30200 From: Sarah Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 0:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Susima sutta revisited (was: the self... how?/Jack) Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > 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…;-)). .... LOL. Actually, I'm trying to stay out of this thread but just add useful info;-) ;-) Jon's message was addressed to Chris and Swee Boon here: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m15332.html I didn't even see yours or remember you'd added to the discussion when I looked. Thank you for repeating your extra commentary note and helpful comments below. I hope KenH, Victor and Jack discuss the meaning of 'vipassana meditation' too. I particularly like this comment: J:>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. Metta, Sarah p.s Enjoying your discussions with Sukin... ===== > 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 30201 From: Sarah Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 1:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi Michael,(p.s to Icaro and Portuguese speakers) Your comments and questions here are very important ones and get to the real roots;-): --- Michael Beisert wrote: > 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? .... S: Excellent! As others like Sukin have been stressing: pariyatti, patipatti, pativedha. In other words, clear and correct theoretical right understanding => direct right understanding => realization. This is why it is essential to intellectually understand what namas and rupas are, to hear and comprehend at this level that there is no self (for which we need the Buddha’s teachings) and to know pa~n~natti as mere pannatti as you say. Otherwise, as KenH is stressing, there will be an idea of awareness of ‘the ground’ or a concept of hardness or walking, rather than any direct awareness of namas and rupas. Let me take an easy way and quote sutta extracts from another of Jon’s posts [hope James doesn’t tell me I’m being naughty and one-sided again;-)]: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m15353.html Jon>Here are a couple of sutta references: Conditions necessary for the development of insight: AN IV, 246 (Trans: NDB 91) The Growth of Wisdom "These four things, O monks, are conducive to the growth of wisdom. What four? Association with superior persons, hearing the good Dhamma, proper attention and practice in accordance with the Dhamma. These four things are conducive to the growth of wisdom." Conditions necessary for the attainment of enlightenment: SN LV, 5 Sotapattisamyutta (Trans: CDB 55.05) "Bhikkhus, these four things, when developed and cultivated, lead to the realization of the fruit of stream-entry. What four? Association with superior persons, hearing the true Dhamma, careful attention, practice in accordance with the Dhamma. These four things, when developed and cultivated, lead to the realization of the fruit of stream-entry."< ***** > 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? .... Your comments and the questions are good ones. Thankyou. Let’s put it this way. Before we heard about the Buddha’s teachings (directly or indirectly) there was no consideration about anatta or about dhammas. We started to read suttas and various books and consider these questions more carefully. Then by reading and discussing on DSG or elsewhere more about what namas and rupas are, how they are distinct from pannatti and so on, the intellectual understanding began to grow and with it an intellectual understanding of anatta, conditions, the khandhas and so on. Of course, we’re all very much at kindergarden level here as Nina and I always joke together or as Htoo and I are discussing, the map isn’t even laid out yet. Still, this intellectual right understanding becomes more and more firmly established and is less and less likely to be swayed by other arguments. Slowly it becomes a foundation for occasional moments of sati to arise and directly be aware of a nama or a rupa (no selection, no choice of object)and this in turn is a condition for more panna to develop which begins to directly understand namas and rupas. It develops naturally and gradually by itself with the right indgredients in place like a spiral (thanks RobK) of intellectual and direct understanding. Of course there is lots and lots of forgetfulness and akusala in between. Gradually, however, there are fewer conditions for wrong view to arise which takes any progress or practice for self or which has any idea about ‘choice’ or pannatti being real or conditioned. Michael, I’d be most grateful to hear any further comments or questions on these aspects. I appreciate your ‘no stone uncovered’ approach. Metta, Sarah p.s Icaro, here is Michael’s website if you didn’t find it and ever wish to read some dhamma in your native (far more poetic)language: http://www.acessoaoinsight.net/ (revised on 14th February, 2004 - another good Valentine message example for you;-)) Evitar todo o mal, cultivar o bem, purificar a própria mente: esse é o ensinamento do Buda Dhp 183. ====== 30202 From: Sarah Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 1:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Catching Anger Hi Philip, It’s good to hear from you again...pls keep contributing your comments and questions. --- Philip wrote: > > I see sudden outbursts of anger as the greatest danger on the path. .... That’s interesting. On the other hand, as Larry hinted, it is attachment(lobha) which is given as the cause of suffering. Without attachment, would there be any outbursts of anger? In particular, I tend to see ‘wrong view’ as the greatest danger. .... > 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. .... I’m very glad to read this. The reason I mentioned wrong view is because while we take self and people to exist, while we justify anger or cling to an idea that the causes are ‘external’ in some way, the tenacious roots remain in spite of any lulls or temporary reprieves. Of course, even when all wrong views have been eradicated (by sotapanna), dosa (aversion) continues to arise whilst there is still clinging to sensory objects, but at least the cause of suffering is understood and it’s just a matter of time before all defilements are eradicated by this stage. .... > 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 agree with these comments with the possible exception of any idea of ‘directing’ attachment 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? ..... The reason I question this is because it suggests that ‘we’ can direct anything and that there can be a skillful direction for anger or greed which is very questionable I think. Perhaps you’d care to elaborate further. Metta, Sarah p.s How did you get on with your reading on Paramis (Perfections)? ====== 30203 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 2:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 02 ) Hi Sarah, Sarah: 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'? James: Sarah, could you please explain in detail, in your own words, why `trying', or `striving', or `effort' suggests an `atta', a self? Just as `smoke' would suggest a `fire', and one can be linked to the other, please explain why `trying' would suggest a self and how they are linked. I would like your own words as explanation since this is obviously an idea that you have. I ask this because it is difficult to hold intelligent discussions about anything unless we are familiar with the concepts that we are each using. Metta, James 30204 From: Sarah Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 2:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:_Dhammasangani, to Icaro Dear Nina & Icaro, --- nina van gorkom wrote: I: > > 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. ... S: This is followed by the following words to show that all states are accompanied by pleasant, unpleasant or neutral feeling. (hope I’ve changed the symbols correctly??) “2. sukhaya vedanaya sampayutta dhamma. dukkhaya vedanaya sampayutta dhamma. adukkhamasukhaya vedanaya sampayutta dhamma.” ***** There have been discussions about ‘cutting the chain at feeling’ and so on, but we learn that feeling arises with every citta in all planes of existence, including in the cases of the Buddha and arahants. We pay so much attention to pleasant feelings, not realizing that the attachment and seeking of these feelings only leads to unpleasant feelings;-). Nina, it’s super to have you back on line. Thank you for all the excellent detail on bodily and verbal intimation (and Larry for your prompts and Vism extracts). Fascinating: “It is the only rupa lasting for just one moment of citta.” So very subtle and so very different from our ideas of what it is - a story about intimation or a traffic signal;-);-) Metta, Sarah p.s I look forward to your report on the discussions in Thailand. Also enjoy your reports on ‘Pa’ - “Still he and me, and it can condition dosa”;-) ====================================== 30205 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 2:37am Subject: [dsg] Re: Susima sutta revisited (was: the self... how?/Jack) Hi Sarah, Sarah: LOL. Actually, I'm trying to stay out of this thread but just add useful info;-) ;-) James: hehehe…well, sorry to tell you this, but if you add useful info you are automatically in the thread. ;-)) Sarah: Jon's message was addressed to Chris and Swee Boon here: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m15332.html I didn't even see yours or remember you'd added to the discussion when I looked. James: Hmmm…maybe I am going crazy?? ;-)) No, actually you provided two links in post 30191. I was referring to the first link where Jon is writing to me. Maybe you should check again. Sarah: Thank you for repeating your extra commentary note and helpful comments below… I particularly like this comment:… Enjoying your discussions with Sukin... James: Well, aren't you just full of compliments! ;-) Don't lather on too many; I might just get a big head! LOL! Metta, James 30206 From: icarofranca Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 2:44am Subject: [dsg] Re:_Dhammasangani, to Icaro -Dear Nina: > 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Many years ago, when I was reading the files of an obscure Australian FTP Server ( that's no more online), I read by the first time the initial Chapters of Dhammasangani, translated in an English worse than mine! WOW! That was the answer I was belonging for! It was almost so thrilling as my first reading text on English: The immortal Claremont/Byrne "Elegy" (THE UNCANNY X-MEN #100). At that occasion, armed only with an English-Portuguese dictionary I begun my journey towards English Language. And now I had got in my hands the ultimate Buddhistic doctrine! I picked up all other Abhidhamma texts on that old FTP server - resumes and textnotes of Dhammasangani,The Vibhanga and others ( curiously ended at the Puggala) and begin eagerly reading them all. The Dhammasangani is being untill now my favourite reading (besides X-MEN, of course!), due its concise and sure remarks on true Buddhistic Doctrine. So Avyakatta includes the Vipaka Citta, Cetasika, Kiriya, Rupa and Nibbana! This is suggested at the last stanzas of the Potthaka, about what are the hetu and ahetu ultimate Dhammas! Avyakatta Dhammas then point towards directly to ultimate realities! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks Nina! You are THE BEST! Chris Claremont was my initiator on English language...and I never learnt the name of that FTP Server's webmaster!!! Mettaya, Ícaro 30207 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 2:48am Subject: Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi James, James: > I'm sorry, I am having a difficult time following your train of > thought here. Sukin: Sorry about that. Hope I can at least give the excuse that I was very tired all day yesterday, for lack of sleep the night before that. Anyway I was trying to express my subjective experiences with the main intention to show you that I believe many of us here, have come to the conclusion we have not by virtue of theory alone, but also because of experience. How do I know that? Because the way they describe their experiences, is what I have seen too. Actually I don't like to talk about my experience, for the reason that I know that it is mostly on the `thinking' level only. The inferences and deductions could well be `self-serving'. There is therefore always some lingering doubt, though I may express myself quite assertively. The doubt however concerns the depth of understanding and not so much about the rightness/wrongness of my position. Surely when I face contrary views which don't click, I can't help but dismiss them. This doesn't mean that there is little of value stated. After all the difference basically involves only the idea of `practice', so other things must be useful. :-) Besides the tendency to `form' and `cling' to positions is indeed very strong, so even those I don't agree with can and do give a wake-up signal. ;-) Moreover, the diversity of views expressed is what makes the list interesting, isn't it? For this reason, your Sutta reference below is most appreciated. James: 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 Sukin: James, I almost never hear myself saying, "There is no self". Believe it or not, I find myself treating experiences as "not-self" as you are always suggesting [btw I loved your `M.M.O.B story ;-)]. However I see this position to not be in one of the six positions stated in the Sutta. In the Sutta it seems (I admit to having only a vague understanding and feeling unsure) the problem is the `self- reference' related to the different views, while "There is no self" could be just a philosophical position which works in the background guiding one's experience. How an individual is influenced by such a philosophical position depends on his understanding of the Buddha's teachings as a whole. "All Dhammas are Not-self" is also a philosophical position isn't it, at least while one is still ignorant of those `dhammas'? I think it is important to carefully study the words of the Teachings in order not to infer the wrong meaning. But once the meaning has been understood, I think it more important to apply that understanding in daily life. Meanwhile we continue to study more and more, and be concerned with `understanding' better. There may be occasions when one has to state a position to counter other positions, but this does not mean that it becomes a `thicket of views'. On the other hand, someone may be so particular about every phrasing, yet he is oblivious to the background noise which is his wrong view of reality. I have to admit though, that attachment and ignorance is so pervasive, and there is a Thai saying, "An axe cuts everything else but itself". So it is easy for me to talk about the possible fault of others, but I can't see my own. That is why it is good to be here. >Metta, James Metta, Sukin. 30208 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 2:49am Subject: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi Howard, > > 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. =========================== For the enlightened or for us what does the job of `understanding' is panna. It is panna with other kusala cetasikas which leads to `guarding the senses' and so on, not akusala. In principle we all appreciate the value of kusala and see the danger of akusala, but this does not mean that sati and panna will always be there to do the function of guarding the senses. Our accumulated ignorance and wrong view is so great that we either catch a reality when it has long fallen away, or we misunderstand it totally. Our practice is so influenced by our own very vague ideas of what is going on. Sati is not-self and so is effort. And the Right Effort must be with Sati, no? And when sati does arise, there already is guarding of the senses. Is there any need to do more? Can anyone do anything ?! > With metta, > Howard Metta, Sukin Ps: I haven't had the time to look up your Suttas yet. Having difficulty just keeping up with the postings here. 30209 From: Sarah Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Susima sutta revisited (was: the self... how?/Jack) Hi James (Victor & All), --- buddhatrue wrote: > James: hehehe…well, sorry to tell you this, but if you add useful > info you are automatically in the thread. ;-)) .... S: So I see.... .... > James: Hmmm…maybe I am going crazy?? ;-)) No, actually you provided > two links in post 30191. I was referring to the first link where Jon > is writing to me. Maybe you should check again. .... S: My mistake. Note: I am sometimes wrong;-) I thought I had given these links and avoided your name, LOL;-) http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m15272.html http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m15332.html (Was rushing then and still am. Jon wrote two messages on the same day under the same thread. One of these is Christine's -- I hope -- as intended). .... > James: Well, aren't you just full of compliments! ;-) Don't lather on > too many; I might just get a big head! LOL! .... Oh, just enjoy the lull before the storm;-) Metta, Sarah p.s I like your Qu in another post- will get back later. =================================== 30210 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 6:59am Subject: Re: References for Victor (was: the self... how?/Jack) Hi Sarah, Thank you for the info. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > 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 > [snip] 30211 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 7:28am Subject: Re: the self... how?/Jack Hi Ken H, It is OK, Ken. Thank you for providing the reference anyway. Did you read the discourse Anguttara Nikaya IX.44 Paññavimutti Sutta Released Through Discernment ? Let me quote the discourse as follows: [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." What do you think: To what extent is one described by the Blessed One as released through discernment? Let me know how you understand it. