhu wrote me a > post that asked just one question "How do you practice anatta in your > life?" To be a little ornery (I admit) but to also tell him the > truth, I replied "I mind my own business." (Got in trouble for that > but, oh well ;-) What did I mean? I meant that I don't go around > telling people that they don't have a self or that what they take for > self isn't self. That isn't what Buddhism is about. I focus only on > what I take for self and try to eliminate my desire and attachment to > it. 30107 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 1:58am Subject: What causes Nibbana ? Friends; What is the cause of Nibbana ? The Conditional Relations: When this is present, that is manifest. When this arises, that also emerges. When this is absent, that is absent. When this ceases, that also ceases. Ignorance causes mental construction. Mental construction causes consciousness. Consciousness causes mind-&-matter. Mind-&-Matter causes the 6 senses. The 6 Senses causes contact. Contact causes feeling. Feeling causes craving. Craving causes clinging. Clinging causes becoming. Becoming causes birth. Birth causes ageing, sickness & death. Ageing, Sickness & Death causes frustration. Frustration causes searching. Searching causes faith. Faith causes joy. Joy causes satisfaction. Satisfaction causes calmness. Calmness causes pleasure. Pleasure causes happiness. Happiness causes concentration. Concentration causes realistic seeing of transience. Seeing transience causes certain knowledge of decay. Knowledge of decay causes disillusion. Disillusion causes detached disgust. Disgust causes mental relinquishing. Release causes ceasing of mental fermentation. Elimination of fermentation eradicate Ignorance. Absence of Ignorance is Stilled Peace. Absence of Ignorance is Serene Bliss. Absence of Ignorance is Nibbana. Source: Samyutta Nikaya II [29-31] The Proximate Cause. All yours in the Dhamma. Constructions Decay & Vanish. Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ 30108 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 2:41am Subject: Nama-rupa, Representation & Futility! Hi Eznir ao: Well put (sadhu!): >The presence or 'is-ness' of Things is Consciousness! >When one perceives & conceives the presence of things >the world arises! This IS nama-rupa ('naming-&-forming') Which is: Indivisible; like the two ends of the same stick. Inseparable; like the light from the flame. Which covers all; both internal & external. Which is 1 single continuity of 2 overlapping aspects. When disgusted with all naming-&-forming! When disillusioned with all construction! Seeing the inevitability of transience & decay, one gives it up, surrenders, let it go like one who suddenly realizes the futility of trying to draw in water with a stick ... samahita 30109 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:08am Subject: Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi Azita, Azita: James, it is my understanding that these 'unnecessary distractions' are to be known too. James: Yes, this is true. But if there become too many distractions it becomes impossible to `know' them all and to know the object of the mindfulness also. This is just common sense; if you want to really know something you have to put your entire mind to it. This is why libraries are quiet, so that there aren't any distractions. Would you try to read a book at a rock concert? ;-)) Of course you could do it, if you try really hard, but how much are you going to get out of the book? Satipatthana is the same way. If you expect to get a lot out of it you can't have too many distractions. Azita: For example,in the noise and bustle of a city, one can still develop understanding of the present moment. James: In my opinion, this would only be possible if you also have a `quiet time' practice of satipatthana as a support. Just like everything, there are progressive steps to this practice. It isn't possible to develop mindfulness in the middle of hustle and bustle if it has never even been developed during quiet times. For example, an analogy that Ken H will appreciate ;-), eventually you can learn to surf huge, violent waves but first you have to conquer the small waves. Azita: by going to the foot of a tree - and getting bitten by ants James: LOL! Oh, I had a horrible experience with ants in Thailand! Obviously one should pick and `ant-free' tree to sit under. ;-) Azita: and 'trying' to do something which is not my accummulations. I tried meditating and it just made me really angry so it was better not to do it. James: I really do believe that anyone can meditate but perhaps you should start with walking meditation, interspersed with short periods of sitting meditation. Sitting meditation, right off the bat, does irritate a lot of people. When I helped to lead meditation retreats at my Buddhist temple I would always start with walking meditation, then move to standing meditation, and finally have sitting meditation. I would make the periods last progressively longer each time. Azita: I want to get to know my accummulations better and to understand those latent tendencies which are so deep and sutle and I believe that I can only do that by living my natural lifestyle, and keeping in mind the 5 precepts, and other things that I learn about Dhamma. James: That's great. As long as you are practicing as much mindfulness in your daily life as possible, and learning about the dhamma, I think that is a good thing. There has to be some amount of effort to really see the present moment or there is no point. And one has to be really honest about where they are and where they need to eventually be. Metta, James 30110 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:26am Subject: Re: What causes Nibbana ? Dear Bhikkhu Samahita, Could you kindly answer the following questions that arise from reading your post 'What causes Nibbana? ' ? With respect, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, wrote: What is the cause of Nibbana ? Htoo: 1. Does Nibbana have the cause? > The Conditional Relations: present, arises, absent,ceases, Htoo: 2. What do you mean by 'this' and 'that' here. > Ignorance ....& Death causes frustration. Htoo: 3.Are you citing paticcasamuppada here? > Frustration causes searching.Searching causes faith.Faith causes.. ...eradicate Ignorance. Htoo: 4. Where in Tipitaka say these linkage frustration cause searching, faith, joy,...elimination of ignorance? 5. Does Samyutta Nikaya exactly says this? According to your message, there seems to be an extracycle which leads to Nibbana. I am looking forward to hearing from you. With respect, Htoo Naing 30111 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 4:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Origin of Namarupa: From the Sammmaditthi Sutta Rob M --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Michael, > ... > You might be interested in knowing that the concept of ultimate > realities is not explicity included as part of the original > Abhidhamma texts. The explicit focus on paramattha dhammas came at > a > later stage. In other words, "ultimate realities" is not explicitly > discussed in the Suttas or the Abhidhamma. By anybody's definition, > it is not the word of the Buddha. Would you mind expanding on this. Certainly, as I understand it, the Abhidhamma texts deal extensively with 'dhammas/realities' (citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana), in contradistinction to concepts. What is it about the concept of 'ultimate realities' that is not found in the main works of the Abhidhamma pitaka, as you see it? Jon 30112 From: Htoo Naing Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 5:16am Subject: Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 07 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, The meditator is practising mindfulness exercise on mind and mind states. He can recognizes mind states with greediness and one without greediness. He realizes when a mind state with hatred arises as it arises. And he is able to recognize a mind state without hatred. He also knows when a mind state with delusion arises as it has arisen and when he recognizes it, another mind state arises. At that time he notices that there arises a mind state without delusion. When a slothful mind state arises, he recognizes that mind state after a while and then another mind state without sloth arises. At a time a distracted mind state arises and as soon as he recognizes it there arises another mind state without distraction. He is constantly scrutinizing his mind states with very careful mindfulness as he contemplates on all his mind states. He becomes well calm as he is well concentrated. He notices that there is no distraction at time. He also notices that there is no sloth and torpor. There is no hatred, repentence or anyhting like that. He recognizes that he is free from sensual thought at that time. He has a good faith and he is well confident in his current practice. As he has a clear understanding at that time he notices that there is no ignorance which otherwise would hinder his progress. After checking all these he realizes that he is free of hindrances including ignorance. As this happen, he becomes peaceful, joyous, well tranquilized and well calm. His mind states are frequently on contemplative mind state. As soon as a mind state passes away, another mind state arises contemplating on current mind states. Mind states are reviewing the current situation in mind. His calmness does not distract him at least for a time. As these happen, he suddenly notices that his whole body is covered with a goose-skin and he feels that all hair on his head stand and so do other body hair. He notices that he is joyous and a thrill of joy passes through him, embraces him, encases him. And he sees flushes of light here and there. Joy seems to come to him as flood and sometimes like waves. At a time he feels his body is weightless and he is very light. He feels himself as cotton and at indefinite time he slowly rise from the ground and floating without noticing himself as floating. What he notices is that he is attending his mind state and mind states are constantly passing away. He recognizes whenever a new mind state has arisen. He is well attended and concentrated. He feel peace and ease. He knows happenings in his mind and recognizes all mind states as they have been in his mind. At this time he notices that there has arisen a mind state which is well developed in nature ( mahaggatacitta or higher consciousness ). May you all be able to contemplate on mind and mind states. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htootintnaing@y... JourneyToNibbana@yahoogroups.com 30113 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 6:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Catching Anger Hi Chrsitine Talking about anger. I think on Thursday, I was angry over my connection to the internet (something to do with incompatible modem). The anger boiled up bc I cannot change with the shop as my wife was out doing something and my children was pestering me. To me that anger became furious. At first, I chided my children fiercely for disturbing me and then later, I did spank my little girl for not listening to my instructions. After it was blown over, I regretted. I reflected and I realised I was conditioned by concepts and not being aware of the rising of namas and rupas. The speed and intensity of such anger is so strong that it blinds me completely. I realise that akusala cittas are indeed strong and just waiting for the right conditions to arise. Ken O 30114 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 6:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* Hi Christine and Sukin I agreed, Sukin is indeed a courteous man. When I talk to me in Bkk, I found him a frank and honest person. He is also a person willing to share his dhamma experience with me and he help me find some English dhamma books. I also like to take this opportunity to thank him and Betty for the lunch at the Chinese restuarant (sorry folks take so long to say thanks). Ken O p.s. Jon and Sarah -thanks for the breakfast 30115 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Dhamma Theory - Sabhava Hello Jon, Jon: Below is passage from Visuddhi-Magga and its commentary (Nanamole translation). Please see the reference to 'individual essence' (sabhava) in the last sentence of the commentary passage, in the footnote. My reading of that part of the passage is as follows: The experience of visible datum by eye consciousness occurs where the individual essence of visible datum is revealed to eye consciousness by the presence of light. Vsm: And here the illuminating is the revealing of the visible datum according to its individual essence Michael: Sorry to say this, but in my view this is a very poor description. If you think of any object that can impact the visual door it is very likely that different people will perceive that object differently. Imagine a number of people looking at a tree. Some will notice the trunk, others the leaves, while others will notice the tiny ants climbing up the trunk, and so forth. And that initial contact will trigger sensations, perception and mental proliferations, according to the Madhupindika Sutta (MN 18). Now in all those different contacts where is the 'individual essence of that datum'? Now, from the philosophical perspective, a view that there is an individual essence, as I mentioned in my previous post, brings in a metaphysical essentialist standpoint, i.e. "It has also been argued that the term sabhava is used to characterize the own nature of the dhammas or its own unique characteristic. But this poses a problem because it is akin to a metaphysical theory of identity and difference, where sabhava is the unique characteristic not shared with anything else and the universal characteristics (ti-lakkhana) being identified with the common or the shared." In my view the Buddha did not support such a view. If Sarah feels encouraged to buy the Mulamadyamakakarika by Nagarjuna, I suggest that you read the Chapter V - Exposition of Elements, to see how he argues against the possibility of any intrinsic characteristic in the dhammas. Metta Michael 30116 From: Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 2:21am Subject: "Not Fooled by Concepts" (Re: [dsg] Re: Control || No Control) Hi, all - In a message dated 2/13/04 9:42:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes with regard to the Buddha having allegedly said that he uses concepts but is not fooled by them: > > Hi, Christine - > > Thank you very much for the following. (BTW, I own the Walshe > translation! ;-) Now we need to hear from some Pali aficionados to determine > which > translation is better. > > With metta, > Howard > ============================ It seems that both translations may be viable. The key Pali word is 'aparamasa'. The question was whether this is better rendered by "not grasped at" or by "not misapprehended". Nyanayiloka's dictionary gives the following: > parámása: 'adherence', attachment, 'misapprehension', is according to > Vis.M. XXII a name for wrong views; in that sense it occurs in Dhs. 1174 ff. - See > sílabbata-parámása. The Pali Text Society dictionary gives the following: Paramasa (p. 421) [para+mrs, but see paramasa] touching, seizing, taking hold of M I.130 (v. l. °masa which reading is probably to be preferred, cp. Trenckner on p. 541); S III.46 (v. l. °masa). -- neg. aparamasa not leading astray, not enticing D I.17 (°to), 202. -- Perhaps we should read paramasa altogether. In fairness, though I prefer the sense of not misapprehending and not being led astray by, and though that is a viable reading according to these two dictionary articles, it does seem that the meaning of not grasping at is the primary one. 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) 30117 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Dhamma Theory -- Paramattha Hello Jon, Jon: In the suttas, we find frequent mention of 'dhammas' and of dhammas classified as the five aggregates (pancakhandha), the sense-bases (ayatanas), the elements (dhatu); in the Abhidhamma dhammas are generally classified as citta, cetasika and rupa [and nibbana]. The (later) term 'paramattha' is used to refer collectively to these dhammas and the truths about them; nothing more and nothing less. Michael: The reference to 'later' is important. It is always good to stress that paramatha is a late term in the Theravada teachings. And that brings another aspect to this analysis, if paramatha was so crucial why didn't the Buddha refer to the khandhas or dhammas as paramatha? Why would he have omitted something that is so crucial according to later commentators? Jon: The importance of a correct intellectual understanding of what is encompassed by the various terms aggregates (khandha), sense-bases (ayatanas), elements (dhatu), and citta, cetasika and rupa cannot be underestimated. The Buddha did not expound at length on these for nothing! His underlying message to we beginners, to my reading, is that there is no correspondence between conventional notions of things, people, or places (= collectively, the 'conventional world') and these dhammas (the world in the 'ultimate' sense). While each has validity in its own sense (samutti sacca, paramattha sacca), there is no overlap between the two. For example, there is nothing in common *in reality* between conventional eye and the dhamma that is eye-base, between conventional 'things seen' and the dhamma that is visible-object. Likewise, 'table' is not an instance of rupa-khandha, and nor can rupa khandha be found in table. Michael: I see it very differently. The reason why the Buddha expounded at length on the five aggregates is because they are the aggregates of clinging. And clinging is a major obstacle in liberation. The important intellectual understanding is about the clinging nature of the aggregates and not their supposed 'ultimate nature'. I don't see the distinction between the two levels of truth the same way you describe. I don't see much distinction between a being and the khandhas, both are conditioned and compounded phenomena with no true existence but only conditioned existence. Since they are not true existents both can be properly viewed as a concept. But I would not say that they only exist in the mind as a concept. There is an actual phenomena occurring which gives support to a correspondent mental phenomena. Metta Michael 30118 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 4:26am Subject: Re: What causes Nibbana ? Dear Htoo Naing >1. Does Nibbana have a cause? (Hehehe Htoo is not asleep!) Nibbana is uncaused, unconditioned & unconstructed! Nibbana is ABSENCE of ignorance, lust & aversion. This 'absence' or 'negation' cannot really be called A Cause, which would require 'presence' of something. >2. What do you mean by 'this' and 'that' here. All of them. This Birth causes that Death. etc. This Death causes that Suffering. >3.Are you citing paticcasamuppada here? Yes, yet slightly extended. >4. Where in Tipitaka say these linkage frustration cause > searching, faith, joy,...elimination of ignorance? Anguttara Nikaya. Yet Im currently not in my library. Will dig the exact references out to you later. Yet: They asked the Buddha: What is the effect of Dukkha? He replied: Search &/or Bewilderment! They asked the Buddha: What is the cause of Faith? He replied: Dukkha! Rooted in ignorance this inherent pain & frustration is the cause & condition that drives us towards Nibbana. That baffling point, was what I intended to highlight! The happy, young & rich, intoxicated by party & pleasure need no Buddha before ruin, sickness or depression attacks. Then they start searching for safety & certainty. Maybe even right here on this wonderful WorldWideWeb. May they find solace in the true Dhamma here. : - ] samahita 30119 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:57am Subject: Apology Re: [dsg] Re: Control || No Control Hi Howard, Thank you for offering an apology. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor (and all) - > > I am writing with regard to my previous reply to you on this thread, > Victor. It was a reply made in anger, and I apologize for that. I do not wish > to change the objective content of that post of mine, which I still think is > valid, but I very much regret the anger that underlay it and that I expressed. > There is no excuse for that. It is wrong speech, I very much regret it, and I > apologize for it. > > With metta, > Howard 30120 From: Larry Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:59am Subject: Re: Catching Anger Hi Christine, Re: "comments about anger in general", I recommend looking for the desire behind it. Larry 30121 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 9:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Catching Anger Hi Ken O, Instead of just waiting for the right conditions to arise, why not start meditation practice and developing the brahmavihara for your own benefit and the benefit of your children, so you won't have to regret again? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Chrsitine > > Talking about anger. I think on Thursday, I was angry over my > connection to the internet (something to do with incompatible modem). > The anger boiled up bc I cannot change with the shop as my wife was > out doing something and my children was pestering me. To me that > anger became furious. At first, I chided my children fiercely for > disturbing me and then later, I did spank my little girl for not > listening to my instructions. After it was blown over, I regretted. > I reflected and I realised I was conditioned by concepts and not > being aware of the rising of namas and rupas. The speed and > intensity of such anger is so strong that it blinds me completely. I > realise that akusala cittas are indeed strong and just waiting for > the right conditions to arise. > > > Ken O 30122 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 11:45am Subject: bodily intimation, more info Here is more info taken from the Dhamma Issues, as translated from Thai: When there is the natural movement of the body, without the intention to convey a meaning, there is no rúpa of bodily intimation, kåyaviññatti. Explanation of the reasons for this conclusion: I: The Atthasåliní, Expositor I, Book I, Part III, Discourse on Doors, states: ³Because it is a capacity of communicating, it is called Œintimation¹.² In the Paramattha Mañjuså, the Mahå-Tíka of the Visuddhimagga, in the explanation, by rúpakkhandha, we read: ³...it is called intimation, viññatti, because it makes known. What does it make known? An intention. Through means of what? Through the body. In what way? By the movement of the body in that way.² Thus it is clear that the rúpa of bodily intimation is a rúpa originated by citta which has the intention of conveying a meaning through the body. Whereas, when one stands, walks, sits or lies down naturally, without there being citta which wishes to convey a meaning, there is no rúpa of bodily intimation, kåyaviññatti, but there are only vikåra rúpas, rúpas of changeability [2] originating from citta that merely intends to move. II: The rúpa that is intimation, viññatti rúpa, must be different from the rúpas of changeability, the vikåra rúpas, even though in some texts the three vikåra rúpas are classified together with the two viññatti rúpas as five vikåra rúpas. Viññatti rúpa is different from the vikåra rúpas, because viññatti rúpa arises and falls away together with the citta that wishes to convey a meaning by it [3]. ... It is stated in the Visuddhimagga, (Description of the Aggregates, Ch XIV, 61, kåya viññatti): ²...this is called Œkåya-viññatti¹ because it is the cause of the intimating (viññåpana) of intention by means of bodily motion, and because also oneself can know this through the body, in other words, through that bodily motion...² This means that citta wishes to express a meaning by means of that rúpa, no matter whether someone else understands it or not. There may also be rúpas originating from the citta which does not intend to convey a meaning, when one moves the body naturally while standing, walking, sitting or lying down. If others think that a meaning is being conveyed, that is due to their own thinking and does not concern the rúpa of bodily intimation. We read in the ³Atthasåliní² (Expositor II, Book II, Part I, Ch 3, Derived Material Qualities, 323) that there are thirtytwo cittas which produce rúpas that support and strengthen the postures and also the rúpas which are intimation. These cittas are: mind-door adverting-consciousness, manodvåråvajjana citta, twelve akusala cittas, eight mahå-kusala cittas (kusala cittas of the sense-sphere), eight mahå-kiriyacittas, smile-producing consciousness (of the arahat), hasituppåda citta, and two abhiññå cittas (of supernatural power). Therefore, when one only intends to move the body in assuming the different postures, without the wish to convey a meaning, citta is the condition for the arising of groups of rúpa which are not accompanied by intimation, viññatti rúpa. Footnotes: 2. The three vikåra rúpas, the rúpas of changeability are: lightness, lahutå, plasticity, mudutå, and wieldiness, kammaññatå. 3. Rúpa lasts seventeen moments of citta, but the rúpa of intimation is not concrete matter but a change in rúpas as we shall see. The rúpa of intimation lasts only one moment of citta, whereas the vikåra rúpas last seventeen moments of citta. ***** Nina. 30123 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 11:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: bodily intimation, 1 Hi Larry, op 14-02-2004 19:43 schreef Larry op LBIDD@w...: I take it that bodily intimation is confined > to the body and doesn't include other rupas in the world that convey > an intimation, such as a traffic sign. N: A traffic sign is a concept, it is not one of the 28 rupas, as listed in the Dhsg. L:What about sign language? N: Such signs are made by means of rupa which is bodily intimation, originated by citta that intends to display a meaning. L: I suppose music is out, but what about dance? N: It depends on the type of dance. It can be a gesture displaying a meaning. L: Also, it seems to me the two intimations are bound by convention. > What is a meaningful gesture in one culture means something else in > another, or is meaningless. Is this an aspect of rupa without > individual characteristic (sabhava)? N: It does not matter, it is just rupa originated by citta that displays a meaning. You can also make a meaningful gesture to a dog or a bird, telling them that there is food available or that they have to go away or come here. It depends on your intention expressed by such a gesture. If someone else misunderstands it, it concerns his citta, nothing to do with you who displays a meaning by a gesture. Boidily intimation is asabhava rupa anyway. It is a change in the great Elements. Nina. P.S. I will wait with info on verbal intimation until we come to that subject. 30124 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 11:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: bodily intimation, 1 Dear Icaro, op 14-02-2004 22:33 schreef icarofranca op icarofranca@y...: > Is Tadarammana function deal on directly > with such Rupas ? As the last term on a definite sequence, is correct > identify Tadarammana with a material form of communication ? N: No. Tadarammana cittas are just two more moments of vipaka which hang on to the sense object experienced during the cittas of that sense-door process which comes here to an end. They arise only in the sensuous planes of existence, kaama, not in the brahma planes where people are born who see the danger of sense objects. Also, they only concern the plane of citta (note: plane, bhumi, of citta is not the same as plane of existence) which is kamavacara citta. There are four planes of citta: cittas of the sense-sphere, rupa jhana cittas, arupa jhanacittas, lokuttara cittas. Kamma produce those moments of vipaka because there are conditions to hang on to sense objects. But they only arise when a sense-door process is a complete process. When they arise in a sense-door process they also arise in the subsequent mind-door process which experiences that sense-object through the mind-door. In that case there are thus vipakacittas experiencing an object through the mind-door. Nina. 30125 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 0:18pm Subject: Re: Catching Anger Hello Larry, Thanks Larry - my problem is that the anger has appeared, caused behaviour (by thought, word or deed) and largely passed before I am even 'aware' of its presence and that it is 'anger'. It is like a sudden flood in a river. No chance to prepare or even know it has arrived. Enquiring, looking over what happened later, is just me considering what I 'remember' as the trigger, and as the sequence of events. It may not be accurate at all. The same with any strong emotion. In any analyses, sure, one looks to see the root causes - but they are usually embedded in various stories. I'm not sure how thinking one knows what desire caused anger to arise one time, will help awareness arise at an earlier stage of the process the next time - the instances are so different. I call it anger - as if it is clearly one variety of emotion - but, usually, there are many ingredients. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > Re: "comments about anger in general", I recommend looking for the > desire behind it. > > Larry 30126 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 0:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Catching Anger Hello Ken O, Thank you for sharing this story - it brings back memories of when my own children were smaller. You are right - 'the speed and intensity of such anger is so strong that it blinds us completely' and this was the point of my post. How to change/improve the situation.... It is the lack of awareness in the early stages, when perhaps it could be defused that 'might' be the key - I wonder how to 'wake-up' to, have some insight into, what is happening in order to 'divert the flood of anger' and change the course of what follows. It is thinking 'I am angry' or 'They are irritating me'. I think it is the not seeing, the not understanding about anatta that allows it to continue. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Chrsitine > > Talking about anger. I think on Thursday, I was angry over my > connection to the internet (something to do with incompatible modem). > The anger boiled ?p b? I cannot change with the shop as my wife was > out doing something and my children was pestering me. To me that > anger became furious. At first, I chided my children fiercely for > disturbing me and then later, I did spank my little girl for not > listening to my instructions. After it was blown over, I regretted. > I reflected and I realised I was conditioned by concepts and not > being aware of the rising of namas and rupas. The speed and > intensity of such anger is so strong that it blinds me completely. I > realise that akusala cittas are indeed strong and just waiting for > the right conditions to arise. > > > Ken O 30127 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 2:10pm Subject: Re: Catching Anger Hi Christine, This is a good subject to focus on I think. Why does anger arise? Rather than going into a deep analysis of the root factors, mula, I think it would be simpler to just say: habit. We are accustomed to thinking with a defiled mind so it doesn't surprise or shock us when defilements arise. By the time we have noticed them, they have already proliferated to a great extent and the damage is already done. However, the difference between the Buddhist and the non- Buddhist is that the Buddhist is striving to change this habit and work toward a higher consciousness: a consciousness which supports insight. So, how do you break bad habits? Develop good habits. The Buddha taught five methods which one can use to stop unwholesome thoughts after they arise. And the Buddha realized that these thoughts can be very powerful so he gave successive `treatments' to use. If the first one doesn't work, use the next one and so forth until the negative thought(s) (and accompanying emotion) is gone: 1.Reflect on a different object which is wholesome 2.Consider the disadvantages of the thought 3.Don't pay attention to the thought 4.Reflect on the removal of the source of the thought 5.Mentally beat down the thought The sutta and commentary notes can be found at this link: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel021.html Metta, James ps. Meditation practice will help to notice when these types of thoughts arise, and thus allow one to take action, but it won't eliminate unwholesome thoughts completely until one is enlightened. 30128 From: Htoo Naing Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 2:43pm Subject: Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 08 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, The meditator has been practising his mindfulness meditation which is concentrated on his own mind. 'He' notices that there are different mind states happen in a sitting meditation. He becomes aware of changing of mind states as he has long been practising on his mind properly. When he feels that he is well concentrated and his mind states are not of sensual and related complex and complicated things, he tries to check whether these states are in line with absorptive mind states or jhana cittas. When there are ten characteristics of mind state called jhana citta, he is said to be in 1st jhana citta or 1st material absorption. He notes that a well developed mind has arisen. Even though he is in his 1st jhana or absorptive state, he is aware of mind components that is he is not ignorant. This is totally different from simple jhanic state or absorptive state. He has been contemplating on mind and mind states so he has a clear understanding of mind states. No one can stay in jhana indefinitely. Here this statement needs careful attention otherwise unnecessary queries may arise. If someone who is expert in jhana matter, he can stay in jhana as long as he wants. I said here they do not stay in jhana indefinitely. They may stay for a day or a week. Or may stay an hour or two. At exit, other routine mind states that are what usually arise in kama bhumi or sensual sphere have to arise as he is no more in jhana at exit. When back to sensual domain, there are possibilities that he may be distracted from his intended object even though he has well experienced. When he has been distrated and after a while he notices that he has been distracted. Then distracted mind states stop to exist and attentive mind state arises. He notes that an undeveloped mind state has arisen and then passes away. May you all practise contemplation on mind and mind states. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htootintnaing@y... JourneyToNibbana@yahoogroups.com 30129 From: Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] bodily intimation, more info "This means that citta wishes to express a meaning by means of that rúpa, no matter whether someone else understands it or not. There may also be rúpas originating from the citta which does not intend to convey a meaning, when one moves the body naturally while standing, walking, sitting or lying down. If others think that a meaning is being conveyed, that is due to their own thinking and does not concern the rúpa of bodily intimation." Hi Nina, Regarding "body language", if someone frowns just because they are unhappy, that is not bodily intimation, but if someone else (an actor, for example) frowns wishing to convey "I am unhappy", that _is_ bodily intimation. Correct? Larry 30130 From: Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: bodily intimation, 1 Nina: "A traffic sign is a concept, it is not one of the 28 rupas, as listed in the Dhsg." Hi Nina, When you say a traffic sign is a concept do you mean a traffic sign is a word, or do you mean a traffic sign is a mental formation (sankhata). When I wave "goodbye" with my hand that is also a mental formation. You won't find "hand" among the 28 rupas either. Larry 30131 From: Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Catching Anger Hi Christine, Try analyzing anyway. You may be surprised. Every situation is unique and so every anger is unique, but I have found that the desires behind them are rather simple and basic. No need for an elaborate story. That also arises from desire. Larry --------------------- Christine: Hello Larry, Thanks Larry - my problem is that the anger has appeared, caused behaviour (by thought, word or deed) and largely passed before I am even 'aware' of its presence and that it is 'anger'. It is like a sudden flood in a river. No chance to prepare or even know it has arrived. Enquiring, looking over what happened later, is just me considering what I 'remember' as the trigger, and as the sequence of events. It may not be accurate at all. The same with any strong emotion. In any analyses, sure, one looks to see the root causes - but they are usually embedded in various stories. I'm not sure how thinking one knows what desire caused anger to arise one time, will help awareness arise at an earlier stage of the process the next time - the instances are so different. I call it anger - as if it is clearly one variety of emotion - but, usually, there are many ingredients. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: Hi Christine, Re: "comments about anger in general", I recommend looking for the desire behind it. Larry 30132 From: Philip Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:36pm Subject: Re: Catching Anger Hello All I see sudden outbursts of anger as the greatest danger on the path. I have consciouly been cultivating Upekkha in the belief, probably mistaken, the equanimity shield me in a necessary and hopefully temporary way from the stimula that have brought on my outbursts in the past. I call them "regrettable incidents" and have thankfully seen them decrease in number and intensity over the last year or so. Reading Ayyka Khema the other day, I was interested when she said that though we know greed to be undesirable, as one of the hindrances, its presence in our lives is only removed by the most advanced of practicioners so it might be best to accept its presence and at least be sure that it is directed in as wholesome a direction as possible. I wonder if the same can be said of the energy of anger within us and ask, as a beginner, whether directing it in a skillful direction might be possible? With Metta Philip --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > I wonder, as Howard's experience of anger is so close, if anyone > would have some comments about anger in general? I would be > interested in anyone's views on my 'incident'. > You see, yesterday I visited some relatives and a similar thing > happened where anger overcame me because of a remark someone made, > which revealed a rather prejudiced view they had of another group. > I said something quite firmly but politely (which I considered > necessary). Tenseness was evident, the atmosphere could have been > cut with a knife. Within ten minutes or so, amends were made, hugs > all round, casual chatting re-started. But, driving home later I > still felt disturbed feelings in the abdomen, chest and throat - and > was re-living the story in my mind. Then I became aware of each of > the different bodily feelings and thoughts, watched them, and things > began to 'evaporate'. But there were new emotions like regret, and > the wish that I had been equanimous, that it would have been kinder > to say nothing. > But why is there no awareness earlier, at the very time things are > occuring? Wouldn't any new kamma formation already be created during > the 'flare-up' of initial emotion. The actual words I said were not > wrong speech - though the tone and cadence were evidence of > irritation, as was body posture. > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 30133 From: Andrew Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:53pm Subject: Re: Control || No Control Hello James Thanks for clarifying this: J: yes, the two truths relate specifically to > the conventional/ultimate reality distinction. > > My position has been, and continues to be, that for the sake of > convenience, the two truths should both be considered true. Why do I > have this position? I just realize that the Buddha spoke of the two > levels of truth at various times to various audiences and he never > spoke of one as being false and one as being true. He spoke of them > both as being true. Andrew: I'm giving you my vote on this one - even though you're not collecting them! In my sporadic study of Dhamma over time, I have obviously formed the impression that ultimate realities were to be considered "reality" and conventional realities were to be considered "illusion". No doubt, this stems more from my reading of others' posts than from what they may have actually said! Checking the Introduction to my Abhidhammattha Sangaha, I see the English expressions "ultimate truth" and "conventional truth" in use; the Pali is "sacca" meaning "truth". So the distinction is not between reality and non-reality, the distinction is between truths of a different nature. It may be (as I think Icaro suggested) that it's a good tactic or trick to try and view conventional truth as illusory, perhaps because this reminds us that there is another level of truth to what we are getting attracted to or repulsed from - and when we realise this, akusala states tend to subside. But if we go too far with this, do we end up denying the truth in conventional matters? I need to keep thinking about all this and testing it in my daily life. With all this Dhamma stuff, sometimes I think I am at university level. Next moment, I'm back in kindergarten! Fun, isn't it? Best wishes Andrew 30134 From: Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 4:19pm Subject: Vism.XIV 61 (1 of 4) "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XIV 61. 14. Bodily intimation is the mode (conformation) and the alteration (deformation) in the consciousness-originated air element that causes the occurrence of moving forward, etc., which mode and alteration are a condition for the stiffening, upholding, and moving of the conascent material body. [448] Its function is to display intention. It is manifested as the cause of bodily excitement. Its proximate cause is the consciousness-originated air element. But it is called 'bodily intimation' (kaaya-vi~n~natti) because it is the cause of the intimating (vi~n~naapana) of intention by means of bodily excitement, and because it is itself intimatable through the body, in other words, through that bodily excitement. Moving forward, etc., should be understood to occur owing to the movement of the [kinds of matter] that are temperature-born, etc., which are interlocked with the consciousness-born kinds moved by that [intimation].27 (See Dhs. 636) 30135 From: Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 4:27pm Subject: Vism.XIV 61 (2 of 4) Vism. XIV 61 Note 27. 'It is the mode and the alteration of what? Of consciousness-originated primary elements that have the air-element in excess of capability. What is that capability? It is the state of being consciousness-born and the state of being derived matter. Or alternatively, it can be taken as the mode of alteration of the air element. If that is so, then intimation is illogical as derived matter, for there is no derived matter with a single primary as its support, since "matter derived from the four great primaries" (M.i,53) is said. That is not wrong. Alteration of one of the four is that of all four, as with wealth shared among four. And excess of air element in a material group (kalaapa) does not contradict the words "of the air element"; and excess is in capability, not in quantity, otherwise their inseparability would be illogical. According to some it is that of the air element only. In their opinion the state of derived matter is inapplicable (durupapaada) to intimation, since the alteration of one is not that of all. But this [air element] is apprehended by mind-door impulsion that is next to the non-intimating [apprehension] that is next to the apprehension of the appearance of motion in the movement of the hands, and so on. There is a certain kind of alteration that is separate from the appearance of motion. And the apprehension of the former is next to the apprehension of the latter. How is that to be known? By the apprehension of intention. For no apprehension of intention such as "He is getting this done, it seems" is met with in the case of trees' movements, etc., which are devoid of intention. But it is met with in the case of hand movements and so on. Therefore there is a certain kind of alteration that is separate from the appearance of motion, and it is known as the "intimator of the intention". Also it is known by inference that the apprehension of the alteration is next to the apprehension of the appearance thus: The intimator intimates the meaning to be intimated only when it is apprehended as a cause, not merely as present. For they say accordingly: Sounds that have entered no objective field do not awaken any kind of meaning; and also beings merely recognized as such communicate no meanings either. 30136 From: Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 4:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV 61 (2 of 4) "The intimator intimates the meaning to be intimated only when it is apprehended as a cause, not merely as present." Hi Nina, A qualm: if the intimation is an activation of only primary elements, how is it apprehended, by touch? Also, this suggests that the intimation has to be apprehended at least as an intentional intimation. Seems like we are on the outskirts of convention here. Larry 30137 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 5:36pm Subject: Re: Catching Anger Hi Christine, ----------------------- C: > But, driving home later I still felt disturbed feelings in the abdomen, chest and throat - and was re-living the story in my mind. ------------------------- I was right; they ARE putting something in the water in South East Queensland! First, I was obsessing about past mistakes (crying over spilt milk) then Andrew was moaning on and on about some little thing he might have said wrong -- now it's happened to you! We should head up north! I wonder if Azita would like us at her place. ---------------------- C: > The actual words I said were not wrong speech - though the tone and cadence were evidence of irritation, as was body posture. ---------------------- I think I know what you mean; we might think we are fooling people with carefully chosen words but we're only fooling ourselves. I would say that, even if we could fake the tone, cadence and body posture, we still couldn't fool anyone who knows us from old. Just suppose you and I were to have a good old `hate session' about those reactionary #######s who are running our country at the moment; or we were to gossip about some absent friends (unlikely, I know, but just suppose). After that, you would know my propensity for dosa. Now, suppose you were to tell me you enjoyed fishing or `cane toad golf' (infinitely unlikely, but just suppose). If I were to reply, carefully, smilingly and with perfect poise; "Oh, that's nice for you, although I can't say I approve," you wouldn't be fooled; the dosa would be as plain as the nose on my face. :o) Kind regards, Ken H "The most important thing in business is sincerity – if you can fake that, you've got it made." (Anon.) 30138 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 5:46pm Subject: Re: the self... how?/Jack Hi Victor, ---------------------- KH:> > But I think it is clear, from the suttas, that many ariyans attained enlightenment without ever practising jhana. >> V: > Any reference to the discourse to support your claim? ----------------------- Yes, there are some I know of which I'll be glad to give. After all, there may be some newcomers to dsg who have not already seen them a dozen times :-) In one post (12371) Nina has given the following Suttanta references: Kindred Sayings II, Kindred Sayings on Cause, Nidana vagga, II, 119: Susima Kindred Sayings I, I, 190, Vangisa Sutta, Invitation Gradual Sayings, Book of the Fours, Ch IX, § 9, Kinds of Recluses (c) In the same post (also found in the Useful posts file under `dry insight') Nina has given a concise summary of the above suttas as well as quotes from the Abhidhamma-pittaka and commentaries. Needless to say, it is well worth reading again. Kind regards, Ken H 30139 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 6:51pm Subject: Re: the self... how?/Jack Hi Ken H and all, Thank you for the reference. I couldn't find the discourses: Kindred Sayings I, I, 190, Vangisa Sutta, Invitation and Gradual Sayings, Book of the Fours, Ch IX, § 9, Kinds of Recluses on internet or in book. Anyone knows the link or book title to find them? This is what I found: Samyutta Nikaya XII.70 Susima Sutta About Susima http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-070.html Here is the Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu's note: Translator's note: This discourse is sometimes cited as proof that a meditator can attain Awakening (final gnosis) without having practiced the jhanas, but a close reading shows that it does not support this assertion at all. The new arahants mentioned here do not deny that they have attained any of the four "form" jhanas that make up the definition of right concentration. Instead, they simply deny that they have acquired any psychic powers or that they remain in physical contact with the higher levels of concentration, "the formless states beyond forms." In this, their definition of "release through discernment" is no different from that given in AN IX.44 (compare this with the definitions for "bodily witness" and "released in both ways" given in AN IX.43 and AN IX.45). Taken in the context of the Buddha's many other teachings on right concentration, there's every reason to believe that the new arahants mentioned in this discourse had reached at least the first jhana before attaining Awakening. Discourses mentioned in the note: Anguttara Nikaya IX.44 Paññavimutti Sutta Released Through Discernment http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an09-044.html Anguttara Nikaya IX.43 Kayasakkhi Sutta Bodily Witness http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an09-043.html Anguttara Nikaya IX.45 Ubhatobhaga Sutta (Released) Both Ways http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an09-045.html Let me quote Anguttara Nikaya IX.44 Paññavimutti Sutta Released Through Discernment [Udayin:] "'Released through discernment, released through discernment,' it is said. To what extent is one described by the Blessed One as released through discernment?" [Ananda:] "There is the case, my friend, where a monk, withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. And he knows it through discernment. It is to this extent that one is described in a sequential way by the Blessed One as released through discernment. "Furthermore, with the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, he enters & remains in the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non- perception. And he knows it through discernment. It is to this extent that one is described in a sequential way by the Blessed One as released through discernment. "Furthermore, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, he enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And as he sees with discernment, the mental fermentations go to their total end. And he knows it through discernment. It is to this extent that one is described in a non-sequential way by the Blessed One as released through discernment." Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > ---------------------- > KH:> > But I think it is clear, from the suttas, that many ariyans > attained enlightenment without ever practising jhana. >> > > V: > Any reference to the discourse to support your claim? > ----------------------- > > Yes, there are some I know of which I'll be glad to give. After > all, there may be some newcomers to dsg who have not already seen > them a dozen times :-) > > In one post (12371) Nina has given the following Suttanta references: > > Kindred Sayings II, Kindred Sayings on Cause, Nidana vagga, II, 119: > Susima > > Kindred Sayings I, I, 190, Vangisa Sutta, Invitation > > Gradual Sayings, Book of the Fours, Ch IX, § 9, Kinds of Recluses (c) > > In the same post (also found in the Useful posts file under `dry > insight') Nina has given a concise summary of the above suttas as > well as quotes from the Abhidhamma-pittaka and commentaries. > Needless to say, it is well worth reading again. > > Kind regards, > Ken H 30140 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Catching Anger Hi Victor Hmm, I am not waiting for the right conditions to arise bc the conditions were righted itself to arise, there is no need to me to wait ;-). By the way, you have not reply my earlier mail ;-). Victor, if one can control one's immaterial aggregates, then I will meditate, if not till then, it will be not be beneficial. James said <> And I forget to tell James that habit is also a root cause (accumulation and latency[for the three unwholesome roots]), everything must be done eradicating the root cause. The chinese said, cutting the grass one must clear the roots, or not winds blows, the grass grows again. Ken O 30141 From: Sarah Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 11:03pm Subject: Re: "Not Fooled by Concepts" (Re: [dsg] Re: Control || No Control) Hi Howard, (Christine, Victor & All), S:I’d also started to check further, but had no time to post - I see we have become the Pali afficionados here;-);-) Here’s another translation, ed by Max Mueller (PTS): ...... 52. 'Just, Citta, as from a cow comes milk, and from the milk curds, and from the curds butter, and from the butter ghee, and from the ghee junket; but when it is milk it is not called curds, or butter, or, or junket ; and when it is curds it is not called by any of the other names; and so on- [202] 5 3. ' Just so, Citta, when any one of the three modes of personality is going on, it is not called by the name of the other. For these, Citta, are merely names, expressions turns of speech, designations in common use in the world. And of these a Tathàgata (one who has won the truth) makes use indeed, but is not led astray by them[45].' The Pali for the last sentence is: [Imà.m kho citta lokasamattà lokaniruttiyo lokavohàrà lokapattattiyo yàhi tathàgato voharati aparàmasanti.] [long footnote 45]’........ But the abstract term is only a convenient form of expression. There never was any personality, as a separate entity, all the time.’ ***** S:To repeat part of the quote I gave recently from the commentary to the Kathavatthu, ch 1: “Thus it is said: The Enlightened One, best of speakers, spoke two kinds of truth, namely,the popular and that of highest meaning, a third is not got at (i.e known). Therein, discourse meeting with agreement is true and is by way of world convention. Highest meaning discourse expression is also true and, as such, characteristic of things (as they are). There is another way of putting it. The teaching of the Exalted One is of two kinds, the highest-meaning teaching consisting of the aggregates, and so forth, and the popular taching consisting of ‘butter-jar,’ and so forth. The Exalted One does not, indeed, overrun consistency. Hence, on the mere expression “there is the person who,” must not command adherence. The highest meaning has been declared by the Teacher, without transgressing the concept. So another wise man also should not, in explaining the highest meaning, overrun a concept. The remaining meanings are clear everywhere. The controversy on ‘person’ is ended.” ***** I’m sure the controversies on DSG won’t be ended so easily however;-) Looking at the word ‘aparaamaasa’ more carefully as you have, I’d like to add a little more: --- upasaka@a... wrote: H: >......The key Pali word > is > 'aparamasa'. The question was whether this is better rendered by "not > grasped > at" or by "not misapprehended". > Nyanayiloka's dictionary gives the following: > > > parámása: 'adherence', attachment, 'misapprehension', is according to > > Vis.M. XXII a name for wrong views; in that sense it occurs in Dhs. > 1174 ff. - See > > sílabbata-parámása. .... S: Dhs 1174 [First text in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, transl by Mrs Rhys Davids, PTS] ..... “The Group on Perversion (paraamaasa-gocchakam)* Which are the states that are The Contagion of speculative opinion? In this connexion, What is ‘perversion as speculative opinion’? Answer as for the ‘Intoxicant of speculative opinion’, viz: ‘to hold that the world is eternal, or that it is not eternal’, etc.....”[etc for other perverted views] * Paraamaasa is, according to Buddhaghosa, employed to mea para + aa +masati , to touch-upon-as other, ie in a way inverse to the right way, wrong-minded procedure. ***** H: > The Pali Text Society dictionary gives the following: > > Paramasa (p. 421) [para+mrs, but see paramasa] .... S: Here it is referring to this second entry here: [the first one in the hard ed is paraamasa and the second more common one referred to is here as paraamaasa]: .... Also from PTS dict: Paramasa (p. 421) [para+mrs, cp. Epic Sk. paramarsa being affected by; as philos. term "reflection"] touching, contact, being attached to, hanging on, being under the influence of, contagion (Dhs. trsl. 316). In Asl. 49, Bdhgh analyses as parato amasantiti paramasa: p. means "they handle dhamma's as other" (than what they really are, e. g. they transgress the real meaning of anicca etc. and say nicca). Hence the renderings in Asl. trs. "Reversion," in Dialogues III.28, 43, etc. "perverted" (paramasami paramattha) -- S III.46, 110; A II.42 (sacca°); III.377 (silabbata°), 438 (id.); V.150 (sanditthi°); D III.48; Th 1, 342; It 48 (itisacca°, cp. idansaccabhinivesa under kayagantha); Pug 22; Dhs 381, 1003, 1175 (ditthi° contagion of speculative opinion), .... H: > In fairness, though I prefer the sense of not misapprehending and > not > being led astray by, and though that is a viable reading according to > these > two dictionary articles, it does seem that the meaning of not grasping > at is the > primary one. .... S: In context, I think it clearly means ‘not misapprehending and not being led astray by’ as you (Chris and others) originally indicated. ‘Not grasping’ refers to not grasping wrong views as I read it. Let me add one more of these references I followed from a sutta we’ve been quoting from recently in Khandhasamyutta, SN 22:85 Yamaka, Bodhi transl: “Yet, although he was admonished by the bhikkhus in this way, the Venerable Yamaka still obstinately *grasped that pernicious view*, adhered to it, and declared: “As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the ody and does not exist after death.” Evampi kho àyasmà yamako tehi bhikkhåhi vuccamàno tatheva ta.n *pàpaka.n di.t.thagata.n thàmasà paràmassa* abhinivissa voharati "tathàhaü bhagavatà dhammaü desitaü àjànàmi yathà khãõàsavo bhikkhu kàyassa bhedà ucchijjati vinassati na hoti parammaraõàti. " Here the reference to paraamasa is to ‘perverted’ (see dict entry above for Siii110] or to ‘grasping a wrong view’. Metta, Sarah p.s if any 'real' Pali afficionados have anything further to add or correct, we'd be glad;-) ======================== 30142 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 11:57pm Subject: Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi James, Azita and all, James I hope you don't mind me responding to you here. > Azita: James, it is my understanding that these 'unnecessary > distractions' are to be known too. > > James: Yes, this is true. But if there become too many distractions > it becomes impossible to `know' them all and to know the object of > the mindfulness also. This is just common sense; if you want to > really know something you have to put your entire mind to it. This > is why libraries are quiet, so that there aren't any distractions. > Would you try to read a book at a rock concert? ;-)) Of course you > could do it, if you try really hard, but how much are you going to > get out of the book? Satipatthana is the same way. If you expect to > get a lot out of it you can't have too many distractions. Sukin: I also see at the end of this post that you talk about "effort" and being "honest about where one is and where one need to eventually be". I am going to make some observations, hope you don't mind if they are assuming, please correct me then. As a general comment I would like first to state two things; 1. All realities are to be known, and that they can be known only when they are experienced, which is in the `present' moment. 2. In reality, there is just this present moment. Any idea of time, place and `effort' on `self's' part is just mental projection. Also, I see as a very important difference between your and my understanding, is that you are inclined to view `knowing' as `knowing penetratingly' or at least deeply enough. Whereas I see it as a matter of development, as starting from a very weak but important level, which is `intellectual understanding', pariyatti. To me the panna which understands directly the Tilakkhana, is the same mental factor having been developed from this very basic level. As a consequence, you seem to see a gap between `study' and practice. And so you are lead to believe that a deliberate effort to bridge the gap is needed. I on the other hand, seeing `intellectual understanding' and `insight' as being the gradual development of the same mental factor, panna, have no particular need to force `practice', though I admit the distinction as well. Of course this goes along with the understanding about `conditionality', that *no* dhamma can be made to arise at will. I realize that you too believe in conditions, only that you see `formal meditation' as being part of those set of conditions. As mentioned above, I see it as a mind projected activity which involves not only an idea of `self', but also time and place. Ignorance is the one and only enemy to understanding. We project "things to do" in order to get rid of ignorance, but this may actually be the product of that very same ignorance. As I said, to me sati and panna starts from the basic level. We can be mindful of gross manifestations of anger and attachment for instance, or we may have an understanding of seeing and visible object or know heat and cold. This may all be on the `conceptual' level and the important thing is, this is to be *known* too. These concepts are after all grounded on actual experiences. Can we deny the reality of seeing, hearing and thinking? It would be absurd to doubt their existence on the level of view at least, no!? It is important to understand that the `practice' starts from here. Know reality as reality (call it paramattha or not) and concept as concept. If the practice is right, then there is no idea of wanting the experience to be anything other than what it is. If concepts are not known, then there is no end to where it can lead us. If we have a different view about what the practice is supposed to be and how to come about it, then we are indeed hindering the development!! This, James, I think is an important point to consider. If one thinks along the lines that the mind has to be prepared, for example, practice sila in order that no hindrances can come in the way of sati, then indeed one is limiting the scope of wisdom and hence opportunity for practice. This may also be part of the reason why you dismiss the idea of the Path factors as being mental concomitants at the moment of Path consciousness and instead believe that they are something to be developed separately. I can understand why you stress on being honest with oneself, you may probably be put off by claims about `anatta' which you see as not being a consequence of direct insight, so why talk as if one `knows'?! I hope you now see at least the basis of such assertions. Isn't it being honest when one knows that one's understanding is only intellectual? Your comparison of the practice of mindfulness with the Rock concert and library scenario is I think, not right. In both above situations the underlying struggle revolves around lobha. Ignorance is not a problem for the person who wants to study a `subject'. Panna is not necessarily involved, the ability to attention and retain and subsequently think logically based on accumulated information, is primarily the work of sanna and manasikara. Ignorance and what follows from it, is the noise which goes with us everywhere. And this is what we want to get rid of. The correct intellect view can at least show us when it is that we are adding to the noise instead of lessening it. As always my posts tend to be very long, so I'll end this one here. Metta, Sukin. Ps: I just remembered about your query as to why dreams seem so real and this being different from `thinking' when one is awake. My guess is that during dreaming there is *just* thinking, uninterrupted by other sense door experience. In waking hours, the thinking is alternating with sense door experiences and so it appears indistinct compared. What do you think? 30143 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 0:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 02 ) Dear Htoo (and Bhikkhu Samahita), S:We were laying out the map and discussing the route together when I got a little side-tracked;-)Thank you for your kind comments. --- htootintnaing wrote: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > Nama dhamma and rupa dhamma have to arise if conditions favour. So > does in case of pannindriya cetasika. > > Now I have to draw you to another idea so that we can understand > more. Panna in accumulated form arise from three source. Sutamaya > panna, cintamaya panna, and bhavanamaya panna. I think you already > know all about these. .... S: So far so good. There has to be the right hearing and considering (intellectual panna) before direct panna which knows namas and rupas can develop and eventually become an indriya (faculty). I don’t think we should confused suttamaya or cintamaya with scientific or other kinds of knowledge. Here we are talking about knowledge of realities (paramattha dhammas). .... <...> H: > Arahatta Magga Panna at the moment is the highest now. This Panna is > for all who want to get through the samsara. Other higher Panna are > the matter of choice. .... S: Ah, now before we both agreed that all dhammas are anatta, not in anyone’s control. Isn’t this choice reintroducing an idea of self and control again? Also, as we’re laying out the map, let’s not be too concerned about the Arahants’ panna for now;-) .... H: > Right. Now we start a pace. > > Arahatta Magga Nanna has to attained through bhavanamaya panna. > However, this is only possible ( ONLY POSSIBLE ) with the aid of The > Great beings Sammasambuddhas. > > I mean here 'aid'. This does not mean in the pacchima bhava or final > life in the whole samsara. > > One has to understand all dhamma once in a life as heard through some > Sammasambuddhas. > > As one heard in a life, they may like dhamma as soon as they see > wherever they are ( in the samsara ). .... S: Agreed, ..... H: > So, I made pushing to concentration. This does not necessarily mean > without panna. Panna has to involve all the time. .... S: Why the ‘pushing to concentration’? I don’t follow the logic here. .... H: > If not heard through the aid of one of Sammasambuddha, no one will > develop Arahatta Panna however hard they try. .... S: ..And if they have heard with this aid, are you sure it is the ‘trying’ that will help? Think of the Nava suit about the chickens and eggs or the Ogha sutta (first sutta in SN) about crossing the floods which Ken H has just been referring to: [Ken H: If the Buddha has said that `trying' is not the way to cross the flood, wouldn't it be obstinate and contrary of us to go ahead and try to cross the flood?] > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: I have discussed above. Sammasambuddhas are needed in Samsara. > There are many arising. > > Another point ( side point ) is breaking and not breaking precept. If > one never killed any being in his whole life, he might be said to be > free of Akusala in terms of killing. But there are two people. One > avoided killing. Another did not kill. Effect will not be the same. > This point shoud be drawn out and should be separate discussion. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: I agree with these points and that it would be good for a separate discussion. Pls say more. In the same way, when I do my Tai chi or yoga exercise, there is a lot of strong concentration involved, otherwise I’d be forgetting my movements and falling over. However, concentration which is not obviously unwholesome (such as in killing ) does not make it wholesome. Unless there is panna which understands the paramattha dhamma (in development of satipatthana) or which understands the object of samatha and how it conditions the mind to be calm in a wholesome way at that very moment, or is co-arising with dana or sila, it is bound to be unwholesome. .... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > Wise and unwise concentration? Concentration is concentration at a > single moment. It does not need to be wise or unwise. Its function is > to fix at a point, to fix at a direction. > When concentration become Samma Samadhi, you may say it as wise > concentration but still it is concentration. Wise and unwise is > function of Pannindriya cetasika. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: This is all true, but there is still a big distinction between wholesome and unwholesome concentration (when arising in the javana). Panna and samadhi condition each other. In the same way lobha and akusala concentration condition each other. So the samma and the akusala concentration have different characteristics to be known. .... ---------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > Do you mean I am wasting time, time of other people, and creating the > wrong journey? The journey has not even started. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: I mean, we’d better make sure we’re on the right journey. The wrong journey is one started and followed with an idea of ‘self’ or ‘trying’. The path has to be right from the start. Others have been discussing ‘using self to get rid of self’. This is a commonly held idea. However, any moments with the wrong idea of self take us on the wrong track or journey. If progress on the right track is made, it is despite these diversions or U-turns, not because of them. ..... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Please tell me your destination. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- .... S: Good (and difficult) question! As soon as I have any idea about destination in terms of insights or nibbana, I find it’s a condition for attachment. So these days, I just consider the destination as the understanding of the paramattha dhammas arising to be known right now. ..... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > S: Ah, but we have to keep checking `the tract' as we lay out > the map. > Let's check we're plotting the same route together - after > all, > there's only One Way. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: But have to individualize. Each Arahat goes each. > Paccatamvedhitabbo Vinnuhi'ti. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: We all have different accumulations (different carita touched on in the Satipatthana sutta), but the Way, the understanding of dhammas as not self is the same for all regardless. *We* don’t have to do anything. Namas and rupas are arising and falling all the time and can be known as they appear to panna right now, one at a time. .... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Actually the map has not been spread out. Yes there is no > meditator. No one is meditating. All these are in the map itself > which will come out finally. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: Let’s continue the discussions and spreading out of the map. I also liked Bhikkhu Samahita’s comments here (post 30094): Bhikkhu S:>So the `personal entity' we assume, suppose, deduce, expect & believe to enjoy the experience is merely a mental construct, an idea, a concept, & not a reality … The passive impersonal process of sensing, perception & experiencingcannot thereby be `instrumental' for neither creating nor inferring any `being in existence' or "substance in existence" !!! "'I' am not, just because there is experience." "'World' is neither, just because there is experience." " What there IS is momentary Experience. No more is Fact!" The fact of this fundamental `selflessness' "substancelessness" is far the most essential core of the Buddha-Dhamma. Outmost important to grasp yet subtle, counterintuitive & thereby difficult & somewhat `nasty' to comprehend.< ***** Htoo, I look forward to your further helpful comments. Metta, Sarah ====== 30144 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 0:20am Subject: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi Howard, > The content of the two suttas was as follows (hope no odd sysmbols): > > Sense control > -> > Virtue > -> > Right concentration > -> > Knowledge and vision of things as they really are > -> > Revulsion and dispassion > -> > Knowledge and vision of liberation. > > and > > Virtuous ways of conduct > -> > Non-remorse > -> > Gladness > -> > Joy > -> > Serenity > -> > Happiness > -> > Concentration of the mind > -> > Knowledge and vision of things as they really are > -> > Revulsion and dispassion > -> > Knowledge and vision of liberation. > > ============================== > With metta, > Howard From what I understand, you are saying that in the two Suttas you are referring to, the Buddha clearly stated that the first factor like 'sense control' lead step by step through 'right concentration' to 'final liberation'. If this is about a gradual training, I would like to know the exact Sutta (just the names will do). Metta, Sukin. 30145 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi Michael, Thanks for these further comments. --- Michael Beisert wrote: > M: > This is what I notice in the discussions in the list. There is much > greater emphasis placed on 'paramatha dhammas' than on conditionality. > It is also reflected in the practice of the Dhamma. ..... S: Simply put, as I understand it, unless there is a clear understanding of namas and rupas (aka paramattha dhammas) there cannot and will not be a developed understanding which directly comprehends the conditionality of these same namas and rupas. In fact it is the very emphasis on ‘paramattha dhammas’ which helps us to distinguish them from concepts and which makes an understanding of anatta possible. It is the conditioned nature of namas and rupas which is taught by the Buddha . From the sutta Christine quoted the other day: Samyutta Nikaya 1 Bhikkhuniisamyutta 5.9 Selaa "Just so the aggregates and elements, And these six bases of sensory contact, Have come to be dependent on a cause; With the cause's breakup they will cease." [n.359] S: If you look in UP under ‘anatta’, ‘anatta and no control’, ‘conditions’ and so on, you’ll get an idea about how much has been written by some of us on conditionality. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts .... M: >As I understand many > of the 'believers in paramatha dhammas' don't practice meditation. I > think this is your case also. .... S: I think we need to clarify what is meant by ‘practice meditation’. I agree that when there is more understanding of paramattha dhammas, of anatta and thereby of conditionality, there will be fewer and fewer conditions for there to be any idea of ‘control’, ‘choice’ or a special time and place to ‘practice meditation’. ‘Practice’ will come down to direct knowledge of dhammas at this very moment. ..... M: >To be honest I don't fully understand how > you practice the Dhamma but it must be influenced by the view about > paramatha dhammas. The disregard for meditation falls within that view > and shows to me that conditionality is not considered very highly. .... S: You’d have to elaborate further. I would say the opposite. With more understanding about the conditions for this very moment of seeing or anger or panna, there will be less and less inclination to think it can be controlled or made to arise at will. When there is an idea of self, there is inevitably the idea of ‘making something happen’ or ‘creating special conditions’, not understanding that just this way of thinking is conditioned already or the anger one would like to stop has already fallen away, never to return. In other words, one continues to live in the past or future without an understanding of conditioned namas and rupas at this very moment. ..> Michael: > > If it were beyond language no one would be able to talk about it, but > quite the contrary there is a lot of talk about it. .... Paramattha dhammas are not the words or conventional terms, but the Buddha could still describe them to us in conventional language. .... M: >The Buddha did not > show paramatha dhammas, this is not found in the Suttas, .... S: I think you’ve got really hung up on this word and are refusing to understand it in the way we do or the way the commentaries use it, as referring to seeing, hearing, visible object, sound, anger or other realities which can be directly known. Why did the commentaries add more detail or elaborate on the suttas (even in the Buddha’s time)? Because many people like ourselves were not able to comprehend the correct meaning without this assistance. Even Rahula, the Buddha’son was said to be a ‘neyyapuggala’, a person who needed detailed guidance. In his case, the detailed guidance on namas and rupas (paramattha dhammas) was sufficient. In our case, we need even more guidance and hence we look to the Abhidhamma and Pali commentaries .... M: >but let's see > what can be found in the Katthavatthu. .... S: Let’s go through section by section when you have it. I like these comments of Ken O’s so much, I’m including them here, though they could just as easily (or may be more easily) have been included in my post to Htoo. ***** k: I personally think, that this personal believe that we can control what we talk is still under the guise of self. A self will always try to reassert itself, that it is in control. When we try to control it, to me this would mean we are adding wood to fire. Understanding of anatta should start from the understanding of anattaitself and from there we developed understanding. To me, my personal believe, we cannot start from the understanding of there is a self that can control to develop understanding of anatta, bc they are not compatible. I think the the correct premise to start with developing is very important. I dont think you will buy my argument, its ok. Everyone got its own cup of aggregates ;-). .... S: From U Narada’s preface to ‘Guide to Conditional Relations’: “If one considers the teaching of Abhidhamma starting with Dhs., and ending with P.th., it will be seen that aggregates, bases, elements and so on are expounded in them. This show that the realities, with which Abhidhamma deals, consists of aggregates, bases and elements that behave according to their own nautures and, therefore, are not dependent on one’s wishes. In other words, the realities behave according to the principle of anatta............ “The materiality-mentality, which constitute the human being, is not willed nor incited by atta or by any abiding entity, but is due to many causes. For example, when visible objects are seen daily, the seeing is due to four causes: 1) visible object, 2) sensitive eye, 3) light and 4) attention. For it is only when these four causes are present at the same time that eye-consciousness arises to see or know a visible object.” ***** S: I’m always happy to discuss more about conditions and especially, like Icaro, the Great Patthana. But we need to agree what are the conditioned namas and rupas first. So what do you understand namas and rupas to refer to? Look f/w to your comments;-) Metta, Sarah ===== 30146 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:22am Subject: Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi Sukin, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi James, Azita and all, > > Sukin: > I also see at the end of this post that you talk about "effort" and > being "honest about where one is and where one need to eventually > be". I am going to make some observations, hope you don't mind if > they are assuming, please correct me then. Thank you for your observations, some of them concerning my position are not 100% correct but I don't see the need to quibble over minor differences. However, I am not sure how you want me to respond. Are you thinking out loud? Are you trying to tell me that I am wrong? Are you trying to ask me a question? I think I am aware of what you believe and why you believe it. The differences between our positions arise from the fact that you are operating from a metaphysical position: "There is no self" and I am not operating under any such position. Actually, as shocking as this may sound, I think that you believe in a `self' more than I do. You have a mental idea of what a `self' is and what a `self' means and what a `self' is capable of doing, etc., and since you believe there is `no self' then you make assumptions that negate all of your previous assumption. For all of your talk about not living under concepts, you are operating under one of the biggest mass of concepts of all. I don't know what to tell you. Metta, James Ps. I don't want to discuss dreams anymore. Sorry. 30147 From: gazita2002 Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:42am Subject: Re: Catching Anger --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > ----------------------- > C: > But, driving home later I still felt disturbed feelings in the > abdomen, chest and throat - and was re-living the story in my mind. > ------------------------- > > I was right; they ARE putting something in the water in South East > Queensland! First, I was obsessing about past mistakes (crying over > spilt milk) then Andrew was moaning on and on about some little > thing he might have said wrong -- now it's happened to you! > > We should head up north! I wonder if Azita would like us at her > place. Yeah, we northerners (northernerds)? just bore it up 'em with no regrets at all!!!!! > or `cane toad golf' yep! over the back fence with the neighbours!!! Dear Ken and others, ON a more serious note, do you think that Mana plays a part here? When we are angry and 'bore it up 'em' and then feel bad about what we said, isn't it usually bec. we wonder and maybe worry about what the others will think of us? Or could it be that there is worry, concern about akusala, and does it matter whether the akusala comes in the form of lobha, dosa or moha, it is still akusala and can be known anyway by the development of right understanding. Speaking of water, we have had lots of wonderful rain, and our dams are almost full, so we can waste water again now!!!!! Is cynicism a form of akusala? it feels like it probably is. Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. PS looking forward to seeing you southernerds! sometime this year. 30148 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:57am Subject: Re: Catching Anger --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > > Or could it be that there is worry, concern about akusala, and > does it matter whether the akusala comes in the form of lobha, dosa > or moha, it is still akusala and can be known anyway by the > development of right understanding. > > ===================== Dear Azita, Yes. Any moment is good to insight. If we are afraid to study dosa, anger, no matter how strong, there can never be understanding: we will always be looking for something different from what is real now. If we are concerned about having anger what is the reason? Is it solely because of our concern for the other person, or do we cling to 'myself' as being someone who shouldn't have anger. Dosa is a mula, root, and so it is only gradually uprooted by the right path, and on that path there is no person, only namas and rupas. Robertk 30149 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:_A___HAPPY___VALENTINE´S___DAY_!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hi Icaro, James, Andrew & All, --- icarofranca wrote: > > I was trying to quote "Benny the Bouncer" by memory! > I am not an Arahant for such brain feats!!! > And Now...the Complete "Benny The Bouncer"!!! ..... Icaro, I’m not sure how to tell you this.....but James’s good suggestion to Andy -- i.e taking refuge in the Triple Gem and showing one’s love in this way -- got my vote. .... I: > Well, they dragged him from the wreckage of the Palais in bits. > They tried to stick together all the bits that would fit. > But some of him was missing > and "part of him" arrived too late, > So now he works for Jesus > As the bouncer at St. Peter's Gate." > (Yeah !!!!! Finally Benny put an end to his series of > ressurrections, becoming an Arahant, a guardian of the humanity at > St. Peter´s gate. Buddha states that everyone that becomes an Arahant > must take his vows everyday in his life or die...and if he is not so > Ted as Sid, now is at a more high level!!!) ... S: LOL...maybe for those reflecting on Valentine asubha practices, this would be helpful;-) or for those still on the fence regarding Christianity/Buddhism;-) ... S: Back to your sensible posts. I liked the suggestion for depression (to Carl and Andy) to just take a good plunge in the Dhammasangani or to read the Patthana in Pali ..LOL... For others, see "Lonely, Unloved..." in UP. Your comment about all the effort to ‘get rid of akusala patterns’ is very sharp. Yes, what is the reason we’re so concerned about them and wish to get rid of them? Usually, just this wish indicates more clinging to self, I think. I really liked a quote James gave (post 29435) while we were away to indicate that with the understanding of conditions and dependent arising there will not be the running after the past and future with an idea or clinging to self: ""When a disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they are actually present, it is not possible that he would run after the past, thinking, 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past?' or that he would run after the future, thinking, 'Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' or that he would be inwardly perplexed about the immediate present, thinking, 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?' Such a thing is not possible. Why is that? Because the disciple of the noble ones has seen well with right discernment this dependent co-arising & these dependently co-arisen phenomena as they are actually present." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-020.html As Andrew put it (referring to another sutta): A: “My reading of these sutta lines is that “self-belief” is incompatible with conditionality and impermanence. If there were a “self”, there would be something permanent that could manipulate conditions from one moment to the next.” I also liked your meaty sleep post, Andrew (29988). You finished it by saying: A: “Surely the other side of this “no control” viewpoint is that, if the conditions arise for someone to meditate, they will meditate. I don’t have a problem with that at all. The caution is one that applies to us all - beware the creeping illusion of “self”!” Beautifully put - you’re the last person that needs to be concerned about having said the ‘wrong’ word here;-) While I’m cherry-picking from saved posts, I also greatly appreciated the sutta James selected (post 29434) about the ‘type of person who both thunders and rains’ to indicate the importance of both hearing the details and directly discerning the Truths. (Read the full sutta, this is just an abbreviated extract): "And how is one the type of person who both thunders and rains? There is the case where a person has mastered the Dhamma: dialogues... question & answer sessions. He discerns, as it actually is present, that 'This is stress.'... 'This is the origination of stress.'... 'This is the cessation of stress.'... 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.' This is the type of person who both thunders and rains. This type of person, I tell you, is like the thunderhead that both thunders and rains. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an04-102.html James, a good comment too: J: “The Buddha doesn't qualify which is better; he just states that these types of people exist. But hey, if I am going to be a thunderhead, I might as well rain and thunder!! ;-))” Metta to all thunderheads, Sarah p.sIcaro, what does it mean to say “Sariputta is the Zen of Angulimala” (post 30019 - talking about anatta as ‘one of the main pillars of all Buddhism”. ============================================= 30150 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:10am Subject: Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi James, James: > The differences between our positions arise from the fact that you > are operating from a metaphysical position: "There is no self" and I > am not operating under any such position. Sukin: In a post to Larry, I mentioned three ways in which the 'self' manifests, namely via Tanha, Mana and Ditthi. In experience (subjective of course), there is just wanting, sometimes there is just the presence of "I" in relation to people and things and to ideas, sometimes there will be a story about what self can do or not do. These are OK under most conventional circumstances. However, when in relation to understanding the Buddha's teachings, when there is this grasping attitude and an idea that control is possible, and there is a level of sati, then the natural reaction is that, *it is wrong*! Of course there is more often than not, the fact of 'coming out from a position of knowledge' a preconceived conclusion. However, even these have been recognized. And at other times, there can be the recognition that there is wrong view with regard to experience and one may go further and discover that it is `attachment to self' which has dictated the particular line of thinking. James: > Actually, as shocking as this may sound, I think that you believe in a `self' more than I do. > You have a mental idea of what a `self' is and what a `self' means > and what a `self' is capable of doing, etc., and since you believe > there is `no self' then you make assumptions that negate all of your > previous assumption. For all of your talk about not living under > concepts, you are operating under one of the biggest mass of concepts > of all. I don't know what to tell you. Sukin: I do *all the time* live under concepts. And I *do* have major problem with `self'. Mostly via Tanha and Mana, and less so with Ditthi. The first two influences will depend on how much I've developed my understanding and cannot be forced to change. Ditthi too is not-self and lessens with more development of panna. However, discussing with dhamma friends as I am doing here does help a great deal, at least when it comes to recognizing more and more such influences. ;-) > Metta, James > Ps. I don't want to discuss dreams anymore. Sorry. Sukin: Not so important anyway. Metta, Sukin 30151 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:35pm Subject: The Buddha's Perfume Shop! Friends: In the city of Nibbana, what is the Perfume Shop of the Buddha ? The kinds of Moral Habit, that the sons of the Buddha anoint themselves with, is a fragrance that goes even against the wind & pervading all, spreading everywhere, instantly, globally, non-local, suffuses the entire Universe: The Moral Habit of taking Refuge in the Three Jewels. The Moral Habit of keeping the Five Precepts. The Moral Habit of keeping the Eight Precepts. The Moral Habit of keeping the Ten Precepts. The Moral Habit of keeping the Vinaya Code. This is called the Buddha's perfume shop.. The scent of Virtue excels all other smells! http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/sila.html All yours in the Dhamma. Constructions Decay & Vanish. Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ 30152 From: Andy Wilson Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:45am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Andy, Love lost / the self... how? Nina, Azita, everyone who commented many thanks for your replies, which I found very helpful as well as, in many cases, touching. The main message I got from the many replies was to be patient, to try a little each day, or on each occasion of sadness and anger, to cope with feelings and see their true origin and nature. I am trying to do this as well as i can. It was also a great relief to me when people described their own experience. I know we all know (intellectually) that sadness and separation are a necessary feature of our lives, but whenever people spoke of their own past and present sadness in similar stuations it really helped relieve my own feelings just through the spontaneous act of empathising with the suffering of others. So, my sympathising with them paid off for me. As for various comments about the relevance or otherwise of Abhidhamma to me right now, I don't feel I am 'jumping in at the deep end' by thinking of philosophical ideas at this point as I don't think I am really 'jumping in' to anything at the moment, just quietly reading and studying the AS and trying to learn whenever the ideas touch on my own experience. I don't think I am expecting any easy answers from that part of my life at the moment. Oh, I jumped out of my reading of the AS to read Nina's 'Abhidhamma in Everyday Life', as I found it's direct, practical tone especially helpful. Things I found that helped relieved my unhappiness at different times; 1. seeing it as an inevitable part of my life 2. hearing of others experience of the same feelings 3. reassuring myself that i am still of some value, or am not made less valuable by unhappiness One thing that didn't help (and isn't helping) is the fact that sometimes anger comes as a *relief* from simple misery. Sometimes I would be sitting feeling very low, stressed and miserable and then something my (ex-) partner would do, or thinking about something she has done (I should excplain that we are still living together while we try to sell our flat, and we work together, so I see her most of the day every day, which makes coming to terms with seperation a full-time job for me) would make me very angry with her. I did not express this anger except that it must have been obvious on my face and my manner. However, when I felt this anger I was almost pleased because it took the hurt away for a while. The fact that sometimes anger is a relief makes it even harder for me to escape the anger than it is for me to escape the depression. I suppose that is just another level of mistaken view to deal with(?) metta -- [][][] Andy Wilson | Mob: +44 (0)7739 908 253 [][] Managing Director | Tel: +44 (0)20 7729 7060 [] [] LShift Ltd | Web: http://www.lshift.net 30153 From: Andy Wilson Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:09am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Andy, Love lost / the self... how? > 1. seeing it as an inevitable part of my life > 2. hearing of others experience of the same feelings > 3. reassuring myself that i am still of some value, or am not > made less valuable by unhappiness i forgot to add; 4. appreciating any sympathy for my situation from others. 5. thinking in objective ways about the situation (eg. writing this mail). In other words, getting any kind of intellectual distance from my feelings helped. this sounds unusual i guess in a world where we are always being told to 'get in touch with our feelings'. i am not sure that this distance is neccesarily a good thing, but I can see that it seems to help from moment to moment. as for the 'big debates' that some people touched on, i feel spectaculary unqualified to speak, but my experience of this list and my reading inclines me more and more to a view I don't have a name for (though presumably someone here can reply and tell me), which consists of thinking that the texts i am reading (AS, sutras...) represent fundamental truths about being, mentality, existence, but that they are expressed in / refracted through the cultures of long dead people and wrapped up in views that I think i would always consider inessential (details about how many heavens there might be, the belief that my physical looks reflect past kamma, and a hundred other things). Therefore I suppose I'm inclined to think that a lot of work is involved in transplanting the core of buddhism into western soil, as they say, and that I should feel free to interpret dhamma in the critical spirit the texts seem to encourage, rejecting the inessential in order to get a tighter grip on the heart of the dhamma. reading between the lines this sounds like maybe a heterodox position for this list. would that be the case? do people believe that exisiting traditions are good enough 'as is', or is there a need to radically rework and reinterpret? metta andy 30154 From: icarofranca Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:35am Subject: [dsg] Re:_A___HAPPY___VALENTINE´S___DAY_!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dear Sarah: > ..... > Icaro, I'm not sure how to tell you this..... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes! As a singer I am a complete disaster! --------------------------------------------------------------------- but James's good suggestion > to Andy -- i.e taking refuge in the Triple Gem and showing one's love in > this way -- got my vote. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Someday I will take the three gems and five precepts vows... at a more serious and conspicuous mood. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ... > S: Back to your sensible posts. I liked the suggestion for depression (to > Carl and Andy) to just take a good plunge in the Dhammasangani or to read > the Patthana in Pali ..LOL... --------------------------------------------------------------------- As a matter of fact that is the way I think about it: if you feel depressed or amused by mundane traits, a good reading will do it good... and The Dhammasangani, with its unique style of stating orderly dhammas and states of consciousness are very precious. If you prefer a more intrincate combinatory analysis of Paccayas and Dhammas, The Patthanapali is the best. Or, if you wants a direct and rueful reply to your answer, The Vibhanga or Yamaka FAQ style will fit it. I like reading these works as many as I like read THE UNCANNY X-MEN ! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Your comment about all the effort to `get rid of akusala patterns' is very > sharp. Yes, what is the reason we're so concerned about them and wish to > get rid of them? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I am not proposing a nazi "Final Solution" for akusala patterns and moods. Buddha had teached many methods and ways to get rid of Samsara and reach Nibbana, to recognize and identify Kusala and akusala Dhammas, hetu and ahetu Paccayas and all its doors, roots and aggregates. Since I am more directed to intellectual views, reading about it at the Tipitaka indeed makes me good... I only felt myself urged to say some words to Carl about his problems! ------------------------------------------------------------------- > p.sIcaro, what does it mean to say "Sariputta is the Zen of Angulimala" > (post 30019 - talking about anatta as `one of the main pillars of all > Buddhism". -------------------------------------------------------------------- Reading at the Atthaka XVI, "Sariputta Sutta", we get ( again I will try to quote it by memory...and with a loose translation! Alas!): "What a wonderful person", says Sariputta pointed out to Buddha, "Seems me to me that He came down from the Tushita Heaven!... The Bhagavan could say to us , etc...". This initial passage shows some sarcasm of Sariputta towards Buddha. At other passages with Moggalana we get a suggestion that he was a "Thunderhead" himself. As Angulimala, that was a murder. Traditionally, Buddha never put the Zen at a so high platform... Mahakassyapa was the manager of this particular path of practising. Following up the Anatta line of reasoning on Buddhism exegesis, we get the same non-self process flowing from Angulimala, at a low stand or staircase to Sariputta at a high position of understanding. Since there are not a essence such "Self", "I","You", "She" or "He" from Angulimala to Sariputta but the "Thunderhead" common caracteristic ( a "guna" ?), I say that "Sariputta is the Zen or the mindfulness of Angulimala. Frankly, Mathematics is more simple and clever!!! Mettaya, Icaro 30155 From: icarofranca Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:56am Subject: [dsg] Re:_A___HAPPY___VALENTINE´S___DAY_!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Typo! As > Angulimala, that was a murder. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Angulimala was a murderer... and a Thunderhead himself! mettaya, Icaro 30156 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:36am Subject: The Buddha's Fruit Shop! Friends: In the city of Nibbana, what is the Fruit shop of the Buddha ? These fruits of Nobility have been pointed out by the Buddha: The Fruit of Stream-Entry (sotapatti-phala). The Fruit of Once-Return (sakadagami-phala). The Fruit of Non-Return (anagami-phala). The Fruit of Arahat-ship (arahatta-phala). The Fruit of the Sign-less Liberation (animitta-vimokkha). The Fruit of the Detached Liberation (apanihita-vimokkha). The Fruit of the Void Liberation (sunnata-vimokkha). What is Stream-Entry ? Whosoever eliminates the first three fetters: personality-belief , sceptical doubt & clinging to mere rule & ritual, such one plunges into the Stream leading to Nibbana & is secured from rebirth in the lower worlds, firmly established, destined for full enlightenment within just 7 rebirths at most! What is Once-Return ? Whosoever eliminates the first 3 fetters & furthermore reduces lust & aversion, such one will return only once more; and having once more returned to this world, he will put an end to all suffering. What is Non-Return ? Whosoever eliminates all 5 first fetters, such one reappears in a high divine realm, and there reaches Nibbana, without ever returning from that world to the worlds of sense. What is Arahat-ship? Whosoever eliminates the first 5 lower & all 5 higher fetters: craving for having form, craving for formless existence, the conceit 'I am', restlessness and ignorance, such one, through the extinction of mental fermentation, reaches already in this very life the release of mind, the release through wisdom, which is freed of mental fermentation, and which he himself has understood and realised. What is the Sign-less Liberation? Whosoever with firm determination, considers all formations as Transient (anicca), such a one attains the sign-less liberation. What is the Detached Liberation? Whosoever calmed with tranquillity, considers all formations as Painful (dukkha), such a one attains the detached liberation. What is the Void Liberation? Whosoever seeing with understanding, considers all formations as selfless (anatta), such a one attains the void liberation. Whoever searching for freedom & who pay the price of effort, can choose whatever of the fruit he wants. Happy are those who have bought the Ambrosial Fruit ! This is called the Buddha's fruit shop in the City of Nibbana... All yours in the Dhamma. Constructions Decay & Vanish. Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ 30157 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 5:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Catching Anger Hi Ken O, Spanking your little girl out of anger is unskillful, and you regretted it for doing that. I suggested developing brahmavihara because brahmavihara is skillful. If brahmavihara is well developed, one would not be angry [unskillful mental action] and hit others out of anger [unskillful bodily action]. Meditation practice is like physical exercise. With exercising, one strengthens one's body. With meditating, one purifies one's mind. It does not make too much sense for one to say: "I won't exercise until my body is strong." Likewise, it does not make too much sense to say: "I won't meditate until my mind is pure." Lastly, it is possible to abandon what is unskillful and develop what is skillful. Anguttara Nikaya II.19 Kusala Sutta Skillful Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. For free distribution only. "Abandon what is unskillful, monks. It is possible to abandon what is unskillful. If it were not possible to abandon what is unskillful, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because it is possible to abandon what is unskillful, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' If this abandoning of what is unskillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because this abandoning of what is unskillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' "Develop what is skillful, monks. It is possible to develop what is skillful. If it were not possible to develop what is skillful, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because it is possible to develop what is skillful, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' If this development of what is skillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because this development of what is skillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.'" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an02-019.html Metta, Victor PS. Please address to James directly if you have something to tell him. [1] Anguttara Nikaya VI.13 Nissaraniya Sutta Means of Escape http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an06-013.html --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Victor > > Hmm, I am not waiting for the right conditions to arise bc the > conditions were righted itself to arise, there is no need to me to > wait ;-). By the way, you have not reply my earlier mail ;-). > > Victor, if one can control one's immaterial aggregates, then I will > meditate, if not till then, it will be not be beneficial. > > James said < factors, mula, I think it would be simpler to just say: habit>> And I > forget to tell James that habit is also a root cause (accumulation > and latency[for the three unwholesome roots]), everything must be > done eradicating the root cause. The chinese said, cutting the grass > one must clear the roots, or not winds blows, the grass grows again. > > > > > Ken O 30158 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 5:37am Subject: Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi Sukin, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi James, > In a post to Larry, I mentioned three ways in which the 'self' > manifests, namely via Tanha, Mana and Ditthi. In experience > (subjective of course), there is just wanting, sometimes there is > just the presence of "I" in relation to people and things and to > ideas, sometimes there will be a story about what self can do or not > do. These are OK under most conventional circumstances. However, > when in relation to understanding the Buddha's teachings, when there > is this grasping attitude and an idea that control is possible, and > there is a level of sati, then the natural reaction is that, *it is > wrong*! > Of course there is more often than not, the fact of 'coming out from > a position of knowledge' a preconceived conclusion. However, even > these have been recognized. And at other times, there can be the > recognition that there is wrong view with regard to experience and > one may go further and discover that it is `attachment to self' > which has dictated the particular line of thinking. I'm sorry, I am having a difficult time following your train of thought here. Let me just quote from the Buddha where he said that it is wrong to have the view "There is no self": "As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self ... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self ... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self ... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine -- the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions -- is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of- the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn002.html Metta, James 30159 From: Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack ------------------------- J: > Many feel that vipassana and samadhi were split apart as separate practices much later than when the Buddha taught and was not intended by him. -------------- Well, that would be an important issue to settle. But I think it is clear, from the suttas, that many ariyans attained enlightenment without ever practising jhana. Ken, I make the distinction between samadhi and jhana when I wrote the above. I think that all Aryans who attained enlightenment practiced samadhi but not necessarily the jhanas. -------------- J: > Each arising and passing away of a citta and cetasaika does last only one billionth of a second. but, we can be aware of many arising and passing aways. It is like seeing a movie. We don't see the individual frame but we do see a picture of a horse, car, etc. --------------------------- True, but that's still a conceptual way of knowing, isn't it? The direct way of knowing is the arising of the cetasika, panna to see that whatever arises and passes away is either a nama or a rupa. No that isn't a conceptual way of knowing, at least to me. I have proved it to myself in meditation. We differ on this point. I think I made my view clear. I understand yours and disagree. At this point, I can't think of anything I can add to what I have said below. If I do, I'll post it. Otherwise, be well. Jack All too often, in the place of panna (amoha), there is ignorance (moha). At these times, we are ignorant of the difference between concept and reality. For example, we wonder; 'is visible object like a still-frame image on a movie film? Or is it like a pixel of colour on a TV screen? Or both? Or neither?' We are not blind, we have our eyes open, we are able to read words and avoid bumping into things – so we *know* there must be the eye, visible object, eye contact, eye-consciousness and so on. So, there is not necessarily moha all the time. But when we try to direct our mind to any one of those realities (try to have satipatthana), there is immediately concept (thinking) and ignorance (of the difference between thinking and reality). `Visible object' for example, becomes conceptualised as areas of colour, curved, straight, rounded, pointed, horse-like, car- like and so on. --------------- J: > I think there is a danger in not realizing that the Buddha had many teachings that applied to people at different points of their path. At one point, trying mind is very important. At another point, one relaxes. ---------------- If the Buddha has said that `trying' is not the way to cross the flood, wouldn't it be obstinate and contrary of us to go ahead and try to cross the flood? ----------------- J: > In my opinion, the Buddha did prescribe ritualistic practices, for example, going off into the forest and sitting down by a tree to meditate. ----------------------------- Sorry to be disagreeing so much, but sitting down (for example) is not a ritual that the Buddha prescribed for jhana cultivation. It is an activity that the Buddha described as being part of the jhana practitioner's method. There is a big difference. ---------------------------- J: > But, he made sure that people understood that rituals (and concepts) were worthless unless they pointed to something that would change us. --------------------------- Hmmm, hard to disagree with that :-) Let's remember, though, that rite and ritual are ultimately ineffective. --------------- J: > With all that said, Ken, what is your practice? Do you meditate? --------------- No, I don't have a formal practice. But, little by little, I am learning. So there must be a practice of some sort. ------------------------- J: > Do you try to see in your own experience all that we are talking about? ------------------------ Occasionally, against my better judgement, I `try' to experience reality. On some of these occasions, there is the recognition, "This is not right effort," and I remember that right effort is dependent upon right understanding -- not upon a controlling self. So, perhaps, moments like those are right practice. :-) Kind regards, Ken H 30160 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Catching Anger Hi Victor You still have not answer my question ;-). Hmm dont divert it away. I told you it is possible to be skillful without having trying to do anything special, just by considering the dhamma. Let me quote you "the two kinds of thought sutta" "Dvedhavitakka Sutta" MN 19 11. "Bhikkhus, whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders upon, that will become the inclination of his mind. If he frequently thinks and ponders upon thoughts of renuniciation, he has abandoned the thought of sensual desire to cultivate the thought of renunciation. If he frequently thinks and ponders upon thoughts of non-ill will...upon thoughts of non-cruetly, he has abandon the thought of cruelty to cultivate the thought of non-cruelty, and then his mind inclines to thoughts of non-cruetly" Then again let me quote you another sutta, All the Taints Sutta (sabbasava) MN 2 8" when he attends unwisely in this way, one of six views arises in him. The view 'self exists for me' arises in him as true and established; or the view 'no self exist for me' arise in him as true and established; or the view 'I perceive self with self' arises in him and established; or the view 'I perceive not self with self' arises in him as true and established; or the view 'I perceive self with not-self' arises in him as true and established or else he has some such view as this: "It is this self of mine that speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions; but this self of mine is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity.' So are you perceiving self with not self in meditation. In other words, is there a self that practise a meditation that focus on not self. Think about it and cheers. (dont forget to answer my qn though :-)). Ken O 30161 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Catching Anger Hi Ken O, I think resolving the problem with anger and spanking your little girl out of anger is much more important than looking for answers to speculative questions. I don't consider meditation practice or developing brahmavihara in terms of special or not special. I consider meditation practice and developing brahmavihara is skillful and beneficial. Indeed, thoughts of sensual desires, cruelty, and ill will are to be abandoned. Thoughts on renunciation, non-cruelty, and non-ill will are to be developed. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Victor > > You still have not answer my question ;-). Hmm dont divert it away. > > > I told you it is possible to be skillful without having trying to do > anything special, just by considering the dhamma. Let me quote you > "the two kinds of thought sutta" "Dvedhavitakka Sutta" MN 19 > > 11. "Bhikkhus, whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders > upon, that will become the inclination of his mind. If he frequently > thinks and ponders upon thoughts of renuniciation, he has abandoned > the thought of sensual desire to cultivate the thought of > renunciation. If he frequently thinks and ponders upon thoughts of > non-ill will...upon thoughts of non-cruetly, he has abandon the > thought of cruelty to cultivate the thought of non-cruelty, and then > his mind inclines to thoughts of non-cruetly" > > Then again let me quote you another sutta, All the Taints Sutta > (sabbasava) MN 2 > > 8" when he attends unwisely in this way, one of six views arises in > him. The view 'self exists for me' arises in him as true and > established; or the view 'no self exist for me' arise in him as true > and established; or the view 'I perceive self with self' arises in > him and established; or the view 'I perceive not self with self' > arises in him as true and established; or the view 'I perceive self > with not-self' arises in him as true and established or else he has > some such view as this: "It is this self of mine that speaks and > feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad > actions; but this self of mine is permanent, everlasting, eternal, > not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity.' > > So are you perceiving self with not self in meditation. In other > words, is there a self that practise a meditation that focus on not > self. > > Think about it and cheers. (dont forget to answer my qn though :- )). > > Ken O 30162 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:47am Subject: Re: W?at causes Nibbana ? Dear Bhikkhu Samahita, I am delighted to see the answers you gaive. In your post you stated 'What causes Nibbana?' see this topic. So I had to ask this. Regarding Tipitaka, a member of JourneyToNibbana has answered. Thanks again for your answer and explanation. With respect, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Bhikkhu Samahita" wrote: > Dear Htoo Naing > > >1. Does Nibbana have a cause? > > (Hehehe Htoo is not asleep!) > > Nibbana is uncaused, unconditioned & unconstructed! > Nibbana is ABSENCE of ignorance, lust & aversion. > This 'absence' or 'negation' cannot really be called > A Cause, which would require 'presence' of something. > 30163 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 02 ) Dear Sarah, I like our discussion. The problem is lengthiness. ANyway, I will try. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > H:Arahatta Magga Panna at the moment is the highest now. This Panna is for all who want to get through the samsara. Other higher Panna are the matter of choice. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: Ah, now before we both agreed that all dhammas are anatta, not in anyone's control. Isn't this choice reintroducing an idea of self and control again? Also, as we're laying out the map, let's not be too concerned about the Arahants' panna for now;-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Please see my message in ' Sensing own mind whenever it moves (07 and 08 ).I am not introducing Atta. All beings just going into Nibbana obtain Arahatta Magga. I said for Savaka Bodhi, Pacceka Bodhi, and Sammasambodhi. I was talking about 'their' perfection. When we are talking all are conventional. People frequently mix up Pannatta and Paramattha. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > H: So, I made pushing to concentration. This does not necessarily mean without panna. Panna has to involve all the time. .... S: Why the `pushing to concentration'? I don't follow the logic here. .... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: That is the matter of choice. Actually all are needed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > H: > If not heard through the aid of one of Sammasambuddha, no one will > > develop Arahatta Panna however hard they try. .... S: ..And if they have heard with this aid, are you sure it is the `trying'that will help? Think of the Nava suit about the chickens and eggs or the Ogha sutta (first sutta in SN) about crossing the floods which Ken H has just been referring to: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Do you mean not-trying will help achieving? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: In the same way, when I do my Tai chi or yoga exercise, there is a lot of strong concentration involved, otherwise I'd be forgetting my movements and falling over. However, concentration which is not obviously unwholesome (such as in killing ) does not make it wholesome. Unless there is panna which understands the paramattha dhamma(in development of satipatthana) or which understands the object of samatha and how it conditions the mind to be calm in a wholesome way at that very moment, or is co-arising with dana or sila, it is bound to be unwholesome. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Panna has to arise when conditions condition its arising. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Wise and unwise concentration? Concentration is concentration at a single moment. It does not need to be wise or unwise. Its function is to fix at a point, to fix at a direction. > When concentration become Samma Samadhi, you may say it as wise concentration but still it is concentration. Wise and unwise is function of Pannindriya cetasika. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: This is all true, but there is still a big distinction between wholesome and unwholesome concentration (when arising in the javana). Panna and samadhi condition each other. In the same way lobha and akusala concentration condition each other. So the samma and the akusala concentration have different characteristics to be known. ---------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Different. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Do you mean I am wasting time, time of other people, and creating the wrong journey? The journey has not even started. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: I mean, we'd better make sure we're on the right journey. The wrong journey is one started and followed with an idea of `self' or `trying'. The path has to be right from the start. Others have been discussing `using self to get rid of self'. This is a commonly held idea. However,any moments with the wrong idea of self take us on the wrong track or journey. If progress on the right track is made, it is despite these diversions or U-turns, not because of them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Excellent idea! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Htoo: Please tell me your destination. .... S: Good (and difficult) question! As soon as I have any idea about destination in terms of insights or nibbana, I find it's a condition for attachment. So these days, I just consider the destination as the understanding of the paramattha dhammas arising to be known right now. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Paramattha dhamma cannot be understood fully without enough panna. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Htoo: But have to individualize. Each Arahat goes each. > > Paccatamvedhitabbo Vinnuhi'ti. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: We all have different accumulations (different carita touched on in the Satipatthana sutta), but the Way, the understanding of dhammas as not self is the same for all regardless. *We* don't have to do anything. Namas and rupas are arising and falling all the time and can be known as they appear to panna right now, one at a time. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: '' can be known ?'' by whom? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Htoo: Actually the map has not been spread out. Yes there is no meditator. No one is meditating. All these are in the map itself which will come out finally. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: Let's continue the discussions and spreading out of the map. I also liked Bhikkhu Samahita's comments here (post 30094): Bhikkhu S:>So the `personal entity' we assume, suppose, deduce, expect & believe to enjoy the experience is merely a mental construct, an idea, a concept, & not a reality … The passive impersonal process of sensing, perception & experiencing cannot thereby be `instrumental' for neither creating nor inferring any `being in existence' or "substance in existence" !!! "'I' am not, just because there is experience." "'World' is neither, just because there is experience." " What there IS is momentary Experience. No more is Fact!" The fact of this fundamental `selflessness' "substancelessness" is far the most essential core of the Buddha-Dhamma. Outmost important to grasp yet subtle, counterintuitive & thereby difficult & somewhat `nasty' to comprehend. ***** > Htoo, I look forward to your further helpful comments. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== 30164 From: Michael Beisert Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory Hello Sarah, Sarah: Simply put, as I understand it, unless there is a clear understanding of namas and rupas (aka paramattha dhammas) there cannot and will not be a developed understanding which directly comprehends the conditionality of these same namas and rupas. In fact it is the very emphasis on 'paramattha dhammas' which helps us to distinguish them from concepts and which makes an understanding of anatta possible. It is the conditioned nature of namas and rupas which is taught by the Buddha. Michael: The question here is how does the clear understanding of namas and rupas arise? Since any idea of doing is unacceptable since this entails a self which is clearly non-existent, it is just a mere concept (paññatti), how are the necessary mind qualities to see nama rupas in the proper way originated? How does this 'direct comprehension' take place? Sarah: I think we need to clarify what is meant by 'practice meditation'. I agree that when there is more understanding of paramattha dhammas, of anatta and thereby of conditionality, there will be fewer and fewer conditions for there to be any idea of 'control', 'choice' or a special time and place to 'practice meditation'. 'Practice' will come down to direct knowledge of dhammas at this very moment. Michael: I can understand your reluctance in thinking about meditation practice since this entails someone doing something and this viewed from the perspective of paramatha/paññatti dichotomy is not acceptable. But again the question is how does the understanding and direct knowledge you refer to come about? How are the necessary mind qualities originated for that to happen? Metta Michael 30165 From: Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 5:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 2/16/04 2:59:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, sukinder@k... writes: > As a general comment I would like first to state two things; > > 1. All realities are to be known, and that they can be known only > when they are experienced, which is in the `present' moment. > 2. In reality, there is just this present moment. Any idea of time, > place and `effort' on `self's' part is just mental projection. > ====================== I think that what you say here is true .. yet, in other senses not. It *is* ultimately true, and the Zen folks would concur with that. Ultimately there is nothing that happens, nothing that changes - it is all *now* and it is all objective, impersonal, and "such". That, however, is the "view from nibbana", and we are not "there". From "where we are," though there may only be "now", that "now" is not instantaneous, and during that "now" there may be exercised Right Effort, including guarding the senses, not initiating what is harmful, cutting short whatever harmful state has commenced, initiating what is useful, and prolonging any useful state that has commenced. 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) 30166 From: Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 5:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory HI, Sukin - In a message dated 2/16/04 3:21:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, sukinder@k... writes: > Hi Howard, > > >The content of the two suttas was as follows (hope no odd > symbols): > > > >Sense control > >-> > >Virtue > >-> > >Right concentration > >-> > >Knowledge and vision of things as they really are > >-> > >Revulsion and dispassion > >-> > >Knowledge and vision of liberation. > > > > and > > > >Virtuous ways of conduct > >-> > >Non-remorse > >-> > >Gladness > >-> > >Joy > >-> > >Serenity > >-> > >Happiness > >-> > >Concentration of the mind > >-> > >Knowledge and vision of things as they really are > >-> > >Revulsion and dispassion > >-> > >Knowledge and vision of liberation. > > > >============================== > >With metta, > >Howard > > From what I understand, you are saying that in the two Suttas you > are referring to, the Buddha clearly stated that the first factor > like 'sense control' lead step by step through 'right concentration' > to 'final liberation'. If this is about a gradual training, I would > like to know the exact Sutta (just the names will do). > > Metta, > Sukin. > ============================== They are from the Anguttara Nikaya: The 1st is from the book of sixes, entitled "Step by Step," and the second from the book of tens, entitled "The Benefits of Virtue". (See also "Lawfulness of Progress" in the book of tens.) 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) 30167 From: Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 5:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack In a message dated 2/14/04 7:54:49 PM Central Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: True, but that's still a conceptual way of knowing, isn't it? The direct way of knowing is the arising of the cetasika, panna to see that whatever arises and passes away is either a nama or a rupa. Ken, I have a few minutes at lunch so I will comment more on your post. What does the second sentence above mean to you as applied to your own experience? In my experience, I can experience hardness as my feet rest on the gound. Hardness is an ultimate. If I calm my mind down, knowing this hardness is not a conceptual way of knowing although I might use the concept of hardness to point my attention to the experience. I think anyone can do this. [snip{ If the Buddha has said that `trying' is not the way to cross the flood, wouldn't it be obstinate and contrary of us to go ahead and try to cross the flood? ---------------- I don't understand your thinking. What do you think the 8-Fold Path is about? Doesn't the Buddha suggest we can reduce suffering by trying to not kill sentient beings, to use one example. I bet I can pick up the Majjhima Nikaya volume next to by desk, open it to a sutta at random and find a mention of the Buddha's teaching us to try something. OK. I picked it up at MN2. Among other things this sutta suggests we remove taints by avoiding certain thoughts. To me, this involves trying. I must be missing something. jack 30168 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] bodily intimation, more info Hi Larry, op 16-02-2004 00:18 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > "This means that citta wishes to express a meaning by means of that > rúpa, no matter whether someone else understands it or not. There may > also be rúpas originating from the citta which does not intend to > convey a meaning, when one moves the body naturally while standing, > walking, sitting or lying down. If others think that a meaning is being > conveyed, that is due to their own thinking and does not concern the > rúpa of bodily intimation." > > Regarding "body language", if someone frowns just because they are > unhappy, that is not bodily intimation, but if someone else (an actor, > for example) frowns wishing to convey "I am unhappy", that _is_ bodily > intimation. Correct? N: Someone may be nervous and frown, without the intention to convey a meaning. That is not bodily intimation. Not only an actor, but we all may frown to show disapproval, and have the intention to make this known. That is bodily intimation. We have to consider the citta that originates this change in the primary elements which is bodily intimation. 30169 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: bodily intimation, 1 Hi Larry, op 16-02-2004 00:27 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Nina: "A traffic sign is a concept, it is not one of the 28 rupas, as > listed in > the Dhsg." > When you say a traffic sign is a concept do you mean a traffic sign is a > word, or do you mean a traffic sign is a mental formation (sankhata). N: sankhata means: conditioned. citta, cetasika and rupa are conditioned realities. The word mental formation is usually used as a translation of sankharakkhandha, the khandha of activities or mental formations, including all cetasikas except feeling and remembrance. The word sankhaara dhammas means: all conditioned dhammas, citta, cetasika and rupa. Traffic sign is a word representing an idea or concept, not a dhamma such as citta, cetasika or rupa. Pa~n~natti, concept has two meanings: 1. that which makes known, a term or word. 2. an idea that is object of thinking, but not a paramattha dhamma. L: When I wave "goodbye" with my hand that is also a mental formation. You > won't find "hand" among the 28 rupas either. N: See above for mental formation. Hand is a pa~n~natti, it is not citta, cetasika or rupa. Through which doorway does hand appear? If there were no dhammas there would not be the idea of hand. Through eyes only colour appears, no hand. Through touch tangible object, including three great elements appear as hardness, softness, heat, cold, motion or pressure. Let that hand crumble away, let the traffic light crumble away. Hand is the idea of a whole. In the absolute sense there are only elements appearing one at a time through one doorway at a time. We always should ask ourselves: through what doorway is this or that dhamma experienced? In the development of insight, from the beginning to the end, only one characteristic appears at a time. There are three general characteristics and these are always characteristics *of* a nama or rupa that appears right now. That nama or rupa is the object of direct awareness and understanding. It appears, because it has arisen, and its true nature can be penetrated. Thus, when the characteristic of impermanence or anatta is penetrated by panna, it has to be the impermanence or the anattaness of the citta, cetasika or rupa appearing right now. Not just impermanence or anattaness in general that is contemplated. Nina. P.S. I shall work on your notes, unraffling them, and then answer your question. I have to compare with my Pali text. 30170 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: my father, and the dog's bodily intimation. Dear Andrew, op 16-02-2004 00:53 schreef Andrew op athel60@t...: > I need to keep thinking about all this and testing it in my daily > life. With all this Dhamma stuff, sometimes I think I am at > university level. Next moment, I'm back in kindergarten! N: Very good. I was talking with my Thai friends about this. We all agreed that we need so much perseverance and patience. And we said to each other that we should not become discouraged. My father: As usual we had Sunday dinner with him and played music. Amazing how this brought him back to reality. Straight after the music he said: I retract all my complaints and critizism I had towards both of you. This is quite something for him to say, considering that his memory is becoming weaker. The dog: he came several times to Lodewijk after the music and expressed his appreciation by putting his head on Lodewijk's knee and looking very kindly and intently into his eyes. Bodily intimation of the dog who wished to convey a meaning! Aussie language is very interesting. You use the word bloody more often. Christine made me laugh when she talked Aussie language, although I did not understand it. Nina. 30171 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anger in daily life Hi James, op 15-02-2004 23:10 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > 1.Reflect on a different object which is wholesome > 2.Consider the disadvantages of the thought > 3.Don't pay attention to the thought > 4.Reflect on the removal of the source of the thought > 5.Mentally beat down the thought N: I appreciate this, though I do not follow the link, lack of time as usual. You reflect on your different cittas, also those with anger. And I also appreciate Howard's kusala citta, when he apologized to Victor. It is not James or Howard who reflect, it is understanding and mindfulness. That anger arose in daily life, and you reflect on that daily life anger. You can sit quietly, but it is not necessary to do so. This understanding can develop and form up a condition later on for direct understanding or insight. Also this can arise in daily life. It is not you, but understanding, and do not underestimate its power. We can read about many disciples who developed insight and attained enlightenment in daily life. If we keep on thinking that it is me, we believe: O, I cannot do it, this daily life idea is ridiculous. But no, it is developed pa~n~naa! Nina. 30172 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Catching Anger Hi Ken H, I like your kind of humor, especially the crying over spilt milk part, it gives me a good time. I spill a lot, not to speak about crying. Nina. op 16-02-2004 02:36 schreef kenhowardau op kenhowardau@y...: > I was right; they ARE putting something in the water in South East > Queensland! First, I was obsessing about past mistakes (crying over > spilt milk) then Andrew was moaning on and on about some little > thing he might have said wrong -- now it's happened to you! > > We should head up north! I wonder if Azita would like us at her > place. 30173 From: icarofranca Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:52am Subject: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory Dear Howard > From "where we are," though there may only be "now", that "now" is not > instantaneous, and during that "now" there may be exercised Right Effort, > including guarding the senses, not initiating what is harmful, cutting short > whatever harmful state has commenced, initiating what is useful, and prolonging > any useful state that has commenced. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Uprooted Upasaka! Ditto!!!!!!!!!! One of the characteristics of "Time" is that above mere concepts or predicaments (well, they can be objectively valuable for many people! Anyway, all the sammuit-sacca are the mutual relationships that can be known of knowable objects). And above all Past/Future dichotomy we all must stand in front of the face of present! Mettaya, Ícaro 30174 From: Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: bodily intimation, 1 Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/16/04 1:48:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > We always should ask ourselves: through > what doorway is this or that dhamma experienced? ======================== I think this is very true and very important! I also think that when that practice is done regularly it is *striking* how often the true answer is "the mind door". 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) 30175 From: Htoo Naing Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 11:14am Subject: Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 09 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, ' The meditator ' recognizes at a time that a mind state ( not a mental state ) with undeveloped nature has arisen. ' He ' recognizes this state because there are evidences that this mind state ( not a mental state )arises with acompanying mental factors which are not of a developed mind state. 'He' notes that a mind state with undeveloped nature arises. He knows this because he experiences a well developed mind state. He is continuing his contemplative practice on mind and mind states. There he finds that mind states are not static. They are always changing. No mind state stays more than a moment. Even though he is meditating, mind is not static at breath and nostril but when there is an outside sense impression there has to be a response and apparently a mind state has to arises at that sense door. Practising mindfulness is not that easy as in this writing pieces and words. However hard he tries meditating and focusing, mind does not stay still. At a time there arises old memories as the object of mind and the mind state that arises at that memories may link to other inferior mind states ( Sauttaracittas ). These mind states may go unnoticed. At a time after a while, a mind state with mindfulness arises and knows that there has arisen a mind state with inferior nature. Soon after recognized, these inferior mind states cease to arise. Instead as he is meditating another mind state has to arise as a superior mind state ( Anuttaracitta ). May all beings be able to contemplate on mind and achieve Panna. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htootintnaing@y... JourneyToNibbana@yahoogroups.com 30176 From: icarofranca Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 11:16am Subject: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory Typo! (A lot of work here at the Bureau...) > One of the characteristics of "Time" is that above mere concepts > or predicaments (well, they can be objectively valuable for many > people! Anyway, all the sammuit-sacca are the mutual relationships > that can be known of knowable objects). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The correct could be "One of the characteristics of "Time" is that it is above mere concepts ." Mettaya, Ícaro 30177 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 11:55am Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack Hi Jack, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jackhat1@a... wrote: > In a message dated 2/14/04 7:54:49 PM Central Standard Time, > kenhowardau@y... writes: > True, but that's still a conceptual way of knowing, isn't it? The > direct way of knowing is the arising of the cetasika, panna to see > that whatever arises and passes away is either a nama or a rupa. > Ken, > > I have a few minutes at lunch so I will comment more on your post. What does > the second sentence above mean to you as applied to your own experience? In my > experience, I can experience hardness as my feet rest on the gound. Hardness > is an ultimate. If I calm my mind down, knowing this hardness is not a > conceptual way of knowing although I might use the concept of hardness to point my > attention to the experience. I think anyone can do this. > [snip{ > If the Buddha has said that `trying' is not the way to cross the > flood, wouldn't it be obstinate and contrary of us to go ahead and > try to cross the flood? > > ---------------- > I don't understand your thinking. What do you think the 8-Fold Path is about? > Doesn't the Buddha suggest we can reduce suffering by trying to not kill > sentient beings, to use one example. I bet I can pick up the Majjhima Nikaya > volume next to by desk, open it to a sutta at random and find a mention of the > Buddha's teaching us to try something. OK. I picked it up at MN2. Among other > things this sutta suggests we remove taints by avoiding certain thoughts. To me, > this involves trying. > > I must be missing something. > > jack LOL! I could hardly stop laughing when I read this post! I have been right where you are now. Welcome to the Land of Oz!! ;-)) (BTW, yes I am the 'James' you know of from DL, in a manner of speaking ;-). Metta, James 30178 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 0:13pm Subject: Re: Anger in daily life Hi Nina, Nina: You can sit quietly, but it is not necessary to do so. James: LOL! Meditation isn't just `sitting quietly' like one is waiting for a bus or something. ;-)) It is mental cultivation. There is a lot more going on than how it appears. Don't judge by appearances. Nina: It is not you, but understanding, and do not underestimate its power. James: Also, do not underestimate the power of ignorance. The mind must be tamed to end the round of samsara. Metta, James Ps. Glad to see you back. The story about your father and the dog was very touching. I hope you are all doing well. 30179 From: Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory In a message dated 2/12/04 12:54:47 PM Central Standard Time, icarofranca@y... writes: "Are you saying samadhi and the jhanas are the same?" --------------------------------------------------------------------- There's a mass of confusion on these issues about Jhana and Samadhi. Samadhi (Sam+Adhi) is a state of consciousness that Buddha had put at a minor level besides Jhana(Sanskrit: Dhyana). It seems to me that Buddha decided to build or raise up a path entirely distinctive of the Classical Yoga's, but not so divergent at its basic premisses: mindfulness and precepts. He always stated the loss of time to put such practises on the "Top of the Pops" of mind culture. all, Samadhi as "ordinary" concentration is needed for proficiency in almost all activities. One could not do vipassana meditation without some degree of samadhi. This is quite different than saying all jhana levels must be reached for vipassana. jack 30180 From: icarofranca Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 0:59pm Subject: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory Dear jackhat > Samadhi as "ordinary" concentration is needed for proficiency in almost all > activities. One could not do vipassana meditation without some degree of > samadhi. This is quite different than saying all jhana levels must be reached for > vipassana. --------------------------------------------------------------------- You must keep in mind that Buddha raised up His dispensation at Classical India backgrounds. Such "Technical Terms" as Samadhi, Jhana (Dhyana), Dharana - the Sanskrit word for concentration - Nibbana, etc were understood and put in practice by yogis and ascetic persons since long time. Even with the proviso that such Yogi techniques are inutile at the last end, due the Hindu real ideas about these matters, Buddha used at large such terms giving on new meanings and goals for classical doings and words. At these issues I dare to say that Buddha was a genius! Look at the word "Samadhi", for example. At the Classical Yoga it is the last step on practising, even after Dhyana. But what is Buddha saying about it? That all states of mind are aggregates devoid the idea of "Self",so it lacks sense bear up an idea of "Sam+Adhi" - that implies a "to be with" of the self - as the goal. This station is occupied by the Jhanas, that are that contemplation of ultimate realities beyond a personal viewpoint. Taking the Vipassana as a starting point is more feasible to everyone that wants reach the satipatthana or even the other shore: Nina usually says that even the Jhanas are a bit far from the layperson's competence, due the strong mundane attainments of these days. Keeping a good grip on Vipassana can give you all insights for everyday life you need. This opinion of hers I really sign up! Mettaya, Ícaro 30181 From: Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi, Michael - If I may put in my 2 cents - In a message dated 2/16/04 12:24:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, mbeisert@h... writes: > > Hello Sarah, > Sarah: > > Simply put, as I understand it, unless there is a clear understanding of > namas and rupas (aka paramattha dhammas) there cannot and will not be a > developed understanding which directly comprehends the conditionality of these same > namas and rupas. In fact it is the very emphasis on 'paramattha dhammas' which > helps us to distinguish them from concepts and which makes > > an understanding of anatta possible. It is the conditioned nature of namas > and rupas which is taught by the Buddha. > > > > Michael: > > The question here is how does the clear understanding of namas and rupas > arise? Since any idea of doing is unacceptable since this entails a self which > is clearly non-existent, it is just a mere concept (paññatti), how are the > necessary mind qualities to see nama rupas in the proper way originated? How > does this 'direct comprehension' take place? > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Inasmuch as "things are done" all the time, and insamuch as there is no self to do them (at least as far as I believe, and as believe the Buddha to have taught), no self is required. It is possible for "us" to do things because of volition. --------------------------------------------- > > > > Sarah: > > I think we need to clarify what is meant by 'practice meditation'. I agree > that when there is more understanding of paramattha dhammas, of anatta and > thereby of conditionality, there will be fewer and fewer conditions for there to > be any idea of 'control', 'choice' or a special time and place to 'practice > meditation'. 'Practice' will come down to direct knowledge of dhammas at this > very moment. > > > > Michael: > > I can understand your reluctance in thinking about meditation practice since > this entails someone doing something and this viewed from the perspective of > paramatha/paññatti dichotomy is not acceptable. But again the question is > how does the understanding and direct knowledge you refer to come about? How > are the necessary mind qualities originated for that to happen? > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: As I see it, "things are accomplished" due to intention/volition (together with other conditions), and the bottom line for non-arahants is that intention/volition is normally based in craving. That is where we begin. We start where we are! We find ourselves unhappy and suffering, we hear of the Buddha's teachings to the effect that it is possible for this sorry state of affairs to end, we look into the teaching and the details of practice, and, due to our aversion to suffering (which, itself, is suffering), unless we are truly unwise we try out the program - we give it a shot. With some good results, confidence grows, and along with that, greed (yes, greed!) for more progress, which spurs us to persist. Eventually, with the cultivation of calm, concentration, mindfulness, and some insights, our practicing just becomes "what we do" with less and less goal-orientation, and we gradually come to see that the crux of the matter is not to gain something but to lose something! To let go of our views, our craving to self and things, our desires and aversions - to LET GO. We come eventually to see that there is nothing whatsoever worthy of clinging to - neither presence nor absence, and there results disenchantment, divestment, and freedom. ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Metta > > Michael ========================= 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) 30182 From: Michael Beisert Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory Hello Howard, Tks for your comments. The problem is that volition/doing implies an agent. Now, from the perspective of pannatti that agent cannot really exist, it is only a concept in our deluded minds, and it is not wise to feed such a concept as if it were real, and therefore willing/doing is not advisable. That is how I reconcile the idea of pannatti with willing/doing. Metta Michael ----- Original Message ----- From: upasaka@a... To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 4:09 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi, Michael - If I may put in my 2 cents - In a message dated 2/16/04 12:24:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, mbeisert@h... writes: > > Hello Sarah, > Sarah: > > Simply put, as I understand it, unless there is a clear understanding of > namas and rupas (aka paramattha dhammas) there cannot and will not be a > developed understanding which directly comprehends the conditionality of these same > namas and rupas. In fact it is the very emphasis on 'paramattha dhammas' which > helps us to distinguish them from concepts and which makes > > an understanding of anatta possible. It is the conditioned nature of namas > and rupas which is taught by the Buddha. > > > > Michael: > > The question here is how does the clear understanding of namas and rupas > arise? Since any idea of doing is unacceptable since this entails a self which > is clearly non-existent, it is just a mere concept (paññatti), how are the > necessary mind qualities to see nama rupas in the proper way originated? How > does this 'direct comprehension' take place? > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Inasmuch as "things are done" all the time, and insamuch as there is no self to do them (at least as far as I believe, and as believe the Buddha to have taught), no self is required. It is possible for "us" to do things because of volition. --------------------------------------------- > > > > Sarah: > > I think we need to clarify what is meant by 'practice meditation'. I agree > that when there is more understanding of paramattha dhammas, of anatta and > thereby of conditionality, there will be fewer and fewer conditions for there to > be any idea of 'control', 'choice' or a special time and place to 'practice > meditation'. 'Practice' will come down to direct knowledge of dhammas at this > very moment. > > > > Michael: > > I can understand your reluctance in thinking about meditation practice since > this entails someone doing something and this viewed from the perspective of > paramatha/paññatti dichotomy is not acceptable. But again the question is > how does the understanding and direct knowledge you refer to come about? How > are the necessary mind qualities originated for that to happen? > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: As I see it, "things are accomplished" due to intention/volition (together with other conditions), and the bottom line for non-arahants is that intention/volition is normally based in craving. That is where we begin. We start where we are! We find ourselves unhappy and suffering, we hear of the Buddha's teachings to the effect that it is possible for this sorry state of affairs to end, we look into the teaching and the details of practice, and, due to our aversion to suffering (which, itself, is suffering), unless we are truly unwise we try out the program - we give it a shot. With some good results, confidence grows, and along with that, greed (yes, greed!) for more progress, which spurs us to persist. Eventually, with the cultivation of calm, concentration, mindfulness, and some insights, our practicing just becomes "what we do" with less and less goal-orientation, and we gradually come to see that the crux of the matter is not to gain something but to lose something! To let go of our views, our craving to self and things, our desires and aversions - to LET GO. We come eventually to see that there is nothing whatsoever worthy of clinging to - neither presence nor absence, and there results disenchantment, divestment, and freedom. ------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Metta > > Michael ========================= 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) 30183 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Catching Anger Hi Victor Dont worry about me resolving my aksusala actions. ;-) I dont know why you think my question are speculative, I only know speculative questions are origination of the world, whether Buddha exists or dont exist after Nibbana and a few others. Issue like oneself, this is not I, not me, not myself is also been discuss thoroughly in the suttas, so not speculative. If you do not answer my question, that shows the you still do not understand the principle of anatta. Thats show you do not understand how thoughts are develop or how thoughts are abondoned. If you can control thoughts that are Anatta, please do teach me how to do it. As I said in my earlier sutta quote, "perceive self with not-self" is an unwise view :-). To recap the question. k: So what is oneself then ;-) in your own words please. Another question isn't bodily and verbal actions dependent on form. I am sure bodily actions do, maybe some pple can communicate via ESP so there is no need for verbal actions. Or are your telling me, one can separate bodily actions from form. Ken O 30184 From: Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:51pm Subject: compound and concept Hi Nina, I think we need to clarify the difference between a compound (sankhata) and a concept (pannatti). Here are a few preliminary thoughts. A compound arises and ceases and cannot be any other than it is. A concept is a word and its meaning, doesn't arise or cease (so they say), and is open to interpretation. Reality arises in limitless compounds, groups of a limitless number of factors. For example, there is no such reality as one rupa. "One rupa" is merely a concept. Likewise, concept as object of mind-door processes arises and ceases as object in that limitless compound process. "Traffic light", as a concept, refers to the limitless compound that can be experienced through all 6 sense-doors. A traffic light cannot be any other way than it is, but it can be interpreted in innumerable ways. A traffic light is built (sankhara) and it falls apart. It is a compound (sankhata). This is just preliminary. I think we need to be clear on the difference between an open-ended group reality which cannot be experienced all at once and concept. "Really" there is no "at once". "At once" is merely a concept. Larry ------------------- from P.T.S. Dict: "Sankhata (p. 664) [pp. of sankharoti; Sk. sanskrta] 1. put together, compound; conditioned, produced by a combination of causes, "created," brought about as effect of actions in former births S II.26; III.56; Vin II.284; It 37, 88; J II.38; Nett 14; Dhs 1085; DhsA 47. As nt. that which is produced from a cause, i. e. the sankharas S I.112; A I.83, 152; Nett 22." 30185 From: Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 0:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi, Michael - In a message dated 2/16/04 7:42:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, mbeisert@h... writes: > > Hello Howard, > > Tks for your comments. The problem is that volition/doing implies an agent. > Now, from the perspective of pannatti that agent cannot really exist, it is > only a concept in our deluded minds, and it is not wise to feed such a concept > as if it were real, and therefore willing/doing is not advisable. That is > how I reconcile the idea of pannatti with willing/doing. > > Metta > Michael > ======================== &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The thing is, Michael, that volition just does not imply an agent to me. ('Doing' does, but I use the term 'doing' as mere conventional speech - that is why I wrote "things are done" in quotes. More literally I could have written "willed events occur .") As far as I'm concerned, volition/intention arises - conditioned - no differently than thoughts, feelings, sights, and sounds. It's all impersonal, and not requiring an agent at all, at least as far as I'm concerned. Once one has the experience, even for a little while, of everything going on - sights, sounds, thoughts, emotions, and impulses - all the while without the slightest sense of self or personal identity present, the belief in a real agent/self simply disappears, though the *sense* of an agent/self may return afterwards. This has happened to me (i.e. to "me" ;-). With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream. 30186 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Catching Anger Hi Ken O, There is no need for me to worry about you resolving your unskillful actions since you are the owner of your actions (kamma), heir to your actions, born of your actions, related through your actions, and have your actions as your arbitrator. Whatever you do, for good or for evil, to that will you fall heir. Likewise, I understand that 'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an05-057.html Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Victor > > Dont worry about me resolving my aksusala actions. ;-) > > I dont know why you think my question are speculative, I only know > speculative questions are origination of the world, whether Buddha > exists or dont exist after Nibbana and a few others. Issue like > oneself, this is not I, not me, not myself is also been discuss > thoroughly in the suttas, so not speculative. If you do not answer > my question, that shows the you still do not understand the principle > of anatta. Thats show you do not understand how thoughts are develop > or how thoughts are abondoned. If you can control thoughts that are > Anatta, please do teach me how to do it. As I said in my earlier > sutta quote, "perceive self with not-self" is an unwise view :-). > > To recap the question. > > k: So what is oneself then ;-) in your own words please. Another > question isn't bodily and verbal actions dependent on form. I am > sure bodily actions do, maybe some pple can communicate via ESP so > there is no need for verbal actions. Or are your telling me, one can > separate bodily actions from form. > > > Ken O 30187 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:06pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi Howard, As I see it, you are mistaking what the Buddha taught on the conditioned being not self as the idea "there is no self." And it seems to me that this idea is reinforced with a meditative state that you've experienced in which you feel that sights, sounds, thoughts, emotions, and impulses - are all the while without the slightest sense of self or personal identity present. It seems to me that in that meditative state your perception or consciousness is refined and you identify grosser state of consciousness or perception as sense of agent/self. It seems to me that because you've experienced a finer meditative state, with absense of grosser state of consciousness (or perception), you concluded that there is no self. Whatever meditative state, whatever state of consciousness (or perception), it is not self. It is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: [snip] The thing is, Michael, that volition > just does not imply an agent to me. ('Doing' does, but I use the term 'doing' as > mere conventional speech - that is why I wrote "things are done" in quotes. > More literally I could have written "willed events occur > .") As far as I'm concerned, volition/intention arises - conditioned - no > differently than thoughts, feelings, sights, and sounds. It's all impersonal, and > not requiring an agent at all, at least as far as I'm concerned. Once one has > the experience, even for a little while, of everything going on - sights, > sounds, thoughts, emotions, and impulses - all the while without the slightest > sense of self or personal identity present, the belief in a real agent/self > simply disappears, though the *sense* of an agent/self may return afterwards. This > has happened to me (i.e. to "me" ;-). > > With metta, > Howard 30188 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:30pm Subject: Re: the self... how?/Jack --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Ken H and all, > > Thank you for the reference. > > I couldn't find the discourses: > Kindred Sayings I, I, 190, Vangisa Sutta, Invitation > and > Gradual Sayings, Book of the Fours, Ch IX, § 9, Kinds of Recluses > on internet or in book. > > Anyone knows the link or book title to find them? > Hi Victor, Sorry, I can't help you there. It is a pity that Access-to-insight omits the Abhidhamma as well as any suttas that they can't reconcile with their jhana-centric view of the Dhamma. Even some of the suttas that they do include have very strained translations (as have been discussed on dsg from time to time). I would recommend an understanding of the Dhamma that is consistent with the entire Tipitaka – not with just a selectively abridged version. I suppose you are satisfied with the Ven T's notes on the Susima- sutta (?) Perhaps the arahants' answer, "We are freed by insight," could be explained as meaning "We are freed by insight and jhana," I don't know. I am not qualified to give translations but I would ask; why did the Buddha's explanation, of their answer, explain insight only (not insight and jhana)? Kind regards, Ken H > This is what I found: > > Samyutta Nikaya XII.70 > Susima Sutta > About Susima > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-070.html > > Here is the Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu's note: > > Translator's note: This discourse is sometimes cited as proof that a > meditator can attain Awakening (final gnosis) without having > practiced the jhanas, but a close reading shows that it does not > support this assertion at all. The new arahants mentioned here do > not deny that they have attained any of the four "form" jhanas that > make up the definition of right concentration. Instead, they simply > deny that they have acquired any psychic powers or that they remain > in physical contact with the higher levels of concentration, 30189 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:39pm Subject: Re: the self... how?/Jack Dear KenH, Suan gave a nice transdlation of a relevant section of the atthakattha to the Susima sutta: Section 70, Susima Sutta Va.n.nanaa, Samyuttanikaaya A.t.thakathaa "Api pana tvam, susimaati idam kasmaa aarabhi? Nijjhaa nakaanam sukkhavipassakabhikkhuunam paaka.takara.nattham. Ayañhettha adhippaayo– na kevalam tvameva nijjhaanako sukkhavipassako, etepi bhikkhuu evaruupaayevaati." "Why did the Buddha start this line "Api pana tvam, susimaati"? He did so in order to show the existence of the monks who are Arahants without jhaanas. This is the paraphrase here – `You are not the only Arahant without jhaanas. These monks are also the same as you.' " This has always been accepted in Theravada tradition; however, as time passes there will be less respect for the ancient monks - and so new interpretations will come in. . RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" <> I suppose you are satisfied with the Ven T's notes on the Susima- > sutta (?) Perhaps the arahants' answer, "We are freed by insight," > could be explained as meaning "We are freed by insight and jhana," I > don't know. I am not qualified to give translations but I would > ask; why did the Buddha's explanation, of their answer, explain > insight only (not insight and jhana)? > > Kind regards, > Ken H > > > > This is what I found: > > > > Samyutta Nikaya XII.70 > > Susima Sutta > > About Susima > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-070.html > > > > 30190 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:51pm Subject: Re: the self... how?/Jack Thank you, Robert (and thank you, Suan); this is very helpful. KenH -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Dear KenH, > Suan gave a nice transdlation of a relevant section of the > atthakattha to the Susima sutta: > Section 70, Susima Sutta Va.n.nanaa, Samyuttanikaaya A.t.thakathaa > "Api pana tvam, susimaati idam kasmaa aarabhi? Nijjhaa > nakaanam sukkhavipassakabhikkhuunam paaka.takara.nattham. > Ayañhettha adhippaayo– na kevalam tvameva nijjhaanako > sukkhavipassako, etepi bhikkhuu evaruupaayevaati." > > "Why did the Buddha start this line "Api pana tvam, susimaati"? He > did so in order to show the existence of the monks who are Arahants > without jhaanas. This is the paraphrase here – `You are not the only > Arahant without jhaanas. These monks are also the same as you.' " > > This has always been accepted in Theravada tradition; however, as > time passes there will be less respect for the ancient monks - and > so new interpretations will come in. . > 30191 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:08pm Subject: Susima sutta revisited (was: the self... how?/Jack) Hi KenH & All, --- kenhowardau wrote: > >Thank you, Robert (and thank you, Suan); this is very helpful. .... Also pls see these posts by Jon & Christine on the Susima Sutta with further commentary notes. http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m15331.html http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m15332.html In particular, from B.Bodhi’s transl: "Whether or not you understand, Susima, first comes knowledge of the stability of the Dhamma, afterwards knowledge of Nibbana." (note 212) Note 212 states: Spk: Why is this said? For the purpose of showing the arising of knowledge thus even without concentration. This is meant: "Susima, the path and fruit are not the issue of concentration (samadhinissanda), nor the advantage brought about by concentration (samadhi-anisamsa), nor the outcome of concentration (samadhinipphatti). They are the issue of insight (vipassana), the advantage brought about by insight, the outcome of insight. Therefore, whether you understand or not, first comes knowledge of the stability of the Dhamma, afterwards knowledge of Nibbana. Spk-pt: 'Even without concentration' (vina pi samadhim): even without previously established (concentration) that has acquired the characteristic of serenity (samatha-lakkhanappattam); this is said referring to one who takes the vehicle of insight (vipassanayanika)..." JON's summary of Note 212: "Path knowledge is the outcome of insight (vipassana), not of the concentration that accompanies tranquillity (samatha)." ***** Metta, Sarah ======= > -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Dear KenH, > > Suan gave a nice transdlation of a relevant section of the > > atthakattha to the Susima sutta: > > Section 70, Susima Sutta Va.n.nanaa, Samyuttanikaaya A.t.thakathaa > > "Api pana tvam, susimaati idam kasmaa aarabhi? Nijjhaa > > nakaanam sukkhavipassakabhikkhuunam paaka.takara.nattham. > > Ayañhettha adhippaayo– na kevalam tvameva nijjhaanako > > sukkhavipassako, etepi bhikkhuu evaruupaayevaati." > > > > "Why did the Buddha start this line "Api pana tvam, susimaati"? He > > did so in order to show the existence of the monks who are Arahants > > without jhaanas. This is the paraphrase here – `You are not the > only > > Arahant without jhaanas. These monks are also the same as you.' " > > > > This has always been accepted in Theravada tradition; however, as > > time passes there will be less respect for the ancient monks - and > > so new interpretations will come in. . 30192 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:_Dhammasangani, to Icaro Hi Icaro, op 16-02-2004 13:35 schreef icarofranca op icarofranca@y...: > As a matter of fact that is the way I think about it: if you feel > depressed or amused by mundane traits, a good reading will do it > good... and The Dhammasangani, with its unique style of stating > orderly dhammas and states of consciousness are very precious. N: take the first three words: kusala dhamma, akusala dhamma, avyakata dhamma. All realities are included in here. Avyakata includes: vipaka citta and cetasika and kiriya citta and cetasika, rupa and nibbana. The simplicity is very impressive, and it is so deep. It goes straight to the heart. A bhikkhu said that this is recited very often at ceremonies, but that people do not know the meaning. I am glad that you understand these things and that I can talk to you about this subject. Nina. 30193 From: Eznir Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:15pm Subject: Re: Namarupa - A comment Dear Christine C: My limited understanding is that mental formations (sankhara) are 'nama'. Was the word 'rupa' a mistype? If not, could you explain a little more to me where I am confused about how 'ideas' are rupa please? E: Consciousness & Namarupa are mutually dependent. They are like two sticks leaning on each other for support. Neither can stay without the other.(see DN-15) Nama is defined in the Suttas as Feeling, Perception, Intention, Contact & Attention. Rupa is the 4 great elements and their derivatives(see MN-09). Nama is the appearance of Rupa. While Rupa is the substance of Nama. Namarupa together constitute the experience that is cognized which is ones consciousness of the thing. Ideas by itself is Nama, but consciousness of an idea(aha!) is namarupa. The rupa here is a subtle form of an image associated with the idea. This subtle image is the mind-object that the mind is engaged with when contemplating the idea. Each of the five senses has its own object and so does the mind. C: Also - you say "The two leading contenders of Sankhara are Feelings & Perceptions. Which is why they are termed Mental Fabrications." I don't understand this either………… E: Sankhárá has been translated as formations/fabrications/states/ determinations, in most of the Dhamma books that we read. However, the underlying meaning, one would understand of Sankhárá is that, it is a dependent condition – a thing on which some other thing/s depend on. `A' depends on `B'. `B' depends on `C'. `C' depends on `A'. A,B & C depend on each other. Nothing is permanent. Sabbé sankhárá ánicca (Dh 277) – all dependent things are impermanent. The wall depends on the foundation. The roof on the wall. The house on all of these. Each of these depends on the brick, cement, sand, water etc. So in effect everything depends on each other (paticcasamuppanna). This body is also the same. The body depends on in-and-out breathing. Therefore in-an-out breathing is called bodily-fabrications(káya- sankhárá). Speech depends on thinking and pondering. Therefore thinking and pondering are called verbal-fabrications(vaci-sankhárá). The arising of mind depends on feeling and perception. Therefore feeling and perceptions are called mind-fabrications(citta-sankhárá). (see MN-44) Our whole existence is a fabricated processs and the structure of this fabrication is Dependent Origination(Paticcasamuppada). Metta eznir --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Eznir, and all, 30194 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:30pm Subject: Re: What causes Nibbana ? Ignorance causes Nibbana!!! Samyutta Nikaya XII.23 Upanisa Sutta The causes: The knowledge of Ceasing, has its cause, I tell you. It is not without a cause. And what is the cause for the knowledge of ending? Release, it should be said. Release has its cause, I tell you. It is not without a cause. And what is its cause? Disgust... Disillusion... Knowledge & vision of things as they really develop ... Concentration... Happiness... Tranquility... Satisfaction... Joy... Faith... Pain... Birth... Becoming... Clinging... Craving... Feeling... Contact... The six sense media... Name-&-form... Consciousness... Constructions... Mental Constructions have their cause, I tell you. They are not without a cause. And what is their cause? Ignorance, it should be said... Thus constructions have ignorance as their cause, consciousness has constructions as its cause, name-&-form has consciousness as its cause, the six sense media have name-&-form as their cause, contact has the six sense media as its cause, feeling has contact as its cause, craving has feeling as its cause, clinging has craving as its cause, becoming has clinging as its cause, birth has becoming as its cause, pain & suffering have birth as their cause, faith of conviction has pain & suffering as its cause, joy has faith as its cause, satisfaction has joy as its cause, tranquility has satisfaction as its cause, happiness has tranquility as its cause, concentration has happiness as its cause, knowledge & vision of things as they really become has concentration as its cause, disillusion has knowledge of things as they become as its cause, disgust has disillusion as its cause, release has disgust as its cause, knowledge of ending has release as its cause. Alternatives: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-023.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-023a.html 30195 From: Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 5:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi, Victor - In a message dated 2/16/04 11:06:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > As I see it, you are mistaking what the Buddha taught on the > conditioned being not self as the idea "there is no self." > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I really don't think so, Victor. I think that when the Buddha said "Sabbe dhamma anatta", he was saying that all dhammas are not self. I presume that by "sabbe" he meant exactly that. ----------------------------------------------- And it > > seems to me that this idea is reinforced with a meditative state > that you've experienced in which you feel that sights, sounds, > thoughts, emotions, and impulses - are all the while without the > slightest sense of self or personal identity present. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, actually I wasn't meditating at the time, though I admit that the experience was special. The state was not the usual one, but twas no jhana either. I've had a drop of experience with jhanas, and this was not such a state. ----------------------------------------------- It seems to > > me that in that meditative state your perception or consciousness is > refined and you identify grosser state of consciousness or > perception as sense of agent/self. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know why it should seem to be one thing or another to you. What can you base an opinion on? The experience was interior to "me". All that I know was that there was no sense of self or personal identity whatsoever for one or two hours, and this, in fact, was quite terrifying. Other than that, everything about the state was perfectly normal. ------------------------------------------------- It seems to me that because > > you've experienced a finer meditative state, with absense of grosser > state of consciousness (or perception), you concluded that there is > no self. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's not the way it was, Victor. Now, I don't absolutely rule out that it was some sort of abnormal, dissociative state. Of course it could be that, but I don't think so. It seemed quite normal in every single respect except that there was no "I", no seeming self, no sense of identity (though the knowledge of the name 'Howard' and all other standard knowledge was there). Also the long run consequences of the experience have been quite beneficial. ----------------------------------------------- > > Whatever meditative state, whatever state of consciousness (or > perception), it is not self. It is to be seen as it actually is > with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. > This is not my self." > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: You'll get no argument from me on that! ;-) ----------------------------------------------- > > Metta, > Victor > =============================== With metta, Howard > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > [snip] > The thing is, Michael, that volition > >just does not imply an agent to me. ('Doing' does, but I use the > term 'doing' as > >mere conventional speech - that is why I wrote "things are done" > in quotes. > >More literally I could have written "willed events occur > >.") As far as I'm concerned, volition/intention arises - > conditioned - no > >differently than thoughts, feelings, sights, and sounds. It's all > impersonal, and > >not requiring an agent at all, at least as far as I'm concerned. > Once one has > >the experience, even for a little while, of everything going on - > sights, > >sounds, thoughts, emotions, and impulses - all the while without > the slightest > >sense of self or personal identity present, the belief in a real > agent/self > >simply disappears, though the *sense* of an agent/self may return > afterwards. This > >has happened to me (i.e. to "me" ;-). > > > >With metta, > >Howard > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 30196 From: Sarah Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:13pm Subject: References for Victor (was: the self... how?/Jack) Hi Victor & All, --- yu_zhonghao wrote: V:> I couldn't find the discourses: > Kindred Sayings I, I, 190, Vangisa Sutta, Invitation > and > Gradual Sayings, Book of the Fours, Ch IX, § 9, Kinds of Recluses > on internet or in book. .... S: I can understand the difficulty as different titles are given by the translators and different reference systems are used. You were referring to Nina’s message: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/12371 The first one, titled ‘Vangisa sutta’ in the PTS translation of SN can be found in B.Bodhi’s transl (which I think you have)under Vangisasamyutta 8:7, Pavaara.naa, p286 Nina wrote: >We read in the Kindred Sayings I, I, 190, Vangisa Sutta, Invitation, that with the Buddha were 500 monks who were arahats. The Buddha said to Sariputta: "There is nothing, Sariputta, for which I blame these five hundred Monks, in deed or word. Of these monks, sixty have the threefold knowledge, sixty have sixfold supernormal knowledge, sixty are emancipated in both ways, and then others are emancipated by insight (alone). " Thus we can conclude, the majority, 320, only developed insight.< ***** S: Bodhi transl: “On that occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Saavatthi........with a great Sa’ngha of bhikkhus, with five hundred bhikkhus, all of them arahants....... ....... “”There is no deed, Saariputta, bodily or verbal, of these five hundred bhikkhus that I censure. for of these five hundred bhikkhus, Saariputta, sixty bhikkhus are triple-knowledge bearers, sixty bhikkhus are bearers of the six direct knowledges, sixty bhikkhus are liberated in both ways, while the rest are liberated by wisdom.” [516] B.Bodhi’s notes Note 516: “On the triple knowledge (tevijjaa) and the six direct knowledges (cha.labhi~n~naa), see n.395. Those liberated in both ways (ubhatobhaagavimutta) are arahants who attain arahantship along with mastery over the formless meditative attainments. Those liberated by wisdom (pa~n~naavimutta) are arahants who attain the goal without mastering the formless meditations; for formal definitions see MN1 477, 25-478,1 and 12:70”* Note 395: “The three knowledges implied by “triple-knowledge bearers” (tevijjaa) are: the knowledge of the recollection of past abodes, the divine eye (also called the knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of beings), and the knowledge of the destruction of the taints. Together with spiritual powers (iddhi) and the capacity for reading others’ minds, these make five of the six abhi~n~naas Spk says that the sixth, the divine ear, is also implied.” ***** *paññá-vimutti http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/n_r/pannaa_vimutti.htm “'deliverance through wisdom' (or understanding'), signifies, according to Com. to A.V, 142, the wisdom associated with the fruition of holiness (arahatta-phala). In Pug. 31 and similarly in M. 70, it is said: "A monk may not have reached in his own person the 8 liberations (=jhána, q.v.), but through his wisdom the cankers have come to extinction in him. Such a person is called wisdom-liberated" (paññá-vimutta). - Com. to Pug.: "He may be one of five persons: either a practiser of bare insight (sukkha-vipassako, q.v.), or one who has attained to Holiness after rising from one of the absorptions." See S. XII, 7(). The term is often linked with ceto-vimutti (q.v.), 'deliverance of mind'.” ***** >N: Gradual Sayings, Book of the Fours, Ch IX, § 9, Kinds of Recluses (c): S:I don’t think this is in B.Bodhi’s ‘Numerical Discourses’. Nina’s reference is from the PTS transl of Anguttara Nikaya. >Monks, these four persons are found in the world. What four?....... S:I’ve just found two on line translations at: http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/index.html Here is the full link & quote for one: http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara2/4-catukkanipata/009-macalavaggo-e2.htm 120 The Numerical Sayings [,PEXT ii 89 “The steadfast recluse, the white lotus-like recluse, the blue lotus-like recluse and among recluses the exquisite recluse. Brethren, who is the steadfast recluse ? Brethren, herein a brother has right views, right aim, right speech, right actions, right means of livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right rapture. This indeed, brethren, is the one called the'steadfast recluse. Brethren, who is the white lotus-like recluse ? Brethren, herein a brother has right views and so forth and also right wisdom and right emancipation, but does not dwell experiencing the eight deliverances in the body.' This indeed,. brethren, is the one called the white lotus-like recluse. Brethren, who is the blue lotus-like recluse ? Brethren. 'herein a brother has right views and so forth and indeed dwells experiencing the eight deliverances in the body. This, brethren, is the one called the blue lotus-like recluse. Brethren, who is among recluses the exquisite recluse ? Brethren, herein a brother being oft invited enjoys robes in plenty and so forth. Verily, brethren, if one should rightly describe it, he would call Myself the exquisite recluse among recluses. Of a truth, brethren, these four persons are to be found existing in the world.” ***** Hope this helps!! Metta, Sarah ===== 30197 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Catching Anger Hi Victor But you still have not answer my question. Ken O 30198 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:41pm Subject: Re: Susima sutta revisited (was: the self... how?/Jack) Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi KenH & All, > > --- kenhowardau wrote: > >Thank you, Robert > (and thank you, Suan); this is very helpful. > .... > Also pls see these posts by Jon & Christine on the Susima Sutta with > further commentary notes. > > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m15331.html > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m15332.html > > In particular, from B.Bodhi's transl: > > "Whether or not you understand, Susima, first comes knowledge of the > stability of the Dhamma, afterwards knowledge of Nibbana." (note 212) > > Note 212 states: > Spk: Why is this said? For the purpose of showing the arising of knowledge > thus even without concentration. > This is meant: "Susima, the path and fruit are not the issue of > concentration (samadhinissanda), nor the advantage brought about by > concentration (samadhi-anisamsa), nor the outcome of concentration > (samadhinipphatti). They are the issue of insight (vipassana), the > advantage brought about by insight, the outcome of insight. Therefore, > whether you understand or not, first comes knowledge of the stability of > the Dhamma, afterwards knowledge of Nibbana. > > Spk-pt: 'Even without concentration' (vina pi samadhim): even without > previously established (concentration) that has acquired the > characteristic of serenity (samatha-lakkhanappattam); this is said > referring to one who takes the vehicle of insight > (vipassanayanika)..." > > JON's summary of Note 212: > "Path knowledge is the outcome of insight (vipassana), not of the > concentration that accompanies tranquillity (samatha)." > > ***** > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= I see that you provide a link to a post that Jon wrote to me but don't provide any links to my follow up posts. I believe that you are providing only one side of this issue—naughty, naughty…;-)). Let's look at another commentary note to the Susima sutta which hasn't been quoted yet: "'We understand: Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more of this state of being'207 Note 207: Spk: Those bhikkhus, having received a meditation subject from the Teacher, entered upon the three-month rains residence, and during the rains, striving and struggling, they attained arahantship. At the end of the rains they went to the Teacher and informed him of their attainment. When Susima heard about this he thought: "Final knowledge (anna) must be the supreme standard in this Dispensation, the essential personal transmission of the teacher (paramapamanam sarabhuta acariyamutthi, lit. `teacher's fist'). Let me inquire and find out about it." Therefore he approached those bhikkhus. James: So, the bhikkhus in question may not have achieved any particular jhanas, or supernormal powers as a result of jhanas, prior to insight, but they did meditate and they did strive and struggle. Personally, from my experience, I believe that this means they probably practiced vipassana meditation. The very phrase `strive and struggle' means that they didn't experience any of the bliss states associated with jhana. Vipassana meditation can be quite disturbing and difficult, from my experience. Regardless, it should not be implied that they were just all walking along one day, taking note of namas and rupas, and then achieved enlightenment. They basically went on a three-month meditation retreat prior to achieving enlightenment. Metta, James 30199 From: Sarah Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 0:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 02 ) Dear Htoo, --- htootintnaing wrote: > H:> I like our discussion. The problem is lengthiness. ANyway, I will try. ... S:... and I’ll try to keep it shorter and throw out unnecessary items, now I know you like to travel light.....OK, hand-luggage only here;-) ... ---------------- > Htoo: Please see my message in ' Sensing own mind whenever it moves > (07 and 08 ).I am not introducing Atta. > > All beings just going into Nibbana obtain Arahatta Magga. I said for > Savaka Bodhi, Pacceka Bodhi, and Sammasambodhi. I was talking > about 'their' perfection. When we are talking all are conventional. > People frequently mix up Pannatta and Paramattha. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: Good - sometimes we need to clarify that we are just discussing cittas and cetasikas;-) ..... > S: Why the `pushing to concentration'? I don't follow the > logic here. > .... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: That is the matter of choice. Actually all are needed. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: This is when it starts sounding like ‘atta’, when there is a suggestion of ‘pushing’ or ‘choice’. What dhamma is this ‘choice’? ..... > S: ..And if they have heard with this aid, are you sure it is > the `trying'that will help? Think of the Nava suta about the > chickens > and eggs or the Ogha sutta (first sutta in SN) about crossing the > floods which Ken H has just been referring to: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Do you mean not-trying will help achieving? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: I mean, only the right conditions will bring the right results. Is this ‘trying’ or ‘pushing’ one of them? If so which? Doesn’t is suggest an ‘atta’? ..... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Panna has to arise when conditions condition its arising. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: Exactly. So what are the conditions for its arising? (I’m about to write more on what I read and understand to Michael too). > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >S..... If progress on the right track is made, it is > despite these diversions or U-turns, not because of them. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Excellent idea! > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: So we both agree it must be the right track without any idea of self from the outset. Good;-) .... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Paramattha dhamma cannot be understood fully without enough > panna. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: Well said. Again we come back to the conditions for panna to develop and the importance of understanding paramattha dhamma. I know from your other series and our discussions on ayatanas etc that we fully agree on the latter, so the landmarks on the map are clearly identified;-) .... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > S: ...Namas and rupas are arising and falling all the time and > can be known as they appear to panna right now, one at a time. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: '' can be known ?'' by whom? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: No ‘by whom’. By panna as leader with the support of its co-arising ministers such as sati, samadhi, viriya etc. I think we’re making progress in laying out the map. The landmarks, steps and route are pretty much agreed. We just need to discuss and agree on the conditions for panna to develop so that it can start to make progress and get to know all those paramattha dhammas along the way. Definitely we both agree that any ‘atta’ must be thrown out of the bags at the outset;-)This journey together seems like fun. What do you think? Metta, Sarah ======