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > --- 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, 30212 From: Eznir Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 7:37am Subject: Re: Catching Anger Dear Christine, C: Wouldn't any new kamma formation already be created during the 'flare-up' of initial emotion. Intention is Action, said Lord Buddha. If one is crafty, thinks about cheating people always, and when the opportunity arises, he cheats. A normal honest person cannot even imagine as to how he escaped all those surveillance cameras when he is shop-lifting, say. This is an unwholesome act. This same principle works for wholesome acts too. Say, when a person takes the 5-precepts thrice every day, morning, evening and night just before he goes to sleep. If he sincerely continues this practice for some days without a break, one would find that a gradual change of attitude is beginning to occur in him. Earlier, he wouldn't think twice before killing a mosquito. The moment it bites him, the action is reflexive and the insect is dead. But now, there is a reminder to him that he is `under oath'(to himself), and he just blows the insect away! Thereafter, blowing the insect when bitten, becomes a reflexive action! And so with the other items in the precept. Even a `white lie' is mindfully avoided with wisdom! The important thing here is the reminder. This is mindfulness in the making! One is left with the option of either killing the insect or not, either lying or not, either stealing or not before the action takes effect. One is in control of ones actions outwardly. This virtue, backed with daily meditation of at least an hour is even more effective, because then the attitudinal changes begin to occur in the mind. Bodily pain is the first hurdle one overcomes. In a mundane sense, ones threshold to bear pain increases. One observes the emotions of ones likes and dislikes to ones bodily feelings with detachment. This helps one to cope with unpleasant situations in ones normal day to day living. So much so that one begins to stay aloof with wisdom. C: But why is there no awareness earlier, at the very time things are occuring? E: As you said, your mind was preoccupied with the remark made by somebody which triggered the thought of prejudiced views towards the other group which triggered the anger that overcame you which triggered you to...... and so on and so forth our minds go mentally proliferating thoughts which culminated in verbal action in this case! Fortunately not in "………wrong speech - though the tone and cadence were evidence of irritation, as was body posture". So there was bodily intimidation also in addition to verbal action! In this way, reflect on the Dhamma vis-à-vis our day to day events, during quiet moments or when you go to sleep, and make a determination that the next time when similar incidents occur the outcome would be "the wish that I had been equanimous, that it would have been kinder to say nothing" as you put it, eh! In fact one can observe this mental proliferation thing happening in ones mind, mostly when ones meditation is not successful. These are the hindrances that Lord Buddha talks of in the Satipattana Sutta under "observation of the mental contents of the mind". See how impermanent the "Tenseness was evident, the atmosphere could have been cut with a knife" situation was. Because "Within ten minutes or so, amends were made, hugs all round, casual chatting re- started". Likewise, every moment we face are dependent on various conditions and so is our body. "The worlds a stage, we are merely actors playing a part in it"(Forgive me Mr. Shakespeare if the wordings are wrong but the idea is there, I suppose!) Metta eznir --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, 30213 From: Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 2:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack all I think Ken challenged my statement that many believe samadhi and vipassana are not separate in the Buddha's teachings but split out by later commentaries. Here is a good article on this by Thanissari /Bhikkhu. Many people tell us that the Buddha taught two different types of meditation -- mindfulness meditation and concentration meditation. Mindfulness meditation, they say, is the direct path, while concentration practice is the scenic route that you take at your own risk because it's very easy to get caught there and you may never get out. But when you actually look at what the Buddha taught, he never separates these two practices. They are both parts of a single whole. Every time he explains mindfulness and its place in the path, he makes it clear that the purpose of mindfulness practice is to lead the mind into a state of Right Concentration -- to get the mind to settle down and to find a place where it can really feel stable, at home, where it can look at things steadily and see them for what they are. Part of the "two practices" issue centers on how we understand the word jhana, which is a synonym for Right Concentration. Many of us have heard that jhana is a very intense trance-like state that requires intense staring and shutting out the rest of the world. It sounds nothing like mindfulness at all. But if you look in the Canon where the Buddha describes jhana, that's not the kind of state he's talking about. To be in jhana is to be absorbed, very pleasurably, in the sense of the whole body altogether. A very broad sense of awareness fills the entire body. One of the images the Buddha used to describe this state is that of a person kneading water into dough so that the water permeates throughout the flour. Another is a lake in which a cool spring comes welling up and suffuses the entire lake. Now, when you're with the body as a whole, you're very much in the present moment. You're right there all the time. As the Buddha says, the fourth jhana -- in which the body is filled with bright awareness -- is the point where mindfulness and equanimity become pure. So there should be no problem in combining mindfulness practice with the whole-body awareness that gets very settled and still. In fact, the Buddha himself combines them in his description of the first four steps of breath meditation: (1) being aware of long breathing, (2) being aware of short breathing, (3) being aware of the whole body as you breathe in and breathe out, and then (4) calming the sensation of the breath within the body. This, as the texts tell us, is basic mindfulness practice. It's also a basic concentration practice. You're getting into the first jhana -- Right Concentration -- right there, at the same time that you're practicing Right Mindfulness. The whole article is found at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/concmind.html jack 30214 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 02 ) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: S: Good - sometimes we need to clarify that we are just discussing cittasand cetasikas;-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Not exactly. I am talking how to get through the samsara. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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'? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Please ride on words and do not look at words. Hermit Sumedho made a choice to become a Sammasambuddha. He as a hermit at that time had enough perfection to get through the samsara. Here are many atta. Hermit atta. Sumedho atta. choice atta. and endless 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). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: 'conditions' ? I think many atta will follow behind the explanation of conditions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: So we both agree it must be the right track without any idea of self from the outset. Good;-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: There is no Htoo Naing, there is no Sarah, there is no DSG. There is no one discussing. There is no one responding. There is no 'we'. As soon as idea of self is lost then ... clear? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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;-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I am just collecting materials, tools, equipment and other things that might be needed during the journey. I have not even drawn out the map from the drawer. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I already know the answer you will reply in advance. You are coming in and going out of the boundries. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: 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;-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: As soon as you have thrown it away, then ... clear? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: This journey together seems like fun. What do you think? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I am not thinking but I am seeing 'Atta'. Atta of fun. :-)) Be happy all the time. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Metta, Sarah ====== 30215 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 02 ) Dear James and Sarah, James. You see the point. So I said please ride on words and do not look at words. I will be looking forward to Sarah's reply to this matter. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: I would like your own words as explanation since this is obviously an idea that you have. >I ask this because it is difficult to hold intelligent discussions about anything unless we are familiar with the concepts that we are each using. Metta, James 30216 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:26am Subject: Computer Problems Hi All, There is a mechanical problem with my laptop at the electrical connection. They say that it will take a few days to a week to be fixed. During that time I will have limited access to the Internet so I won't be able to participate in discussions. I will try to catch up later. Metta, James 30217 From: Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 4:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 2/17/04 5:50:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, sukinder@k... writes: > And when sati does arise, there already is guarding of the > senses. Is there any need to do more? Can anyone do anything ?! > ======================== There is certainly no "one" to do anything, but volition arises and has effect. As to whether there is need to do more, the Buddha said there is. In guarding the senses, not only is one to be mindful, which, of course, is a sine qua non, but also cut short harmful states, and initiate and encourage useful ones - all calling for exercise of volition (but not by any "one"). There must be the original intention to be mindful (watchful) and to act quickly and subtly in infuencing what transpires mentally. The mental flow can be influenced. Were that impossible, the Buddha would not have urged his followers accordingly. Not infrequently, the Buddha said that various things were possible to be accomplished, and were they not he would not have urged his followers to attempt them. One only need read the suttas, not just a chosen few that seem to support preconceived positions, to see this. (This, BTW, is something we all do - pick and choose among the suttas to reinforce our own positions. In 45 years of teaching, to a variety of listeners with a variety of needs, the Buddha left a legacy of teachings in which one can find almost anything one hopes to find, and it is important, I think, to make the effort - yes, actually make the effort! ;-)) - to avoid being overly selective, but to see the full breadth of the vast river of teaching and all its substreams.) 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) 30218 From: Michael Beisert Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 9:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory Hello Sarah, Tks for your reply. Very clear. Maybe you can expand a little bit on one thing you said. Sarah: This intellectual right understanding becomes more and more firmly established and is less and less likely to be swayed by other arguments. Slowly it becomes a foundation for occasional moments of sati to arise and directly be aware of a nama or a rupa (no selection, no choice of object)and this in turn is a condition for more panna to develop which begins to directly understand namas and rupas. It develops naturally and gradually by itself with the right indgredients in place like a spiral (thanks RobK) of intellectual and direct understanding. Michael: I can relate to your description and I like the idea of a spiral. But the key passage here is "the intellectual right understanding slowly becomes a foundation for sati". Why slowly? And what makes the intellectual understanding evolve into sati? How is that feat achieved? What are the 'right ingredients' you refer to? And again how to avoid the trap of a self doing something while there is no self at all, it is just a mere concept of fantasy. Metta Michael 30219 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi Howard, what strange language is this? Nina. op 17-02-2004 02:15 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 30220 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] compound and concept Hi Larry, op 17-02-2004 01:51 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > 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. N: sankhata: it is sometimes translated as compounded, constructed. As I see it, it means: what has arisen because of conditions. Citta, cetasika and rupa are sankhara dhammas and also sankhata dhammas. These meanings are very close. Sankhata : it has arisen already and thus it has to fall away. Each rupa is a dhamma, a reality. Of course, it never arises alone. But we can consider one rupa and study its characteristic, function, etc. Rupa is rupa, never a concept. L: Likewise, concept as object of mind-door processes > arises and ceases as object in that limitless compound process. N: As you also just said: concept does not arise or cease, it is not a reality, only an object of thought. People think that it arises and falls, but, it is the thinking itself, a citta that arises and falls. That makes them believe that the object of thinking also arises and falls. L: "Traffic light", as a concept, refers to the limitless compound that can > be experienced through all 6 sense-doors. N: Does Traffic light impinge on eyesense? Does it impinge on the bodysense? On the nose? On the tongue? Only colour is experienced through eyes, not the traffic light. L: 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). N:Let us go back to the dictionary: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. This is said only of nama and rupa.< conditioned, produced by a combination of > causes>. Thus, we have the eight inseparable rupas which always arise together. They can be produced by kamma, citta, temperature pr nutrition. Citta and cetasikas arise together and they condition each other by way of manifold conditions. The dict refers to S II, 26. In this sutta the Dependent Origination is explained. The word sankhata is used, translated as conditioned. Of all the factors of the Dependent Origination it is said: anicca.m sa"nkhata.m, paticcasamupa.n.na.m (arisen causally) khayadhamma.m (is by nature withering away) vayadhamma.m (passing away) viraagadhamma.m (fading away) nirodhadhamma.m (coming to an end). This concerns paramattha dhammas, even where the words birth and death are used. Touch the traffic light, touch the table. What appears: hardness, a rupadhamma. Realities do not change, no matter how we call them. Hardness is hardness, no matter it is hardness of a table or of a traffic light. Seeing is seeing, no matter a human sees or a dog sees. No thinking, no words are needed in order to experience reality directly. Do you have to think, this is hard? Do you have to think, this is sound? Through the earsense just sound is experienced, and at the moment of hearing there is no defining yet what sound it is. Sankharadhammas and sankhata dhammas do not have an owner, they cannot be controlled, they proceed according to their own conditions. This subject is difficult and we are bound to have doubts so long as sati sampaja~n~na does not directly know and experience one nama at a time and one rupa at a time. Only then it will be clear what a concept is, and what a reality. As James said, we should not underestimate the power of ignorance. Spot on! Ignorance of what? Of paramattha dhammas. I exchanged views with my Thai friends and we all found it difficult to know when there is thinking and when direct awareness. Nama and rupa are realities, but, so long as we are only thinking about them, we think of the concepts of nama and rupa, the words or terms. A word can represent a reality or an illusion, that which is not real. The characteristics of nama and rupa are not yet directly known. This is very common and not surprising. I can only try to give some basic explanation of the difference between reality and concept, only on the theoretical or conceptual level. Please, help me with your questions to explain this subject better. It is a basic subject. I like what Sukin wrote to James: <...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.> Howard, you wrote: what doorway is this or that dhamma experienced? ======================== H: 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". N: I used to believe that when I was thinking, I knew that this was through the mind-door, that I understood what the mind-door was. Now I know that this is not true. It seems to me that I can see and hear at the same time, but I know that this is wrong. Seeing experiences visible object and after seeing visible object (that rupa) is experienced through the mind-door. There are mind-door processes in between seeing and hearing, and bhavangacittas, the processes are clearly separated. Only when the first stage of tender insight arises is it clear what a mind-door process is. Not before that. Now we mix everything and the sense-door processes seem to hide the mind-door process. We do not really know what the mind-door is. By the way I understood that you think rupas such as eyesense are concepts. But the blind cannot see. A rupic condition is necessary for seeing. And that is eyesense. This is physical, thus rupa. You think that all rupas are concepts? Well, so long as they are not directly known we think of them on the conceptual level. Nina. 30221 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:31am Subject: smile of the Buddha Dear Ken Ong, In the Co to the Middle Length Sayings, sutta 81, on Ghatikara we read that Buddhas smile with five kinds of citta: one ahetuka and four sahetuka kiriyacittas acoompanied by somanassa: two of these are with panna and two without. But as you quoted in Summary of the Topics of Abhidhamma chapter six number 34, these are preceded by the Buddha's omniscience. Also arahats and Buddhas have mahakiriyacittas without panna. I wrote before on the Buddha's omniscience (see archives). The processes of cittas of a Buddha also run according to citta nyama, a fixed order. Whatever subject a Buddha directs his attention to he can know with omniscience whenever he wishes. But he can know only one object at a time, citta nyama. There are also moments of citta unaccompanied by wisdom. This does not contradict his capacity of omniscience. Nina > --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > >> The smiling cittas is from the commentary to the Summary of the >> Topics of Abhidhamma chapter six number 34 >> 30222 From: icarofranca Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:34am Subject: [dsg] Re:_Dhammasangani, to Icaro Dear Nina and all Nina: "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." > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- To be more precise, you Dhamma fellows must check it out the Dhammasangani's Book Four- Tika Atthuddhaaro, stanza 1386: "Katame Dhamma Avyakatta ? Catusu Bhumisu Vipako, Tasu Bhumisu Kiriyaavyakatta, Rupanca, Nibbanca - ime Dhamma Avyakatta." I was already said - if you all didn't forgot it - Nina is THE BEST!!! Mettaya, Ícaro 30223 From: icarofranca Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:39am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory Dear Nina: > Hi Howard, > what strange language is this? > > > &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ------------------------------------------------------------ Perhaps he is reading the Digha Nikaya chewing up donuts! Yuuum Yuuum Yaaam Yaaam... Mettaya, Ícaro 30224 From: Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/17/04 1:31:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > Hi Howard, > what strange language is this? > Nina. > op 17-02-2004 02:15 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > >&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; > > > ========================== It's called Ampersand. It was the ancient naga language! ;-)) With metta, Howard P.S. This has happened on a couple of recent posts of mine. I don't know why. /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) 30225 From: Eddie Lou Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:59am Subject: Re: Apology Re: [dsg] Re: Control || No Control Hi, Upasaka, That is courage but I had learnt (correct me!) Anger is ONLY eliminated when one reached Arahantship. I also lately learnt from here DSG that there can be no more additional Arahant at this stage of Buddha Sasana. Hope my interpretation is correct (correct me!) Thanks. Also my common sense told me Mana (Ego or Self Esteem??) is closely tied to Anger. At least a big ingredient. I read this also in DSG and Interesting enought lately there is this interesting related thread - Catching Anger. Thanks all, for all the wisdom revealed to me. Metta, Eddie --- 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 [Snipped] > With metta, > Howard 30226 From: Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 6:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] compound and concept Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/17/04 1:37:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > Howard, you wrote: > >what doorway is this or that dhamma experienced? > ======================== > H: 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". > N: I used to believe that when I was thinking, I knew that this was through > the mind-door, that I understood what the mind-door was. Now I know that > this is not true. It seems to me that I can see and hear at the same time, > but I know that this is wrong. Seeing experiences visible object and after > seeing visible object (that rupa) is experienced through the mind-door. > There are mind-door processes in between seeing and hearing, and > bhavangacittas, the processes are clearly separated. Only when the first > stage of tender insight arises is it clear what a mind-door process is. Not > before that. Now we mix everything and the sense-door processes seem to hide > the mind-door process. We do not really know what the mind-door is. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't say that I know or that I don't know. My only point was that when our experience goes unexamined it seems that only obvious thoughts, feelings, inclinations, emotions etc are experienced by the mind. When we "see" a tree or "hear" an orchestra, we think we are seeing and hearing. My point is that we do not ordinarily realize how much the mind is involved in our experiencing. We grossly underestimate the role of mind. ---------------------------------------------------------- > By the way I understood that you think rupas such as eyesense are concepts. > But the blind cannot see. > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Certainly true. Likewise those who don't have a car cannot drive. (But cars are not rupas.) ----------------------------------------------------------- A rupic condition is necessary for seeing. And> > that is eyesense. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No doubt several rupic conditions are necessary for seeing. Where is the eyesense you are talking about? How and where is it observed - how is it to be known? Certainly there is the *capacity* to see, but such capacity is nothing more than a bunch of conditions being in effect - some positive, some negative. There are many paramatthic conditions that underlie what we call the "the eyes working properly," a conventional expression. I will accept a paramatthic "eyesense" when someone can say something specific about it, and, in particular, describe how and where it can be looked into. ----------------------------------------------------------- This is physical, thus rupa.You think that all rupas are> > concepts? --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Not in the slightest. Rupas are rupas, directly experienced, and are not concepts. The fact that I have not been persuaded of a rupic entity called "eyesense" does not imply that I think all rupas are concepts. I think nothing of the sort. -------------------------------------------------------- Well, so long as they are not directly known we think of them on> > the conceptual level. > Nina. > =========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 30227 From: Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 6:14am Subject: Re: Apology Re: [dsg] Re: Control || No Control Hi, Eddie - In a message dated 2/17/04 2:01:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, eddielou_us@yah oo.com writes: > > Hi, Upasaka, > That is courage but I had learnt (correct me!) Anger > is ONLY eliminated when one reached Arahantship. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I would suppose that so long as any remnant of sense of self arises, anger, possibly very low-key (such as extremely mild irritation), can still arise. ---------------------------------------------------- > > I also lately learnt from here DSG that there can be > no more additional Arahant at this stage of Buddha > Sasana. Hope my interpretation is correct (correct > me!) Thanks. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I've heard the same. I don't buy it! ;-) However, it is not of graet importance anyway - at least not to any of us personally. ;-)) --------------------------------------------------- > > Also my common sense told me Mana (Ego or Self > Esteem??) is closely tied to Anger. At least a big > ingredient. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I would surmise that sense of self is a necessary condition for anger. ------------------------------------------------- > I read this also in DSG and Interesting > enought lately there is this interesting related > thread - Catching Anger. > > Thanks all, for all the wisdom revealed to me. > > Metta, > > Eddie ========================== 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) 30228 From: Eddie Lou Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 0:44pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Andy, Love lost / the self... how? Hi, Andy, Sorry for jumping in just like that. Maybe I do not know the full content, situation and depth of the topics you are discussing. Please excuse me if I misinterpret what you are trying to get it out to us. A few things: Do not put too much value this and that as we normally use to put ourselves on as well as on others. Buddhism (I believe) is trying to show the ultimate truth, which is not so easy to understand or else we all will be Arahat destined for Nirvana or Nibbana. It will take some time to see progress. In fact many of us are like one DSG member mentioned 'work in progress'. I personally believe 'ego' and 'anger (pali word - dosa)' can cause a lot of unhappiness or suffering (pali - Dukkha). Also, I kind of - believe that we are what we think or be conscious of ourself. Based from your writings, your progress is great with the use of those concept word like 'AS IS', sufferings and kamma. I think you have already formed or grasped quite some concepts. I myself learnt quite some but feel a lot more ahead to be digested. Hope I gave you some helpful encouragement. Excuse me, if this turns out to be a blind meddling in. Metta, Eddie Lou --- Andy Wilson wrote: > > 1. seeing it as an inevitable part of my life [Snipped...] > rework and reinterpret? > > metta > > andy 30229 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 1:23pm Subject: Dear Group, Any newcomers, as well as those not so new, who include periods of formal meditation in their practice, may be interested in the next 90 day email course by Andrew Quernmore. The course is computer based and personally supported. Details below. His quote from K. Sujin may also be relevant to the 'anger' thread. http://vipassana.com/ metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- =========================================== "The Buddha taught Dhamma to his followers out of compassion, he taught them Dhamma for their benefit and happiness. When they had listened to the Dhamma they could ponder over it and put it into practice. The Buddha taught about the ill effects of anger. Anger leads to different kinds of suffering for the person who is angry, but the person to whom anger is directed does not have to suffer from it if he does not have anger himself." - Khun Sujin Boriharnwanaket Welcome to Vipassana.com Meditation Course The online meditation course has been hosted here since 1997. Our 90 day course is available several times each year and provides a clear and practical introduction to tranquillity and insight practices from the Theravada tradition. Our next available course begins on April 24th and registration is now open. Authentic Texts All of the documents on this site take their lead from the Pali Canon; the most authoritative record and guide to the historical Buddha's teachings. They are part of a living tradition that continues to flourish after two and a half millennia. Useful Resources We are an independent site promoting a balanced approach to the practice of Buddhist meditation as found in the Theravada tradition. We aim to offer resources to help nurture and sustain a fulfilling and effective meditation practice that is consistent with the Buddha's teachings Authoritative Teachings In addition to presenting the core texts of early Buddhism we are developing an online library featuring some of the finest modern writing on Buddhism and meditation. Stay Informed The Vipassana.com Newsletter contains details of our new courses and items of interest to those meditating in the Buddhist tradition. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- What is vipassana? In the Pali language of the early Buddhist texts, vipassana means insight. It is often used to describe one of the two main categories of Buddhist meditation (the other being samatha or tranquillity). The term may correctly be applied to any Buddhist meditation technique that aims for a complete understanding of the Three Characteristics - dukkha (suffering or unsatisfactoriness), anicca (impemanence) and anatta (not-Self). What is Theravada Buddhism? The southern form of Buddhism now found mainly in Thailand, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar. It is the oldest living tradition and its core teachings are based on the word of the Buddha as found in the earliest texts. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 30230 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 2:18pm Subject: Re: Catching Anger Hi Azita, ----------------------- A: > 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. ----------------------- It's marvellous the way all the dsg threads seem to be tying in together. I think yours is the same message Ken O brought back from Thailand. If I understood him correctly, it is more important to know nama from rupa than it is to know kusala from akusala. (After all, knowing nama from rupa IS kusala.) There is no need to go out and `try' to gain entry to university; everything we need (lobha, dosa, visible object . . . ) is served up to us right here in the present moment. Give me kindergarten kusala any day. :-) I'll leave you with Nina's words on this thread. Kind regards, Ken H N: > 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. > 30231 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:46pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack Hi Jack, ---------------- J: > In my experience, I can experience hardness as my feet rest on the ground. 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. ---------------------- No one likes to be told that someone else has been where they are and moved on to `bigger and better things' (as in; "Been there, done that!"). So I should be careful in saying that I have, over a twenty-five year period, tried the modern (non-ancient-text) way of practising Dhamma – as you have just described it. Then, some dsg friends convinced me that my practice necessarily involved the perception of a self (a self who could practise). So, I have lost interest in formal practice and never regretted doing so. I am not suggesting I have more wisdom than you have – just that I have acquired a different perspective on the Dhamma. ----------------- KH: >> 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: > 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. ---------------------------- Yes, but when he used the word "we" it was as a conventional designation. There was no suggestion, whatsoever, that "we" really exist. This knocked all conventional wisdom into a cocked hat. We must appreciate the enormous significance. Anatta is not a mere side issue; it changes everything. ------------------------------- J: > 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. ---------------- If there is no self (anatta), why should we try to follow the Eight- fold Path? Would the beings, who become freed by it, be you or me? No. And so there must be something more to it than that. The Buddha's teaching is all about the present moment. It is about what there really is, of you and me, right here and now. The Dhamma, in the Suttas, describes the present moment as it is for everyone -- from the lowliest worldling to the Tathagata himself. When it describes a being who is refraining from causing harm – or when it describes a being who is making the transition from worldling to ariyan -- there is no command; "Go out and do this!" how could there be? Kind regards, Ken H --- 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, 30232 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 6:34pm Subject: Re: Catching Anger Hi Ken H, Why assign such an importance to knowing nama from rupa such that it is more important to know nama from rupa than it is to know kusala from akusala? You might want to refer to the discourse Majjhima Nikaya 9 Sammaditthi Sutta The Discourse on Right View http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn009.html In particular, given the following passage, how is knowing nama from rupa is wholesome/kusala? 1. Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's Park. There the Venerable Sariputta addressed the bhikkhus thus: "Friends, bhikkhus." -- "Friend," they replied. The Venerable Sariputta said this: 2. "'One of right view, one of right view' is said, friends. In what way is a noble disciple one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived at this true Dhamma?" "Indeed, friend, we would come from far away to learn from the Venerable Sariputta the meaning of this statement. It would be good if the Venerable Sariputta would explain the meaning of this statement. Having heard it from him, the bhikkhus will remember it." "Then, friends, listen and attend closely to what I shall say." "Yes, friend," the bhikkhus replied. The Venerable Sariputta said this: (The Wholesome and the Unwholesome) 3. "When, friends, a noble disciple understands the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, in that way he is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived at this true Dhamma. 4. "And what, friends, is the unwholesome, what is the root of the unwholesome, what is the wholesome, what is the root of the wholesome? Killing living beings is unwholesome; taking what is not given is unwholesome; misconduct in sensual pleasures is unwholesome; false speech is unwholesome; malicious speech is unwholesome; harsh speech is unwholesome; gossip is unwholesome; covetousness is unwholesome; ill will is unwholesome; wrong view is unwholesome. This is called the unwholesome. 5. "And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome. 6. "And what is the wholesome? Abstention from killing living beings is wholesome; abstention from taking what is not given is wholesome; abstention from misconduct in sensual pleasures is wholesome; abstention from false speech is wholesome; abstention from malicious speech is wholesome; abstention from harsh speech is wholesome; abstention from gossip is wholesome; non-covetousness is wholesome; non-ill will is wholesome; right view is wholesome. This is called the wholesome. 7. "And what is the root of the wholesome? Non-greed is a root of the wholesome; non-hate is a root of the wholesome; non-delusion is a root of the wholesome. This is called the root of the wholesome. 8. "When a noble disciple has thus understood the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, he entirely abandons the underlying tendency to lust, he abolishes the underlying tendency to aversion, he extirpates the underlying tendency to the view and conceit 'I am,' and by abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma and has arrived at this true Dhamma." Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: [snip] > Thailand. If I understood him correctly, it is more important to > know nama from rupa than it is to know kusala from akusala. (After > all, knowing nama from rupa IS kusala.) > > There is no need to go out and `try' to gain entry to university; > everything we need (lobha, dosa, visible object . . . ) is served up > to us right here in the present moment. Give me kindergarten kusala > any day. :-) > > I'll leave you with Nina's words on this thread. > > Kind regards, > Ken H [snip] 30233 From: Philip Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:36pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Catching Anger --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Philip, > > It's good to hear from you again...pls keep contributing your comments and > questions. Hello Sarah. Thank you for remembering me! It may still be a while before I understand once and all that studying seriously with a group like this is more beneficial than cavorting at the general Buddhist forums where I spend too much of my time, but I sense that day is coming. I found it a bit hard going here because of my lack of knoweledge of the Pali terms, but that's why there is a glossary available for us here. I still haven't read Nina's book on the Paramis. The intention has been ripening, though. :) > > --- Philip wrote: > > > > I see sudden outbursts of anger as the greatest danger. > .... > That's interesting. On the other hand, as Larry hinted, it is > attachment(lobha) which is given as the cause of suffering. Without > attachment, would there be any outbursts of anger? > > In particular, I tend to see wrong view?Eas the greatest danger. This and the comments that followed were helpful for me. I have been reading and thinking more about Upekkha since I last posted, and see that I was taking it in the wrong way. Without Right View to remind me of the true nature of phenomena, I was taking Upekkha as a kind of bubble to protect ME from the world, instead of seeing it as an energy to be safe in because there is no real barrier of self there and no attachment, therefore, to worldy concerns which feed on self-image. > .... > > 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? > The reason I question this is because it suggests that `we?Ecan direct > anything and that there can be a skillful direction for anger or greed > which is very questionable I think. > > Perhaps you'd care to elaborate further. I think it's questionable too, with anger. It was just a question that popped into my head and surely the answer is no. I should have elaborated more about what Ayya Khema said. She said that those whose primary defilement is greed could possibly channel that energy into faith, which would be a way of generating energy and enthusiasm for one's practice. So it wasn't consciously justifying greed, per se, but channeling any remnant of it into faith. Thank you, Sarah, and all. Now, hopefully I WILL be going into this group's files for serious study rather than fooling around at general forums. :) Metta, Philip 30234 From: Andrew Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:47pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/sacca Hi Ken H You wrote to Jack: when he [Buddha] used the word "we" it was as a conventional > designation. There was no suggestion, whatsoever, that "we" really > exist. This knocked all conventional wisdom into a cocked hat. We > must appreciate the enormous significance. Anatta is not a mere > side issue; it changes everything. Andrew: You imply that "we" don't "really exist" - i.e. that "conventional wisdom" is illusory. But the Buddha described conventional designations as "sacca" or "truths". How can a "truth" be an "illusion"? By continuing to use this descriptive language in the way that you do, are you not going one step too far and smudging the message? I have no problem with an assertion that "we" don't exist in an ultimate sense, but that's not what you say. You say: "we" don't really exist. When you are in the desert and see a mirage of water, do you say "the mirage doesn't exist" or "the water doesn't exist"? Don't we need to look at the mirage critically and when we do, we find that no water is involved at all. A Noble One who looks at a mirage doesn't see nothing. He sees a mirage. He sees truth and he knows its nature. Your descriptive language, IMHO, transforms anatta into a lop-sided doctrine, trying to push pannatti out of sight. I don't for one minute think that this is your intention but it is the impression that is given off when we state that derived truths "don't exist". Or have I missed something? Best wishes Andrew 30235 From: Philip Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:53pm Subject: Link to book on Paramis? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: >> p.s How did you get on with your reading on Paramis (Perfections)? > ====== I didn't, but now I am ready to. Sarah was kind enough some weeks ago to guide me to a book on the Paramis by Nina (if I'm not mistaken) but I can't find it in the group files or links to Nina's books. Would Sarah or someone else be kind enough to post the link again? Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience. Philip 30236 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:53pm Subject: Re: Catching Anger Hi Victor, Sila and dana are wholesome but, if you carefully read the Sutta you have quoted, you will see that right understanding is also wholesome. The first sign of right understanding comes when nama is directly known as nama (as distinct from rupa) and rupa is directly known as rupa. Please note that Venerable Sariputta's explanation begins: "When, friends, a noble disciple understands the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome" May I ask what you think of that? Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Ken H, > > Why assign such an importance to knowing nama from rupa such that it > is more important to know nama from rupa than it is to know kusala > from akusala? > > You might want to refer to the discourse > > Majjhima Nikaya 9 > Sammaditthi Sutta > The Discourse on Right View > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn009.html > > > In particular, given the following passage, how is knowing nama from > rupa is wholesome/kusala? > > 30237 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 9:31pm Subject: Re: Catching Anger Hi Ken H, What I find questionable is the claim that the first sign of right understanding comes when nama is directly known as nama and rupa is directly known as rupa. How does the discourse Majjhima Nikaya 9 Sammaditthi Sutta The Discourse on Right View http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn009.html support that claim? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Sila and dana are wholesome but, if you carefully read the Sutta you > have quoted, you will see that right understanding is also > wholesome. The first sign of right understanding comes when nama is > directly known as nama (as distinct from rupa) and rupa is directly > known as rupa. > > Please note that Venerable Sariputta's explanation begins: > > "When, friends, a noble disciple understands the unwholesome, the > root of the unwholesome" > > May I ask what you think of that? > > Kind regards, > Ken H > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > Hi Ken H, > > > > Why assign such an importance to knowing nama from rupa such that > it > > is more important to know nama from rupa than it is to know kusala > > from akusala? > > > > You might want to refer to the discourse > > > > Majjhima Nikaya 9 > > Sammaditthi Sutta > > The Discourse on Right View > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn009.html > > > > > > In particular, given the following passage, how is knowing nama > from > > rupa is wholesome/kusala? 30238 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 9:47pm Subject: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi Howard, Some comments below, I hope you don't mind that they are quite direct. You said: > There is certainly no "one" to do anything, but volition arises and > has effect. As to whether there is need to do more, the Buddha said there is. Sukin: Before I proceed, I just want to make clear that there *is* much to be done. The path ahead of us according to my estimation is still very remote. And I cannot imagine a step forward along the path, let alone reaching the final goal, without Right Effort. Effort however arises with every citta except the ten sense door cittas. So what makes the difference in whether the effort is Right or not, is whether it is accompanied by sati and panna. I think you agree with this. So firstly, should we be concerned particularly with "effort"? Should we not be more concerned about understanding the present moment. Howard: > In guarding the senses, not only is one to be mindful, which, of course, is a > sine qua non, but also cut short harmful states, and initiate and encourage > useful ones - all calling for exercise of volition (but not by any "one"). Sukin: This is another one, `cetana' arises with every citta. Can we determine the quality of cetana simply by `believing in something'? Don't the panna have to be so sharp as to be able to differentiate kusala from akusala, not just depending on a vague idea? Do we recognize akusala `real time'? By what, vedana, sanna, nimitta or cetana? Or is our recognition of the level of `concept' only, or even a `story about a situation'? The cetana to `guard the sense door' does not mean that this is what will take place. Sati and panna must know nama or rupa and not be caught in concept of people and situations. Even on the `intellectual' level, in which one at the very least knows the difference between `thinking' and what is actually experienced through the particular sense door, it would be the work of "panna" which does the guarding. But you say; Howard: > There must be the original intention to be mindful (watchful) and to act quickly and > subtly in infuencing what transpires mentally. The mental flow can be influenced. Sukin: Don't you think dhammas arise in spite of our intentions? What do you think is stronger, the accumulated kilesas or our intention for kusala states? Have you heard of the terms, dosa nimitta and lobha nimitta? Dosa and Lobha work their way long before we know it, attaching to the level of paramattha dhammas, while the little sati that arises here, is way after the fact. This is not to say that long after when the `snowball' effect has taken place, there is no value in having sati then. There is. But is `intention' primary even here? Instead of believing that guarding of the sense has taken place due to an effort on your part, would you not want to know what is actually happening? With regard to the `mental flow' which follows after the initial guarding of the senses, again here one should not underestimate the power of kilesas. What is to guarantee that kusala states will follow? With a preference and prior intention to have kusala states, I think in fact it may be more likely that a moment of `having guarded the sense' that lobha will come in immediately and then probably followed by mana and ditthi. (In my case it does anyway.) This is why I think it important to consider `detachment'. Is there detachment when one is almost `militant' about guarding the senses? Cetana is prime in conditioning vipaka and also accumulated tendencies. But it can't control the quality of cittas. And the important thing is that there is so much accumulated ignorance that stories and ideas influence our practice more often than any accumulated panna. Howard: > Were that impossible, the Buddha would not have urged his followers > accordingly. Not infrequently, the Buddha said that various things were possible to > be accomplished, and were they not he would not have urged his followers to > attempt them. Sukin: Were it not possible, I wouldn't be here. ;-)). But did the Buddha ever use the word `attempt'? If he did, did he mean it the way most of us do? The Path is, but no one who walks it. Howard: One only need read the suttas, not just a chosen few that seem to > support preconceived positions, to see this. (This, BTW, is something we all > do - pick and choose among the suttas to reinforce our own positions. In 45 > years of teaching, to a variety of listeners with a variety of needs, the Buddha > left a legacy of teachings in which one can find almost anything one hopes to > find, and it is important, I think, to make the effort - yes, actually make > the effort! ;-)) - to avoid being overly selective, but to see the full breadth > of the vast river of teaching and all its substreams.) Sukin: Yes, our minds are always `made up'. I fear `existential uncertainty', it makes me very nervous. The reliance upon ideas is very strong and those ideas *better be right*! But I also believe in taking things step by step. I have considered about the reliance on Buddhist concepts as a whole, let alone my particular understanding. So far I have not found anything more sensible and convincing. I have read no more than 1 % of the Tipitaka, but I rely on my friends' experience and especially K. Sujin's. She is not selective at all. Though I have personally not read all, I would agree that to be `selective', would be a sign of lack of confidence in the Teachings. Got to go now. > With metta, > Howard Metta, Sukin. 30239 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 9:59pm Subject: Re: Link to book on Paramis? Hi Philip, You can find it here: http://www.abhidhamma.org/perfections%20of%20enlightenment.htm I recommend this link too - here you will another link to 'Useful Posts' http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/ Robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Philip" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > > >> p.s How did you get on with your reading on Paramis (Perfections)? > > ====== > 30240 From: Sarah Date: Tue Feb 17, 2004 11:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Catching Anger Hi Victor & Ken H, --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Ken H, > > What I find questionable is the claim that the first sign of right > understanding comes when nama is directly known as nama and rupa is > directly known as rupa. How does the discourse... > Majjhima Nikaya 9 > Sammaditthi Sutta > The Discourse on Right View > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn009.html I’m not sure that this sutta which is describing supramundane right view will help us understand the details and distinction between nama and rupa (nama-rupa-pariccheda-~nana - first stage of insight). Comy “And this (part of) the teaching itself was brief; but for those bhikkhus it should be understood that the penetration (of the meaning) through right attention occurred in detail.” For the detail, we may need to look at other suttas and commentaries such as the Visuddhimagga. You may both find it helpful to look at the commentary to this sutta too, conveniently on line here. Here is an extract: http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/r_view/r_view00.htm Sutta: 2. "'One of right view, one of right view' is said, friends. In what way is a noble disciple one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived at this true Dhamma?" Comy: “But here "one of right view" is intended as one possessing supramundane wholesome right view, which is fixed in destiny and emancipating. Hence he said: whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived at this true Dhamma (ujugata'ssa ditthi dhamme aveccappasadena samannagato agato imam saddhammam). Because of its going straight without deviating to either extreme, or because of its going straight by removing all crookedness such as bodily crookedness, etc., supramundane right view is "straight." One possessing that view also possesses perfect confidence, unshakable confidence, in the ninefold supramundane Dhamma.[6] And by becoming disentangled from all the thickets of (wrong) views, by abandoning all the defilements, by departing from the round of rebirths, by bringing the practice to its consummation, he is said to have come by the noble path to this "true Dhamma" proclaimed by the Enlightened One, that is, Nibbana, the plunge into the Deathless. The Wholesome and the Unwholesome 3. Understands the unwholesome (akusalan ca pajanati): he understands the unwholesome called the ten courses of unwholesome kamma (action), penetrating this by way of function with the understanding that has Nibbana as its object as "This is suffering." (Understands) the root of the unwholesome (akusalamulan ca pajanati): And he understands the unwholesome root which has become the root condition of that (unwholesome), penetrating this, in the same way, as "This is the origin of suffering." The same method applies here also in regard to "the wholesome" and "the root of the wholesome." And, as it is here, so in all the following sections, the understanding of the subject should be understood by way of function. In that way (ettavata pi): by this much; by this understanding of the unwholesome, etc. He is one of right view (sammaditthi hoti): he possesses supramundane right view of the kind aforesaid. Whose view is straight . . . and has arrived at this true Dhamma: At this point the summary version of the teaching has been expounded. And this (part of) the teaching itself was brief; but for those bhikkhus it should be understood that the penetration (of the meaning) through right attention occurred in detail. In that way (ettavata pi): by this much; by this understanding of the unwholesome, etc. He is one of right view (sammaditthi hoti): he possesses supramundane right view of the kind aforesaid. Whose view is straight . . . and has arrived at this true Dhamma: At this point the summary version of the teaching has been expounded. And this (part of) the teaching itself was brief; but for those bhikkhus it should be understood that the penetration (of the meaning) through right attention occurred in detail.” ***** Metta, Sarah ====== 30241 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 0:08am Subject: What is Vipassana? & Keeping track of daughters (was 'Unknown') Hi Christine, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > <...> > http://vipassana.com/ ---------------- <...> > What is vipassana? <...> The > term may correctly be applied to any Buddhist meditation technique > that aims for a complete understanding of the Three Characteristics - > dukkha (suffering or unsatisfactoriness), anicca (impemanence) and > anatta (not-Self). ..... S: What do you think of this definition of vipassana, Chris? Just spoken to SarahF (your daughter) and it was good to hear her cheery voice again. (She was on a bus coming back from Stanley market as we spoke, so it was a slightly ‘bumpy’ call;-)). We’re meeting her and her friend, Rob, for an evening walk later. I’ll try to look out for a few squirrels, snakes or cockatoos for her to write home about and mention that they don’t really exist if I have a chance;-) Metta, Sarah ====== 30242 From: sarahdhhk Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 0:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] need help... Hi Wen, "wen" wrote: > Dear Larry, > Thank you so much for your attention, I'm a Buddhist living in > Indonesia and yes the asubha bhavana that I asked was about > contemplation of the impurities of the body. I read about it some > and also focussed to it's function to reduce desire, but I cannot > get the complete instructions,... ... Several friends wrote wise and helpful replies to you, some expressing caution. I think we'd all be interested to hear how you're getting on and whether the suggestions made any sense. Pls let us know if you're still reading the posts here. I didn't write at the time as I'd just got back from a trip. However, I'd like to belatedly welcome you here to DSG. Let us know anything more about your studies and practice and concern to reduce desire too. Metta, Sarah ====== 30243 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 0:38am Subject: Re: What is Vipassana? & Keeping track of daughters (was 'Unknown') Hello Sarah, and All, Regarding vipassana - I feel comfortable with that definition, and also with Nyanatiloka where he says "Insight is not the result of a mere intellectual understanding, but is won through direct meditative observation of one's own bodily and mental processes", and then goes on to list the stages of insight. Good, also, to have the opportunity to ask why choosing to sit and meditate is 'self-view' and possibly even silabbata-paraamaasa, but choosing to regularly study, discuss and listen to the Dhamma isn't? Thank you for telling about SarahF and reminding me that I have a daughter :-) Could you remind her, please, that she has a Mother - one who hasn't yet had the Felicity of a Call from her to even say she is Still Alive and hasn't been captured by Person Smugglers!!!! :-) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Christine, > > --- christine_forsyth wrote: > > <...> > > http://vipassana.com/ > ---------------- > <...> > > What is vipassana? > <...> > The > > term may correctly be applied to any Buddhist meditation technique > > that aims for a complete understanding of the Three Characteristics - > > dukkha (suffering or unsatisfactoriness), anicca (impemanence) and > > anatta (not-Self). > ..... > S: What do you think of this definition of vipassana, Chris? > > 30244 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 0:51am Subject: A quiet friend.... Hi All, We recently heard from Peter DaCosta and I’m sharing part of his letter (as he knows) as he has many friends on DSG who might like to know where he is. Metta, Sarah. Peter wrote: >I am now at Wat Pa Baan Taad awaiting a decision as to whether they will accept me as a candidate for ordination under their sponsorship, and am hoping to know the answere to this in the next week or so. Right now, I feel that I have to focus on practice above all else as my teacher is emphasising concentration totally and I am running into all kinds of problems with this, many of which are kammic in nature and origin. The mind learns some pretty strange tricks as it ages. So, this occupies a significant part of my current resource alocation. However, as soon as I am able I certainly would like to resume contact with dsg. Luangpow Panyavadho offers some very solid advice in practice and I daily feel more confident in overcomming these tenacious problems. It should be quite interesting, as they say. The opportunity to keep up with events on line is very rare these days, but conditions seem to have a habit of changing.< ***** 30245 From: sarahdhhk Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:07am Subject: [dsg] Re: Companionship Dear Bhante, Ajahn Jose wrote: > Hello Dave, My name is Ajahn Jose , I am American but live in Australia, I am a Buddhist monk, never feel lonely, Christine is a wonderful person and she will always give you the right advice, I am here to be for any help you need, it doesn't matter whow trivial it is. We all have to start somewhere. Metta. Ajahn Jose .... Your comments to Dave were very kindly meant and after meeting you I know you really like to help people when you have a chance. We enjoyed your contributions to our discussions in Bangkok (see posts 29598[by me] and 29619 [by Christine] in this regard). I would like to ask, if it's not disrespectful in any way, whether it is appropriate to encourage anyone to address a Theravada Buddhist monk by a lay name? In Bangkok you discussed the difficulty of staying at temples where correct vinaya is not kept (handling of money and so on). I think everyone in the room agreed that to support the Sangha, we should all do our best to set a good example -- whether as a monk or lay person in this regard. We know that leading a good life as a lay life is very hard and that leading a good life as a bhikkhu is harder still. I've hesitated for some time on whether to address these comments but I recall your encouragement to address points directly. With metta, Sarah ======= 30246 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 2:12am Subject: The 3 baskets: Tipitaka! Friends; The Three Baskets of Knowledge: The Bhikkhu, who is well practised in the disciplinary Vinaya code of the Norm, arrives, by fulfilling these 227 training rules, at the 3 Direct Knowledges, fully treated & contained therein: Direct Knowledge of many Prior Life's in all their detail. Direct Knowledge of the Divine Eye, seeing beings die & rre-arise Direct Knowledge of the elimination of Mental Fermentation. _____________________________________________________ The Bhikkhu, who is well practised in the Sutta speeches of the Buddha arrives, by reaching Absorption Concentration, at the 6 SSupra-mundanenbsp; States, fully treated & contained therein: SSupra-humanState of the Magical Power (elevation, appearance etc.) SSupra-humanState of Divine Ear. SSupra-humanState of knowing others Mind & Thinking. SSupra-humanState of remembrance of Past Life's & Worlds. Supra-human State of the Divine Eye; seeing future destinations. Supra-human State of elimination of Mental Fermentation. _____________________________________________________ The Bhikkhu, who is well practised in Higher Abhi-Dhamma Science arrives, by enjoying Profound & Subtle Understanding, at the four Analytical Discriminations, fully treated & contained therein: The analytical discrimination of Essence. The analytical discrimination of Cause. The analytical discrimination of Formulation. The analytical discrimination of Difference. _____________________________________________________ The Bhikkhu, who is well trained in all 3 Pitakas attains in due time to: The 3 Direct Knowledges, the 6 Supra-human States, and the 4 analytical discriminations. _____________________________________________________ The Bhikkhu, who is badly trained in the Vinaya Discipline falls to the painful states, caused by detrimental praxis. The Bhikkhu, who is badly trained in the Sutta speeches of the Buddha get wrong ideas and falls to the painful states, caused by wrong views. The Bhikkhu, who is badly trained in the Higher AbhiDhamma Science runs obsessed in metaphysical speculation and falls to the painful levels, caused by confused distraction. _____________________________________________________ These 3 baskets of Precious Ancient Knowledge is still present here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/index.html http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/index.html To study these are certainly advantageous & never barren. All yours in the Dhamma. Constructions Decay & Vanish. Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ 30247 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 4:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is Vipassana? & Keeping track of daughters (was 'Unknown') Hi Christine, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Regarding vipassana - .... S: - at any moment such as while walking and chatting about topics of general interest .... .... C: > Thank you for telling about SarahF and reminding me that I have a > daughter :-) Could you remind her, please, that she has a Mother - > one who hasn't yet had the Felicity of a Call from her to even say > she is Still Alive and hasn't been captured by Person > Smugglers!!!! :-) .... S: ;-) She's alive, bubbly and well and we were glad to meet RobS, a very pleasant young man,(not sure he apppreciated the garbled explanation I gave about why I needed an initial for him, but he knows we know lots of Robs now;-)). Pleasant mid-levels green walk, silver-crested cockatoos but no squirrels or snakes....giant tower lights in all directions as the sky turned dark. Mostly general Hong Kong and Oz chatter (not wishing to push any agenda), but SarahF and I did have a chat about building up stories, becoming distressed and looking for outer causes of problems at one point....She said it reminded her of some comments you'd made - strange thing that;-)Not sure what Jon and RobS were talking about most the time..... You've got a lovely daughter - very out-going, confident and organised too;-) I think she's hoping to join you on a trip to Bangkok sometime too - so there's an excuse for another trip for you;-) Metta, Sarah p.s She definitely hasn't forgotten she has a mother and she made several comments to show how she considers your welfare;-) ================================================ 30248 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 4:57am Subject: [dsg] Re: Catching Anger Hi Sarah and (Ken H), I read the commentary you quoted. But how does the commentary that you quoted support the claim that the first sign of right understanding comes when nama is directly known as nama and rupa as rupa? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor & Ken H, > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Ken H, > > > > What I find questionable is the claim that the first sign of right > > understanding comes when nama is directly known as nama and rupa is > > directly known as rupa. How does the discourse... > > Majjhima Nikaya 9 > > Sammaditthi Sutta > > The Discourse on Right View > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn009.html > > I'm not sure that this sutta which is describing supramundane right view > will help us understand the details and distinction between nama and rupa > (nama-rupa-pariccheda-~nana - first stage of insight). > > Comy "And this (part of) the teaching itself was brief; but for those > bhikkhus it should be understood that the penetration (of the meaning) > through right attention occurred in detail." > > For the detail, we may need to look at other suttas and commentaries such > as the Visuddhimagga. You may both find it helpful to look at the > commentary to this sutta too, conveniently on line here. Here is an > extract: > > http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/r_view/r_view00.htm > > Sutta: > 2. "'One of right view, one of right view' is said, friends. In what > way is a noble disciple one of right view, whose view is straight, who has > perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived at this true Dhamma?" > > Comy: > "But here "one of right view" is intended as one possessing supramundane > wholesome right view, which is fixed in destiny and emancipating. Hence > he said: whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the > Dhamma, and has arrived at this true Dhamma (ujugata'ssa ditthi dhamme > aveccappasadena samannagato agato imam saddhammam). Because of its going > straight without deviating to either extreme, or because of its going > straight by removing all crookedness such as bodily crookedness, etc., > supramundane right view is "straight." One possessing that view also > possesses perfect confidence, unshakable confidence, in the ninefold > supramundane Dhamma.[6] And by becoming disentangled from all the > thickets of (wrong) views, by abandoning all the defilements, by departing > from the round of rebirths, by bringing the practice to its consummation, > he is said to have come by the noble path to this "true Dhamma" proclaimed > by the Enlightened One, that is, Nibbana, the plunge into the Deathless. > > The Wholesome and the Unwholesome > > 3. Understands the unwholesome (akusalan ca pajanati): he understands > the unwholesome called the ten courses of unwholesome kamma (action), > penetrating this by way of function with the understanding that has > Nibbana as its object as "This is suffering." (Understands) the root of > the unwholesome (akusalamulan ca pajanati): And he understands the > unwholesome root which has become the root condition of that > (unwholesome), penetrating this, in the same way, as "This is the origin > of suffering." The same method applies here also in regard to "the > wholesome" and "the root of the wholesome." And, as it is here, so in > all the following sections, the understanding of the subject should be > understood by way of function. > > In that way (ettavata pi): by this much; by this understanding of the > unwholesome, etc. He is one of right view (sammaditthi hoti): he > possesses supramundane right view of the kind aforesaid. Whose view is > straight . . . and has arrived at this true Dhamma: At this point > the summary version of the teaching has been expounded. And this (part > of) the teaching itself was brief; but for those bhikkhus it should be > understood that the penetration (of the meaning) through right attention > occurred in detail. > > In that way (ettavata pi): by this much; by this understanding of the > unwholesome, etc. He is one of right view (sammaditthi hoti): he > possesses supramundane right view of the kind aforesaid. Whose view is > straight . . . and has arrived at this true Dhamma: At this point > the summary version of the teaching has been expounded. And this (part > of) the teaching itself was brief; but for those bhikkhus it should be > understood that the penetration (of the meaning) through right attention > occurred in detail." > ***** > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== 30249 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 5:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Catching Anger Victor (and KenH) I hope you don't mind me butting in here. This is an important issue, one that goes to the very heart of the teachings, in my view. Both kinds of knowing -- knowing (directly) nama from rupa, and knowing kusala from akusala -- are aspects of panna, but they involve different levels of panna. Directly knowing nama from rupa (or, in other words, knowing nama as nama and rupa as rupa) is panna of the level of satipatthana/vipasssana. Indeed, this kind of knowing *is* satipatthana/vipassana. Knowing kusala from akusala is the function, or one of the functions, of panna of the level of samatha. Without this understanding, samatha cannot be developed to a high degree. The further development of the understanding that knows nama from rupa leads to seeing the characterisitc of anicca/dukkha/anatta in namas and rupas (i.e., in all dhammas), and to the lessening of wrong view. The understanding that knows the difference between present moments of kusala and akusala, however, is not necesarily associated with right view and can in fact be developed alongside a strong idea of dhammas as 'self'. I think it was this difference that KenH was referring to. Jon --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Ken H, > > Why assign such an importance to knowing nama from rupa such that > it > is more important to know nama from rupa than it is to know kusala > from akusala? > > You might want to refer to the discourse > > Majjhima Nikaya 9 > Sammaditthi Sutta > The Discourse on Right View > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn009.html > > In particular, given the following passage, how is knowing nama > from rupa is wholesome/kusala? > 30250 From: Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 2:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi, Sukin - I'll only insert a couple comments in the following. The bottom line is that I am close to 100% in disagreement with you on this. ;-) To me it is crystal clear that practicing tha Dhamma requires constant vigilance and volition, and that the Buddha taught this in inumerable suttas and contexts. In a message dated 2/18/04 12:47:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, sukinder@k... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Some comments below, I hope you don't mind that they are quite > direct. > > You said: > >There is certainly no "one" to do anything, but volition arises > and > >has effect. As to whether there is need to do more, the Buddha > said there is. > > Sukin: > Before I proceed, I just want to make clear that there *is* much to > be done. The path ahead of us according to my estimation is still > very remote. And I cannot imagine a step forward along the path, > let alone reaching the final goal, without Right Effort. Effort > however arises with every citta except the ten sense door cittas. So > what makes the difference in whether the effort is Right or not, is > whether it is accompanied by sati and panna. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Right effort, as far as I'm concerned, consists of what the Buddha said it consists of. When he spoke of right effort, he was quite specific, and he wasn't speaking in terms of some sort of Abhidhammic ultimate that is always present. The Buddha was largely teaching worldlings when he taught right effort (and much of the rest), and he gave instructions that could be understood and followed by worldlings. As I've said before,we start where we are, not where we hope to be. You say that effort is always present, but sati and pa~n~na may not be. In checking the universal cetasikas, I don't see effort (or energy-viriya). Maybe it's there but I'm just missing it. But even if effort to some degree is always there, it may be weak. Moreover, if to make the effort "right" sati and pa~n~na are required, how do they come about. Ultimately, it must come down to either cultivation (powered by volition and effort) or by sheer dumb luck! But the Buddha taught his students to take steps! ---------------------------------------------------- I think you agree with > > this. So firstly, should we be concerned particularly with "effort"? > Should we not be more concerned about understanding the present > moment. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Can't do that without volition and effort! (Every sentient being, except when in an unconscious stupor, observes always and only the present moment (in reality), but not all sentient beings are engaged in Buddhist practice and heading in the right direction. (I add no further comment until the end.) -------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > >In guarding the senses, not only is one to be mindful, which, of > course, is a > >sine qua non, but also cut short harmful states, and initiate and > encourage > >useful ones - all calling for exercise of volition (but not by > any "one"). > > Sukin: > This is another one, `cetana' arises with every citta. Can we > determine the quality of cetana simply by `believing in something'? > Don't the panna have to be so sharp as to be able to differentiate > kusala from akusala, not just depending on a vague idea? Do we > recognize akusala `real time'? By what, vedana, sanna, nimitta or > cetana? Or is our recognition of the level of `concept' only, or > even a `story about a situation'? > > The cetana to `guard the sense door' does not mean that this is what > will take place. Sati and panna must know nama or rupa and not be > caught in concept of people and situations. Even on > the `intellectual' level, in which one at the very least knows the > difference between `thinking' and what is actually experienced > through the particular sense door, it would be the work of "panna" > which does the guarding. But you say; > > Howard: > >There must be the original intention to be mindful (watchful) and > to act quickly and > >subtly in infuencing what transpires mentally. The mental flow can > be influenced. > > Sukin: > Don't you think dhammas arise in spite of our intentions? What do > you think is stronger, the accumulated kilesas or our intention for > kusala states? Have you heard of the terms, dosa nimitta and lobha > nimitta? Dosa and Lobha work their way long before we know it, > attaching to the level of paramattha dhammas, while the little sati > that arises here, is way after the fact. This is not to say that > long after when the `snowball' effect has taken place, there is no > value in having sati then. There is. But is `intention' primary even > here? Instead of believing that guarding of the sense has taken > place due to an effort on your part, would you not want to know what > is actually happening? > > With regard to the `mental flow' which follows after the initial > guarding of the senses, again here one should not underestimate the > power of kilesas. What is to guarantee that kusala states will > follow? With a preference and prior intention to have kusala states, > I think in fact it may be more likely that a moment of `having > guarded the sense' that lobha will come in immediately and then > probably followed by mana and ditthi. (In my case it does anyway.) > > This is why I think it important to consider `detachment'. Is there > detachment when one is almost `militant' about guarding the senses? > > Cetana is prime in conditioning vipaka and also accumulated > tendencies. But it can't control the quality of cittas. And the > important thing is that there is so much accumulated ignorance that > stories and ideas influence our practice more often than any > accumulated panna. > > Howard: > >Were that impossible, the Buddha would not have urged his > followers > >accordingly. Not infrequently, the Buddha said that various things > were possible to > >be accomplished, and were they not he would not have urged his > followers to > >attempt them. > > Sukin: > Were it not possible, I wouldn't be here. ;-)). But did the Buddha > ever use the word `attempt'? If he did, did he mean it the way most > of us do? The Path is, but no one who walks it. > > Howard: > One only need read the suttas, not just a chosen few that seem to > >support preconceived positions, to see this. (This, BTW, is > something we all > >do - pick and choose among the suttas to reinforce our own > positions. In 45 > >years of teaching, to a variety of listeners with a variety of > needs, the Buddha > >left a legacy of teachings in which one can find almost anything > one hopes to > >find, and it is important, I think, to make the effort - yes, > actually make > >the effort! ;-)) - to avoid being overly selective, but to see the > full breadth > >of the vast river of teaching and all its substreams.) > > Sukin: > Yes, our minds are always `made up'. I fear `existential > uncertainty', it makes me very nervous. The reliance upon ideas is > very strong and those ideas *better be right*! But I also believe in > taking things step by step. I have considered about the reliance on > Buddhist concepts as a whole, let alone my particular understanding. > So far I have not found anything more sensible and convincing. I > have read no more than 1 % of the Tipitaka, but I rely on my > friends' experience and especially K. Sujin's. She is not selective > at all. Though I have personally not read all, I would agree that to > be `selective', would be a sign of lack of confidence in the > Teachings. > > Got to go now. > > >With metta, > >Howard > > Metta, > Sukin. > ============================ I understand you to be basically saying that there is nothing that can be done. I see this this as a doctrine of hopelessness,and I definitely see it as contrary to the Buddha's teaching. 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) 30251 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Catching Anger Hi Victor Its again, since I am the one who started the issue just "namas and rupas" I think I should explain a bit more of it. Let me invite you to the Satipatthana Sutta. I think you will see something like mindfulness of the four elements, body parts, isn't this mindfullness of rupas. Then again the most part of the sutta is about namas. You can choose two ways, either you like detail namas and rupas or you prefer just namas and rupas. Has this answer your question ;-). Ken O --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah and (Ken H), > > I read the commentary you quoted. But how does the commentary that > > you quoted support the claim that the first sign of right > understanding comes when nama is directly known as nama and rupa as > > rupa? > > Metta, > Victor > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah > wrote: > > Hi Victor & Ken H, > > > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Ken H, > > > > > > What I find questionable is the claim that the first sign of > right > > > understanding comes when nama is directly known as nama and > rupa > is > > > directly known as rupa. How does the discourse... > > > Majjhima Nikaya 9 > > > Sammaditthi Sutta > > > The Discourse on Right View > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn009.html > > > > I'm not sure that this sutta which is describing supramundane > right view > > will help us understand the details and distinction between nama > and rupa > > (nama-rupa-pariccheda-~nana - first stage of insight). > > > > Comy "And this (part of) the teaching itself was brief; but for > those > > bhikkhus it should be understood that the penetration (of the > meaning) > > through right attention occurred in detail." > > > > For the detail, we may need to look at other suttas and > commentaries such > > as the Visuddhimagga. You may both find it helpful to look at the > > commentary to this sutta too, conveniently on line here. Here is > an > > extract: > > > > http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/r_view/r_view00.htm > > > > Sutta: > > 2. "'One of right view, one of right view' is said, friends. > In what > > way is a noble disciple one of right view, whose view is > straight, > who has > > perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived at this true > Dhamma?" > > > > Comy: > > "But here "one of right view" is intended as one possessing > supramundane > > wholesome right view, which is fixed in destiny and > emancipating. Hence > > he said: whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in > the > > Dhamma, and has arrived at this true Dhamma (ujugata'ssa ditthi > dhamme > > aveccappasadena samannagato agato imam saddhammam). Because of > its going > > straight without deviating to either extreme, or because of its > going > > straight by removing all crookedness such as bodily crookedness, > etc., > > supramundane right view is "straight." One possessing that view > > also > > possesses perfect confidence, unshakable confidence, in the > ninefold > > supramundane Dhamma.[6] And by becoming disentangled from all > the > > thickets of (wrong) views, by abandoning all the defilements, by > departing > > from the round of rebirths, by bringing the practice to its > consummation, > > he is said to have come by the noble path to this "true Dhamma" > proclaimed > > by the Enlightened One, that is, Nibbana, the plunge into the > Deathless. > > > > The Wholesome and the Unwholesome > > > > 3. Understands the unwholesome (akusalan ca pajanati): he > understands > > the unwholesome called the ten courses of unwholesome kamma > (action), > > penetrating this by way of function with the understanding that > has > > Nibbana as its object as "This is suffering." (Understands) the > > root of > > the unwholesome (akusalamulan ca pajanati): And he understands > the > > unwholesome root which has become the root condition of that > > (unwholesome), penetrating this, in the same way, as "This is the > > origin > > of suffering." The same method applies here also in regard > to "the > > wholesome" and "the root of the wholesome." And, as it is here, > > so in > > all the following sections, the understanding of the subject > should be > > understood by way of function. > > > > In that way (ettavata pi): by this much; by this understanding > of the > > unwholesome, etc. He is one of right view (sammaditthi hoti): > > he > > possesses supramundane right view of the kind aforesaid. Whose > view is > > straight . . . and has arrived at this true Dhamma: At this > > point > > the summary version of the teaching has been expounded. And > this > (part > > of) the teaching itself was brief; but for those bhikkhus it > should be > > understood that the penetration (of the meaning) through right > attention > > occurred in detail. > > > > In that way (ettavata pi): by this much; by this understanding > of the > > unwholesome, etc. He is one of right view (sammaditthi hoti): > > he > > possesses supramundane right view of the kind aforesaid. Whose > view is > > straight . . . and has arrived at this true Dhamma: At this > > point > > the summary version of the teaching has been expounded. And > this > (part > > of) the teaching itself was brief; but for those bhikkhus it > should be > > understood that the penetration (of the meaning) through right > attention > > occurred in detail." > > ***** > > Metta, > > > > Sarah > > ====== 30252 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:55am Subject: Re: Catching Anger Hi Jon, No problem. Thank you for sharing your view. I would ask this: How does what is being said in the discourses support your view? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor (and KenH) > > I hope you don't mind me butting in here. > > This is an important issue, one that goes to the very heart of the > teachings, in my view. > > Both kinds of knowing -- knowing (directly) nama from rupa, and > knowing kusala from akusala -- are aspects of panna, but they involve > different levels of panna. > > Directly knowing nama from rupa (or, in other words, knowing nama as > nama and rupa as rupa) is panna of the level of > satipatthana/vipasssana. Indeed, this kind of knowing *is* > satipatthana/vipassana. > > Knowing kusala from akusala is the function, or one of the functions, > of panna of the level of samatha. Without this understanding, > samatha cannot be developed to a high degree. > > The further development of the understanding that knows nama from > rupa leads to seeing the characterisitc of anicca/dukkha/anatta in > namas and rupas (i.e., in all dhammas), and to the lessening of wrong > view. The understanding that knows the difference between present > moments of kusala and akusala, however, is not necesarily associated > with right view and can in fact be developed alongside a strong idea > of dhammas as 'self'. > > I think it was this difference that KenH was referring to. > > Jon [snip] 30253 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:19am Subject: effort Dear Group, A repost of a disussion with Htoo: Dear Htoo, I want to add some more about right effort. We may reach a point where there is a great deal of confusion about which way to go, what to believe, how to practice. And that is just the way it should be: because it is conditioned like that- if there is not enough insight accumulated (yet) then how can anything be clear. But what is the worse that can happen? Well we could die, or go insane, or be reborn in hell..whatever is the most fearful thing you can imagine. And then - in the end - we have to accept that whatever we fear could come true. But that the only way you are defeated in this sasana is if you give up. That acceptance releases the courage to face up to the truth of the moment, without the subtle pressure of conceit that is a false confidence. Even the Bodhisatta was born in hell and as an animal before he became enlightened. As it says in the Cariya-pitaka: "" If he were to hear: "He alone can attain Buddhahood who can tread across a whole world-system that has become a solid mass of sharp-pointed swordstakes, cross out, and reach the other side," etc .... If he were to hear: "Buddhahood can only be attained after being tortured in hell for four incalculables and a 100,000 aeons" -- he would not deem that difficult to do, but would be filled with desire for the task and would not shrink away"" We don't have to do so much to become a savaka but we really need to re-examine if we imagine it should be easy or quick. Right effort is consistent and is not discouraged at all by the time it takes; right effort doesn't look for the easy way or fast way, but only the right way- even if that means a trip across a spiked worldsystem.. In Triplegem@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: Dear Htoo, AS you know right effort only arises with kusala citta - and kusala citta is never strained- it only comes with pleasant or neutral feeling. So I think that such phrases as 'letting go' or 'choiceless awareness' are broadly pointing out the right attitude. However, this is more difficult than it sounds because sometimes it can still be ME who is letting go.... The present moment is always the test: are we trying to change it to be how we think it should be...For example, do we want to be calmer or have another object...This very subtle desire covers over the immediate present and comes with an idea of control (i.e.self)and so the present moment stays obscured. It is good what you said: "When someone has practised for a long time and his > > mindfulness works well, he might think that he is very mindful and > > then he is said to be attached to Atta and then Anatta is not > seen. > > Because he thinks that he can control his mindfulness ."" Yes and that is the wrong way. It takes a very skilful teacher to help someone who is attached to subtle selfview like this. Maybe they are so attached that they cannot hear. In the end we have to see for ourselves whether there is less idea of self or more. If one can understand that all dhammas are conditioned and not under the power of any self then they can be their own teacher. Then anything/moment can be a suitable object/time for satipatthana. Even then the path is incremental and cannot be hurried, I think. Just some ideas to think about. RobertK > 30254 From: Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 3:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack Ken H, I can't say I agree with any of what you say below. If it is working for you, great. I can't think of anything I can add to what I have already said. It's been a pleasure talking with you. You are a scholar and a gentleman. Be well. Jack ---------------- J: > In my experience, I can experience hardness as my feet rest on the ground. 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. ---------------------- No one likes to be told that someone else has been where they are and moved on to `bigger and better things' (as in; "Been there, done that!"). So I should be careful in saying that I have, over a twenty-five year period, tried the modern (non-ancient-text) way of practising Dhamma – as you have just described it. Then, some dsg friends convinced me that my practice necessarily involved the perception of a self (a self who could practise). So, I have lost interest in formal practice and never regretted doing so. I am not suggesting I have more wisdom than you have – just that I have acquired a different perspective on the Dhamma. ----------------- KH: >> 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: > 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. ---------------------------- Yes, but when he used the word "we" it was as a conventional designation. There was no suggestion, whatsoever, that "we" really exist. This knocked all conventional wisdom into a cocked hat. We must appreciate the enormous significance. Anatta is not a mere side issue; it changes everything. ------------------------------- J: > 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. ---------------- If there is no self (anatta), why should we try to follow the Eight- fold Path? Would the beings, who become freed by it, be you or me? No. And so there must be something more to it than that. The Buddha's teaching is all about the present moment. It is about what there really is, of you and me, right here and now. The Dhamma, in the Suttas, describes the present moment as it is for everyone -- from the lowliest worldling to the Tathagata himself. When it describes a being who is refraining from causing harm – or when it describes a being who is making the transition from worldling to ariyan -- there is no command; "Go out and do this!" how could there be? 30255 From: John Hoban Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:22am Subject: definately faithless Hello, I'm in the Pocono mtn.s of Pennsylvania I'm not selling anything, I don't think, but I'd like to find some answers. I think I've heard the stuff about no answers and paths to grow and experience not words. I agree. So what are we doing here? Exchanging words I mean. Beats the hell outta me. I probably won't be here (on the board I mean) long. You may detect a chord of negativism. Absolutely. And sarcasm, I lose more good lays that way! Don't know what's good for me maybe. But I'll tell you why I'm here... This debate about annatta vs. reincarnation has always bothered me. Long before I heard the words or any arguments about it. The simple question: Is there any personal identity (if anything at all for that matter) after biological death? I think when I was younger it bothered me more in a vanity kinda way. Then 6 years ago, my wife died. Things were left unsaid. So now I think the question takes on another broader perspective. One of fairness. I think she deserved more than what she got in that incarnation and I'd like to know she's getting better stuff now or at least on her way to better stuff, depending on the scale of things. Some may argue that it's still for selfish reasons I want to know, be that as it may, let me ask you, isn't it a good question? Can't you think of people and examples in your own life, who have died, whose PRESENT welfare and balancing of the scales of fairness and joy you'd like to be confident about. If your answer is wait and see. That too unsure. What if I simply forget everything when I die. No. NOW is the only time for knowing, for me. And I don't. Anybody know? Thanks, John 30256 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] compound and concept Hi Howard, op 17-02-2004 20:06 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > I don't say that I know or that I don't know. My only point was that > when our experience goes unexamined it seems that only obvious thoughts, > feelings, inclinations, emotions etc are experienced by the mind. When we > "see" a > tree or "hear" an orchestra, we think we are seeing and hearing. My point is > that we do not ordinarily realize how much the mind is involved in our > experiencing. We grossly underestimate the role of mind. N: I believe that there is such a great deal of thinking of stories about all that is perceived, thinking about feelings, emotions. Thus, thinking instead of having understanding of all these namas as only nama. We also forget that thinking is nama, not self. Without realizing it, thinking is full of self. There is still an underlying idea of, I think. H quotes N:>> By the way I understood that you think rupas such as eyesense are concepts. >> But the blind cannot see. >>---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Certainly true. Likewise those who don't have a car cannot drive. (But > cars are not rupas.) > ----------------------------------------------------------- > A rupic condition is necessary for seeing. And> >> that is eyesense. > Howard: > No doubt several rupic conditions are necessary for seeing. N: and also namic conditions, such as kamma that produces seeing. And the eye-door adverting-consciousness preceding seeing. H: Where is > the eyesense you are talking about? How and where is it observed - how is it > to > be known? Certainly there is the *capacity* to see, but such capacity is > nothing more than a bunch of conditions being in effect - some positive, some > negative. There are many paramatthic conditions that underlie what we call the > "the eyes working properly," a conventional expression. I will accept a > paramatthic "eyesense" when someone can say something specific about it, and, > in > particular, describe how and where it can be looked into. >N: I like your questions. Very direct. Yes I will refer to a sutta, but I wait. See below. H quotes N: This is physical, thus rupa.You think that all rupas are> >> concepts? > Howard: > Not in the slightest. Rupas are rupas, directly experienced, and are > not concepts. The fact that I have not been persuaded of a rupic entity called > "eyesense" does not imply that I think all rupas are concepts. I think nothing > of the sort. N: Good. I am sorry for this misunderstanding. This was perhaps caused by the word element, when we talked about the Maharahulovaadasutta. I quote: H: N: I can give another cross reference to another sutta. I find that not only Co but also cross references help much to understand sutta texts. But first I would like to ask you: how do you see element, dhaatu? Nina. 30257 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV 61 (2 of 4) Hi Larry, a tough one, still staring at the Pali. op 16-02-2004 01:39 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: L quotes: "The intimator intimates the meaning to be intimated only when it is > apprehended as a cause, not merely as present." L: A qualm: if the intimation is an activation of only primary elements, > how is it apprehended, by touch? N: The Expositor, (p. 111) states: Intimation is only known through the mind-door. L: 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. N: I do not see such outskirts. Different processes of cittas are dealt with that know objects through different doorways. Nama and rupa. Rupas produced by citta which has the intention to display a meaning. It is very daily, occurs all the time. But we forget that there are, in the absolute sense, just nama and rupa arising because of their appropriate conditions. When you speak and move your hands to emphasize your words, there is already bodily intimation. We take it for self! There can also be conceit on account of it. We attach importance to our gestures, to . Nina. 30258 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:_Dhammasangani, to Icaro Dear Icaro, op 17-02-2004 19:34 schreef icarofranca op icarofranca@y...: > > To be more precise, you Dhamma fellows must check it out the > Dhammasangani's Book Four- Tika Atthuddhaaro, stanza 1386: > > "Katame Dhamma Avyakatta ? Catusu Bhumisu Vipako, Tasu Bhumisu > Kiriyaavyakatta, Rupanca, Nibbanca - ime Dhamma Avyakatta." In the English edition: p. 231, and § 983. Instead of Tasu: Tiisu, locative of ti, three. Catusu: in the four planes (bhumi) of citta: namely, the sensuous plane, the plane of ruupajjhaana, of aruupajjhaana, and of lokuttara, there is vipaka. There are lokuttara vipaakacittas, the phalacittas. Next one:in three planes: kiriyaacittas, only in the sensuous plane, the plane of ruupajjhaana, of aruupajjhaana, not the plane of lokuttara citta. There are no lokuttara kiriyacittas. Nina. 30259 From: icarofranca Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:25am Subject: [dsg] Re:_Dhammasangani, to Icaro Dear Nina Exact! I haven't got Velthuis fonts here at Bureau... and some transliterations are a bit fuzzy indeed! ------------------------------------------------------------------ kiriyaacittas, only in the sensuous plane, the > plane of ruupajjhaana, of aruupajjhaana, not the plane of lokuttara citta. > There are no lokuttara kiriyacittas. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Thinking about it... it's a very idealistic viewpoint even for the usual cool-minded Abhidhammika! Mettaya, ícaro 30260 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 0:55pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/sacca Hi Andrew, As I occasionally admit, I am a poor scholar: I may have a fair overall picture of the Dhamma, but it is very hazy on details. The overall picture is that there is just the present moment and it is one of six possible `worlds.' In one of those worlds (the world of the mind-door), consciousness may sometimes have a conceptual view – a view, not of the real world, but of how things may be, or will be, or have been in the past in the `overall scheme of things.' Now, in that particular moment, world is fine as far as it goes, but, since there is no experience of reality, it cannot be a moment of satipatthana (or vipassana). I have never thought we should stop having concepts: My overall understanding does not incline me towards walking across roads without looking or anything like that. It hasn't been dangerous in any way. So what is the problem that you see? ---------------- A: > You imply that "we" don't "really exist" - i.e. that "conventional wisdom" is illusory. But the Buddha described conventional designations as "sacca" or "truths". How can a "truth" be an "illusion"? ------------------------------ Is sacca a dhamma? If it is, I had better climb down off my soapbox. But I don't think it is. (Hopefully, this is just one of those hazy details.) ------------------------------- A: > By continuing to use this descriptive language in the way that you do, are you not going one step too far and smudging the message? I have no problem with an assertion that "we" don't exist in an ultimate sense, but that's not what you say. You say: "we" don't really exist. ---------------- What is the difference between `"we" don't exist in ultimate reality' and `"we" don't really exist?' ------------------ A: > When you are in the desert and see a mirage of water, do you say "the mirage doesn't exist" or "the water doesn't exist"? Don't we need to look at the mirage critically and when we do, we find that no water is involved at all. A Noble One who looks at a mirage doesn't see nothing. He sees a mirage. He sees truth and he knows its nature. --------------------------------- I still can't see the problem. -------------------- A: > Your descriptive language, IMHO, transforms anatta into a lop- sided doctrine, trying to push pannatti out of sight. I don't for one minute think that this is your intention but it is the impression that is given off when we state that derived truths "don't exist". Or have I missed something? --------------------------------- My descriptive language may be more fundamentalist than others'. It definitely comes from a shaky underlying understanding, but it seems to be right as far as the big picture is concerned. Trust me, there are only dhammas – all else is illusory – the end of the world is a long way off! :-) Kind regards, Ken H 30261 From: Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] compound and concept Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/18/2004 1:30:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > I would like to ask you: how do you see element, dhaatu? ========================== If you give me instances, I will answer for each. As far as earth, air, fire, and water are concerned, I think of these as solidity/hardness, motion/movement, (varying degrees of) warmth/cold, and cohesion/fluidity, all direct elements of experience, and not concepts. Often, though, our minds substitute the concepts of these rupas for the rupic phenomena themselves, and when that happens we are not observing what we *think* we are observing. The mind is a great joker - a magician with a sense of humor! ;-) With metta, Howard 30262 From: Htoo Naing Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 2:35pm Subject: Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 10 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, Whenever a new mind state arises, the old mind state has already gone. It already passes away. According to the rule of citta ( mind state ), which also is known as citta niyama or law of consciousness, no 2 mind states can arise together. Each arises and then falls away. As soon as one falls away, another state arises. This may sound like lighting a candle in a dark place. As soon as the light comes, the darkness passes away. Here, a 'mind state' ( not a mental state ) is a state of mind at a particular point or at a particular moment. It is called ' citta '. Talking on this matter may seem talking theories. The meditator will not be able to see each citta. But 'he' will be able to see his mind states in conventional term. For example, a mind with greed, a mind without greed, a mind with hatred, a mind without hatred, a mind with ignorance, a mind without ignorance, a slothful mind, a distracted mind, a developed mind, an undeveloped mind, an inferior mind, a superior mind etc etc are mind states that can be recognized. With a prolonged practice of meditation of this kind, the meditator will be able to see such mind states. He has been sitting in meditation concentrating on his breath as a primary meditational object. This does not mean that all mental faculties have to attend at breath all the time but instead, flexibly whenever a new mind state arises it arising will be recognized by another arising mind state. This state also passes away and another mind state may arise at breath or whatever object. This 'ever falling away' is the essence of impermanence called ' Anicca '. This type of meditation is not a simple observation but it is an active process with a well penetrating analytical wisdom. This mind state is associated with non-greed, non-hatred, non-ignorance so called ' triple rooted beautiful mind state ' ( Tihetuka Citta ). This kind of meditation is for development of insight. Insight here is direct seeing,direct understanding, direct realizing without any thinking process involved in such seeing. Depending on the environment he is in, there arise different mind states. If he has chosen a forest and if the meditation time is not a busy time, there will be less distractable outside influences. Here, a question may arise. Why busy in a forest? If early evening, animals will be busy preparing for their rest. If so there will be noice. But whatever environment he is in, objects are arising all the time according to conditions that favour their arising. So what matter here is to practise so that a well concentrated mind states arise. There is no control over any of these mind states as mind states are going according to conditions that favour their arising. Apparently as the practice has long been going on and on there arises a mind state that takes the primary meditational object as its object and as it has gone another mind state arises taking the primary meditational object again as its object. Here again, the primary meditational object is a conventional term. It is not a static object. New and new object also arises at their specific time according to the conditions that favour their arising. As this continuous arising of mind states with similar character are called a well concentrated mind or Samahitacitta. When such a mind state happen 'the meditator' recognizes that a well concentrated mind has arisen. May you all practise Mahasatipatthana to attain Nibbana. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htootintnaing@y... JourneyToNibbana@yahoogroups.com 30263 From: Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 3:26pm Subject: Vism.XIV 61 (3 of 4) "The Path of Purification" Ch. XIV, 61 [concerning bodily intimation] Note 27 cont': 'If just the apprehension of the alteration is the reason for the apprehension of the intention, why is there no apprehension of intention in unapprehended communication (sa.nketa)? It is not only just the apprehension of the alteration that is the reason for the apprehension of the intention; but rather it should be taken that the apprehension of the previously-established connexion is the decisive support for this. The stiffening, upholding, and movement are due to the air element associated with the alteration belonging to the intimation, is what is said. What, is it all the air-element that does all those things? It is not like that. For it is the air-element given rise to by the seventh impulsion that, by acquiring as its reinforcing conditions the air elements given rise to by the preceding impulsions, moves consciousness-originated matter by acting as cause for its successive arisings in adjacent locations (desantaruppatti--cf. Ch. VIII, n.54), not the others. The others, however, help it by doing the stiffening and upholding, the successive arising in adjacent locations being itself the movement. So the instrumentality should be taken as attributed when there is the sign [of movement]; otherwise there would not be uninterestedness and momentariness of dhammas. And here the cart to be drawn by seven yokes is given as simile in the commentary. But when consciousness-born matter moves, the kinds of matter born of temperature, kamma, and nutriment move too because they are bound up with it, like a piece of dry cow-dung thrown into a river's current. 30264 From: Andrew Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 3:48pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/sacca Hi Ken H My original post really pertained to matters pedagogical. Having had the benefit of discussing things with you face-to-face over many years, I know and appreciate what you are getting at. It's your manner of getting the message across that I was addressing. Whilst this may seem pretty trivial, it is actually a huge issue on DSG - witness the continuing debates about why Buddha said "not self" instead of "no self". Perplexed, you wrote: > What is the difference between `"we" don't exist in ultimate > reality' and `"we" don't really exist?' A: As I see it, the difference is one of impression to an audience all of whom have a strong sense of "self". How many times have you encountered people who dismiss Dhamma with a wave of the hand and an incredulous laugh when they are first told that, according to Buddha, they "don't really exist". These people are not dummies, either. I believe you have had exactly this same experience with one of our nation's leading intellectuals? Well, IMHO, this is exactly the reason why Buddha spoke of "not-self" instead of "no self". I agree with Howard that it is a necessary result of the Buddha's teachings that "there is no self". But Buddha didn't just stroll up to people and say "you don't really exist". He encouraged them to look at aggregates themselves and determine "is this self" or "is this not self". Buddha was a very "switched on" teacher! He knew the result this line of inquiry leads to. Given that his motivation in teaching the Dhamma was compassion, he didn't pursue a line of teaching that would prompt instant rejection with no investigation. I proposed this metaphor: When you are in the desert and see a mirage of water, do you > say "the mirage doesn't exist" or "the water doesn't exist"? Don't > we need to look at the mirage critically and when we do, we find > that no water is involved at all. A Noble One who looks at a mirage > doesn't see nothing. He sees a mirage. He sees truth and he knows > its nature. > --------------------------------- Your response: I still can't see the problem. A: A mirage DOES exist and in our desperate state of ignorance, we take it for "water" and cling to that. But, ultimately, no water is involved. As a method of communication, do we just blandly state "there's no water there". In most cases, the response is one of disbelief and the person crawls on across the hot sands and perishes still with the belief that water is really there. Or do we ask people to investigate the conditions under which the mirage appears and to determine for each condition "is it water" or "is it not water" in a way that may prompt understanding? Buddha WAS very concerned with effective communication to his audience - any reading of the Aranavibhanga Sutta will demonstrate that. You wrote: > My descriptive language may be more fundamentalist than others'. It > definitely comes from a shaky underlying understanding, but it seems > to be right as far as the big picture is concerned. A: It may well be right in the big picture. Just remember to clean your paint-brush from time to time or that picture may get a bit smudgy! Best wishes Andrew 30265 From: Philip Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 3:50pm Subject: Re: Link to book on Paramis? Hello Robert Thanks! Philip --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Hi Philip, > You can find it here: > http://www.abhidhamma.org/perfections%20of%20enlightenment.htm > > I recommend this link too - here you will another link to 'Useful > Posts' > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/ > Robert > > > > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Philip" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah > wrote: > > > > >> p.s How did you get on with your reading on Paramis > (Perfections)? > > > ====== > > 30266 From: Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 3:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV 61 (3 of 4) Hi Nina, A couple of comments and a question: 27: "'If just the apprehension of the alteration is the reason for the apprehension of the intention, why is there no apprehension of intention in unapprehended communication (sa.nketa)? It is not only just the apprehension of the alteration that is the reason for the apprehension of the intention; but rather it should be taken that the apprehension of the previously-established connexion is the decisive support for this." L: "Previously established connexion" I take to be the convention "this movement signifies this meaning", e.g. holding up my hand in a certain way signifies "stop". If we disallow all convention and conceptuality in bodily intimation then what is intimated and why is bodily intimation an asabhava rupa? 27: "What, is it all the air-element that does all those things? It is not like that. For it is the air-element given rise to by the seventh impulsion that, by acquiring as its reinforcing conditions the air elements given rise to by the preceding impulsions, moves consciousness-originated matter by acting as cause for its successive arisings in adjacent locations (desantaruppatti--cf. Ch. VIII, n.54), not the others. The others, however, help it by doing the stiffening and upholding, the successive arising in adjacent locations being itself the movement." L: "Others" and "preceding impulsions" I take to mean the first 6 of the 7-impulsion series (javana cittas). All 7 of these accomplish the work of intention, each in slightly different ways. Would you like to explain a little more? 27: "So the instrumentality should be taken as attributed when there is the sign [of movement]; otherwise there would not be uninterestedness and momentariness of dhammas." L: I don't quite get this but it could be something like: the appearance of movement should be attributed to the instrumentality of the javana cittas; otherwise there would be the belief in self as doer and a false sense of continuousness. Larry 30267 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 5:37pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/sacca Hi Andrew and Ken, I would say: No, the view "there is no self" is not a necessary result of the Buddha's teaching. The view "there is no self" is a result of one's misunderstanding of the Buddha's teaching. The Buddha's teaching is not about what exists or what does not exists. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > Hi Ken H [snip] > I agree > with Howard that it is a necessary result of the Buddha's teachings > that "there is no self". But Buddha didn't just stroll up to people > and say "you don't really exist". He encouraged them to look at > aggregates themselves and determine "is this self" or "is this not > self". Buddha was a very "switched on" teacher! He knew the result > this line of inquiry leads to. Given that his motivation in teaching > the Dhamma was compassion, he didn't pursue a line of teaching that > would prompt instant rejection with no investigation. > > I proposed this metaphor: > When you are in the desert and see a mirage of water, do you > > say "the mirage doesn't exist" or "the water doesn't exist"? Don't > > we need to look at the mirage critically and when we do, we find > > that no water is involved at all. A Noble One who looks at a mirage > > doesn't see nothing. He sees a mirage. He sees truth and he knows > > its nature. > > --------------------------------- > Your response: I still can't see the problem. > > A: A mirage DOES exist and in our desperate state of ignorance, we > take it for "water" and cling to that. But, ultimately, no water is > involved. As a method of communication, do we just blandly > state "there's no water there". In most cases, the response is one > of disbelief and the person crawls on across the hot sands and > perishes still with the belief that water is really there. Or do we > ask people to investigate the conditions under which the mirage > appears and to determine for each condition "is it water" or "is it > not water" in a way that may prompt understanding? > Buddha WAS very concerned with effective communication to his > audience - any reading of the Aranavibhanga Sutta will demonstrate > that. > > You wrote: > > My descriptive language may be more fundamentalist than others'. > It > > definitely comes from a shaky underlying understanding, but it > seems > > to be right as far as the big picture is concerned. > > A: It may well be right in the big picture. Just remember to clean > your paint-brush from time to time or that picture may get a bit > smudgy! > > Best wishes > Andrew 30268 From: Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV 61 (3 of 4) Hi Nina, I see my mistake in interpreting "asabhava rupa". The rupas classified as without an individual characteristic are so classified because they are not produced by any of the 4 means of production: kamma, nutriment, consciousness, temperature. Rather, they are attributes, qualities, modes of such produced rupa. "Asabhava rupa" has nothing to do with concepts even though concept plays a role in the 2 intimations. Asabhava rupas are: space, bodily intimation, vocal intimation, lightness, malleability, weildiness, production, continuity, decay, impermanence. Therefore, the following has to be interpreted in a different way: 27: "'If just the apprehension of the alteration is the reason for the apprehension of the intention, why is there no apprehension of intention in unapprehended communication (sa.nketa)? It is not only just the apprehension of the alteration that is the reason for the apprehension of the intention; but rather it should be taken that the apprehension of the previously-established connexion is the decisive support for this." L: Maybe "previously-established connexion" refers to "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." [from 2 of 3] In other words, one apprehends not only the motion of the air element etc., but also one apprehends a subtle physical indication of intention that is separate from the motion. You can tell when someone is trying to communicate something by a gesture, even if you don't understand what that something is. You can tell an intimating gesture from a non-intimating gesture by this physical sign of intentionality. This physical indication of intention, a subtle phenomenon, is "a certain kind of alteration that is separate from the appearance of motion". Perhaps. Larry 30269 From: Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 3:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/sacca Hi, Victor (and Andrew and Ken) - In a message dated 2/18/04 8:48:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Andrew and Ken, > > I would say: No, the view "there is no self" is not a necessary > result of the Buddha's teaching. The view "there is no self" is a > result of one's misunderstanding of the Buddha's teaching. > > The Buddha's teaching is not about what exists or what does not > exists. > > Metta, > Victor > ============================ I suppose that one might say that the Buddha's teaching is mainly about coming to the point of not clinging to anything as "I" or "mine". A statement to that effect does occur in at least one sutta, and it is one of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's favorite slogans. And I suppose there are a number of alternative ways of saying what the Buddha's teaching is about while standing on one foot. ;-) One question, though, about which I am curious as to your understanding is the following: What is meant by "Sabbe dhamma anatta"? Doesn't this mean that nothing is self? 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) 30270 From: Eznir Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 9:11pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Catching Anger Dear Sarah & Philip. "Monks, for anyone who says, 'In whatever way a person makes kamma, that is how it is experienced,' there is no living of the holy life, there is no opportunity for the right ending of stress. When a person makes kamma to be felt in such & such a way, that is how its result is experienced,' there is the living of the holy life, there is the opportunity for the right ending of stress." [Lonaphala Sutta AN-III.99 ] One of the differences between a Puthujjana(ordinary person) and a Sekha(one in training) is the Kamma, ones actions. The actions of a Puthujjana is misdirected with respect to Nibbana. While that of a Sekha is directed towards Nibbana, the goal. Therefore whenever one performs an action it should be directed. "And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma". [Kamma Sutta SN-XXXV.145 ] And what is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is called the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma. " [Kamma Sutta SN-XXXV.145 ] And how does one direct kamma? Through ones intentions. Intention is action. First having intended one acts. The direction of this Intention should be towards practicing the noble 8-fold path. Why? Because it leads to the cessation of Kamma, ie., Nibbana. Metta eznir --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Philip, > > I agree with these comments with the possible exception of any idea of > `directing' attachment 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? > ..... > The reason I question this is because it suggests that `we' can direct > anything and that there can be a skillful direction for anger or greed > which is very questionable I think. > > Perhaps you'd care to elaborate further. > > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s How did you get on with your reading on Paramis (Perfections)? > ====== > > > 30271 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:26pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/sacca Hi Howard, As I understand it, "Sabbe dhamma anatta" means all phenomena (dhamma) are not self. In other words, every phenomenon(dhamma) is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." I know you can reason and conclude that "Sabbe dhamma anatta" means nothing is self. With the conclusion "nothing is self", you can again reason and reach the conclusion "there is no self." Nevertheless, with that kind of discursive reasoning, the original meaning of what the Buddha said is further distorted and misrepresented. At the end, you adopt the view "there is no self", a misrepresentation of what the Buddha actually taught, and that view blocks you from seeing every phenomenon as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." It is not easy for one to abandon a speculative view that he or she holds onto. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor (and Andrew and Ken) - > > In a message dated 2/18/04 8:48:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > Hi Andrew and Ken, > > > > I would say: No, the view "there is no self" is not a necessary > > result of the Buddha's teaching. The view "there is no self" is a > > result of one's misunderstanding of the Buddha's teaching. > > > > The Buddha's teaching is not about what exists or what does not > > exists. > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > > ============================ > I suppose that one might say that the Buddha's teaching is mainly > about coming to the point of not clinging to anything as "I" or "mine". A > statement to that effect does occur in at least one sutta, and it is one of Buddhadasa > Bhikkhu's favorite slogans. And I suppose there are a number of alternative > ways of saying what the Buddha's teaching is about while standing on one foot. > ;-) > One question, though, about which I am curious as to your > understanding is the following: What is meant by "Sabbe dhamma anatta"? Doesn't this mean > that nothing is self? > > With metta, > Howard 30272 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:31pm Subject: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi Howard, Howard: I'll only insert a couple comments in the following. The bottom line is that I am close to 100% in disagreement with you on this. ;-) To me it is crystal clear that practicing that Dhamma requires constant vigilance and volition, and that the Buddha taught this in inumerable suttas and contexts. ------------------------- Sukin: If one's day consists of mindlessly reacting to sensual objects and getting lost in thoughts, then surely this will not be good. In contrast if there *is* constant vigilance of what is going on through the six doorways, one could then be said to be moving ahead towards the goal. However, who but the very advanced would be able to be constantly vigilant? Is not the strength and frequency of sati dependent on how much panna has been developed and this must start as you say, `from where we are'? ;-) ---------------------- Howard: Right effort, as far as I'm concerned, consists of what the Buddha said it consists of. When he spoke of right effort, he was quite specific, and he wasn't speaking in terms of some sort of Abhidhammic ultimate that is always present. The Buddha was largely teaching worldlings when he taught right effort (and much of the rest), and he gave instructions that could be understood and followed by worldlings. --------------------- Sukin: I think the Buddha's teachings is useful for all levels of understanding. Not only specific discourses were made for specific persons or groups, but even we, whose panna cannot compare with those people then, can gain some benefit or the other. Even conventional application is good compared to no application at all. This would however depend on the level of *our* understanding, not on the meaning in the ultimate sense of the Teachings. But with our `intellectual knowledge' of the ultimate meaning, why must we choose to apply the Teachings as if we don't have it? ------------------------ Howards: As I've said before,we start where we are, not where we hope to be. ------------------------ Sukin: Yes, but isn't the intellectual knowledge part of where we are? Who is talking about the knowledge of the Tilakkhana or Paticcasamupada as if they have had direct knowledge? Everyone admits that their understanding is only intellectual. This intellectual knowledge however, though it is far from realization, is enough to cause us to look in the right direction. And I think this is a key point. Do we see pariyatti as a stepping stone towards practice in the sense that one makes the *decision* to apply the teachings? Do we have a mental picture with regard to theory and practice? I think such mental constructs are result of ignorance fuelled by desire. In reality dhammas rise and fall performing their individual functions. It is not up to us to *apply*. With our level of understanding, we wouldn't know when the development has taken place (only on hindsight after seeing the change on the adze handle). Should we fool ourselves thinking that we know when practice is to take place, and more so with the subsequent image of "I" having done so? --------------------- Howard: You say that effort is always present, but sati and pa~n~na may not be. In checking the universal cetasikas, I don't see effort (or energy-viriya). Maybe it's there but I'm just missing it. ----------------------- Sukin: I said, with the exception of the ten sense door cittas. ------------------------ Howard: But even if effort to some degree is always there, it may be weak. Moreover, if to make the effort "right" sati and pa~n~na are required, how do they come about. Ultimately, it must come down to either cultivation (powered by volition and effort) or by sheer dumb luck! But the Buddha taught his students to take steps! ----------------------- Sukin: Meeting the wise friend, hearing the dhamma, reflecting on it and applying it, is how sati and panna is developed. Why must you conclude that if one is not deliberately doing something that it is because he thinks it is up to chance? Isn't this revolved around self view? And isn't also our understanding of `effort' being confused with the conventional idea of it? So the two together conditions the image in our mind of `someone making up his mind to *do* something'? ---------------------------------------------------- I think you agree with > > this. So firstly, should we be concerned particularly with "effort"? > Should we not be more concerned about understanding the present > moment. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Can't do that without volition and effort! (Every sentient being, except when in an unconscious stupor, observes always and only the present moment(in reality), but not all sentient beings are engaged in Buddhist practice and heading in the right direction. (I add no further comment until the end.) -------------------------------------------------- Sukin: "Every sentient being observes always and only the present moment(in reality)". "Observes" or `experiences'? And the important thing is that he is *ignorant* of it, instead of *understanding* it!! If you think that the difference between Buddhist practice and those of other religions is in the `effort and volition applied', then on that level I would say that it is no different from other religions at all!! All religions teach one form of sense control or the other. And the `self' they teach in principle is no different from the `self' that you are suggesting in practice. The `guarding of the senses' taught by the Buddha, is different from other religions in that it revolves around the understanding of the difference between paramattha objects and `thinking' that happens as a consequence. All kinds of kusala is encouraged, even temporary suppression and sublimation as in James' recent example about directing the mind to other kinds of thoughts, it is however not the ultimate goal or even a part of the main teaching of the Buddha. Besides, even when the Buddha talked about these, his intention is so that the hearer will then attend to his experiences more sensibly, i.e. satipatthana. ……I think…? ;-) ============================ Howard: I understand you to be basically saying that there is nothing that can be done. I see this this as a doctrine of hopelessness,and I definitely see it as contrary to the Buddha's teaching. With metta, Howard ============================= Sukin: Does studying and applying the teachings of the Buddha encourage hope? If so, then this can breed hopelessness upon change of conditions. But I don't get such an impression with regard to the Teachings. It makes me feel sober understanding as little as I do about conditionality, but this is not the same as feeling hopeless. In fact it has taken a lot of burden off me. And part of this burden used to be `the self' who was seeking progress and struggling wrongly to get there. Are we now 100% in disagreement, or are we a little less so than before? ;-) Metta, Sukin. 30273 From: Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 6:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/sacca Hi, Victor - In a message dated 2/19/04 1:26:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > As I understand it, "Sabbe dhamma anatta" means all phenomena > (dhamma) are not self. In other words, every phenomenon(dhamma) is > to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is > not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." > > I know you can reason and conclude that "Sabbe dhamma anatta" means > nothing is self. With the conclusion "nothing is self", you can > again reason and reach the conclusion "there is no self." > Nevertheless, with that kind of discursive reasoning, the original > meaning of what the Buddha said is further distorted and > misrepresented. At the end, you adopt the view "there is no self", > a misrepresentation of what the Buddha actually taught, and that > view blocks you from seeing every phenomenon as it actually is with > right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is > not my self." > > It is not easy for one to abandon a speculative view that he or she > holds onto. > > Metta, > ============================ On the basis of language meaning, or any other basis, I would like to know how you distinguish "All phenomena are not self" from "No phenomena are self". These are normally logically eqivalent paraphrases, just as "All cows are not reptiles" means the same as "No cows are reptiles". As far as formal logic is concerned, using 'A' for the universal quantifier and 'E' for the existential quantifier, the sentence "All phenomena are not self" is of the form (A x) ~ Self(x), and the sentence "No phenomena are self" is of the form ~ (E x) Self(x). And these are logically equivalent. What do you understand "All phenomena are not self" to mean? Do you presume the sense of "all" is restricted in some sense, or do you attribute some special meaning to it that is not obvious? What about the statement that says "All sankhara are impermanent"? Using ordinary logic, this is equivalent to "No sankhara is permanent". Do you think it is possible that all sankhara are impermanent, and yet some sankhara is permanent? If not, why not? In the same way, as soon as one knows that all phenomena are not self, one also knows that no phenomenon is self. It's exactly the same. 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) 30274 From: Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 6:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi, sukin - In a message dated 2/19/04 1:32:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, sukinder@k... writes: > Does studying and applying the teachings of the Buddha encourage > hope? ========================= I approve of studying the Dhamma, and I approve of applying it. Both of these require volition and effort. 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) 30275 From: Sarah Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi Michael, --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello Sarah, > > Tks for your reply. Very clear. Maybe you can expand a little bit on one > thing you said. .... S:A pleasure;-) .... > Michael: > > I can relate to your description and I like the idea of a spiral. But > the key passage here is "the intellectual right understanding slowly > becomes a foundation for sati". Why slowly? And what makes the > intellectual understanding evolve into sati? How is that feat achieved? > What are the 'right ingredients' you refer to? .... S:Excellent Qs! I said slowly because I think for most of us today, we need to hear a lot of details and to hear them repeatedly for the message to sink in so that satipatthana can begin to develop. Even in the Buddha’ s time, he would repeatedly give comments like: “Bhikkhus, I do not say that final knowledge is achieved all at once. On the contrary, final knowledge is achieved by gradual training, by gradual practice, by gradual progress.” (MN,70) I mentioned another sutta recently with regard to the ‘gradual slope’ like the ocean bed as well. We’ve been accumulating ignorance over so many aeons, so patience is definitely called for. Actually, fast/slow - it’s all relative. Probably the reason I mention ‘slowly’ is because so often I hear people feeling frustrated about the lack of progress, lack of noticable change in akusala tendencies and so on. We all forget the adze handle simile;-) Any panna (whether intellectual or direct understanding) is a condition for more understanding, awareness and other wholesome states to arise. If there is no theoretical understanding of the objects of satipatthana, of the clear distinction between namas and rupas and if these are considered as self, awareness of these realities cannot develop. The converse is true. Having heard that seeing only sees ‘visible object,’ it can be a condition for awareness right now of ‘visible object’ without any intention or focussing (which would of course guarantee that there wasn’t awareness at this moment;-)). So, the right ingredients are the right conditions. It is the careful considering and reflecting on true Dhamma, a level of panna, that will be the main ingredient for further development, along with other supporting factors (natural decisive support and other conditions) from the present, a moment ago, a decade ago, an aeon ago. Almost any state or rupa can act as a decisive support. Even past anger can be a condition for panna as object if there are other right conditions. [Like Sukin has been stressing, it's not a matter of having perfect intellectual understanding, then direct understanding and so on, hence the spiral analogy. Sati arises with each wholesome citta, but when we refer to satipatthana, we're referring to understanding and sati which have a nama or rupa (not a concept of them) as object.] ..... M: >And again how to avoid > the trap of a self doing something while there is no self at all, it is > just a mere concept of fantasy. .... By understanding the present moment. As you say, any idea of self is ‘just a mere concept of fantasy’ however well-packaged it may be. [This is why I appreciate KenH’s direct and clear crystal glass comments which don’t allow any fudging (imvho Andrew, but pls continue your tough interrogations;-);-))]. If there is an idea of avoiding wrong views, again the self creeps in. This is why it has to be the path of detachment, understanding whatever reality appears without selection. If that reality is wrong view, so be it. It’s just another conditioned nama, that’s all, no self in it, outside it, belonging to it or belonged by it. At moments of panna, there’s no doubt or hesitation about namas and rupas being any kind of self and no delusion about concepts being real. Any more Qs or comments? Metta, Sarah ====== 30276 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:50pm Subject: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi Howard, > ========================= >I approve of studying the Dhamma, and I approve of applying it. Both of these require volition and effort. ========================= Sure, both these cetasikas will be there in all javana cittas. However, is picking up the Tipitaka to read, or listening to dhamma, or discussions, be instances of 'pariyatti'? Would telling oneself 'to do this' or 'not do that' be 'patipatti'? Metta, Sukin. 30277 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 0:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 02 ) Hi Htoo, --- htootintnaing wrote: > S: Good - sometimes we need to clarify that we are just discussing > cittasand cetasikas;-) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Not exactly. I am talking how to get through the samsara. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ..... S: What do you mean by ‘get through’? For worldlings, is there anything other than cittas, cetasikas and rupas in samsara? ..... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > S: This is when it starts sounding like `atta', when there is > a > suggestion of `pushing' or `choice'. What dhamma is > this `choice'? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: Please ride on words and do not look at words. > > Hermit Sumedho made a choice to become a Sammasambuddha. He as a > hermit at that time had enough perfection to get through the samsara. > > Here are many atta. Hermit atta. Sumedho atta. choice atta. and > endless atta. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ..... S: So when you mention ‘choice’ , do you mean ‘by conditions’..... For example, when you mention ‘choosing to concentrate’, or here ‘choosing to become a Sammasambuddha’, how do you understand it in paramattha terms? Obviously great panna is involved in determining the Bodhisatta’s path. Is this true when there is the determination to concentrate at this moment? ..... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: 'conditions' ? I think many atta will follow behind the > explanation of conditions. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ..... S: We’re talking about the conditions for panna to arise. We can use the word self or atta or any other word. It just depends on the understanding when we use them what is meant. Sometimes we need to discuss for sometime to know. ?... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > There is no Htoo Naing, there is no Sarah, there is no DSG. There is > no one discussing. There is no one responding. There is no 'we'. > > As soon as idea of self is lost then ... clear? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ..... S:I think it’s only finally eradicated without trace by sotapatti-magga citta. Until then, even though we agree there is no ‘we’ and throw it out of the bag and say it’s not on the map, it has a bad habit of creeping in whenever there’s an opportunity. ..... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: I am just collecting materials, tools, equipment and other > things that might be needed during the journey. I have not even drawn > out the map from the drawer. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ..... S: Oh, this is great;-) We’re going to be really well equipped;-) Yes, let’s not worry about the map or route until we have all the right materials at the outset. .... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > S: No `by whom'. By panna as leader with the support of its > co-arising > ministers such as sati, samadhi, viriya etc. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: I already know the answer you will reply in advance. You are > coming in and going out of the boundries. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ..... S: ;-) .... > Sarah: >Definitely we both agree that any `atta' must be thrown > out of > the bags at the outset;-) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: As soon as you have thrown it away, then ... clear? > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ..... S: Clear for an instant. Panna is so very brief. It’s a bit like bailing out water on a boat as we cross a river....there’ll be more bailing out of ‘atta’ on route I’m sure;-) .... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: I am not thinking but I am seeing 'Atta'. Atta of fun. :-)) > > Be happy all the time. .... S: Yes, let’s have fun and be happy as we bail out ‘atta’ - or rather, I should say, as panna bails out ‘atta’;-) Thanks for sharing your comments and your good humour, Htoo. Metta, Sarah ====== 30278 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 0:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 02 ) Hi James (& Htoo), I hope your laptop gets fixed quickly - I get withdrawal symptoms when you’re away and no one’s giving me a hard time ;-) .... -- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Sarah: 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'? > > James: Sarah, could you please explain in detail, in your own words, > why `trying', or `striving', or `effort' suggests an `atta', a self? > Just as `smoke' would suggest a `fire', and one can be linked to the > other, please explain why `trying' would suggest a self and how they > are linked. I would like your own words as explanation since this is > obviously an idea that you have. ..... I think it depends on the context and meaning of the writer. This is why I’ve been discussing in some detail with Htoo as I’d like to understand his meaning when he uses these terms. To give a few examples: 1. We may talk in everyday language about striving to keep the house clean, trying to correct the students’ homework or making an effort to do more exercise. I say these things all the time and they’re perfectly good and acceptable examples of conventional language. When we use them, they are clearly not being made as statements of any special deep truths or methods of mental development. 2. We may talk about striving to be aware of the body or trying to focus on walking or sensations or meditation. We start to enter what I might call a ‘fudged picture’ area. What you, Htoo and I might mean by any of these expressions could be quite different and quite significant with regard to any understanding of the Buddha’s teachings. As I see it, if there is any suggestion of ‘selection’ or any nama or rupa other than what has arisen aleady as being the object of understanding, then it is an indication of desire. In addition, it would indicate a lack of appreciation of the conditioned nature of present dhammas as being anatta. Furthermore, if there is any idea that ‘body’ or ‘walking’, for example, can be objects of satipatthana, this would be wrong. Htoo and I agree on this. 3. We may talk about making an effort or striving to be aware of feelings or anger or rupas or mental factors. In this case, there is no argument about the objects of satipatthana, but again an idea of someone making an effort or striving or being able to select objects can creep in. ..... Let me ask you this Q: If you talk about/think about trying or striving to do some chores/be aware of the body or breath/or striving to know feelings or mental factors in meditation practice, who or what is ‘trying’, ‘striving’ or making this ‘effort’? Metta, Sarah ====== 30279 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 0:58am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Andy, Love lost / the self... how? Hi Andy, --- Andy Wilson wrote: Thanks for all your feedback and further detail. <....> A: >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. ..... I think we all find different books/texts helpful at the outset - for some it is a Sutta collection, for others an Abhidhamma text. This book was incredibly helpful for me as soon as I opened it. Take your time and share any comments here. I like to use AS as a reference text. They are very complimentary. ..... <...> A: >(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. ..... Still, in between the anger, there must be moments of skilful abstention from expression and perhaps even some kindness and consideration too. So we see that even though it might seem that there’s nothing but anger, mental states and cittas are changing all the time. There are also processes of seeing and hearing and so on at these times. .... A: >However, > when I felt this anger I was almost pleased because it took the hurt > away for a while. .... It’s natural. Just be patient as Christine ured. Don’t expect too much too quickly. Clinging to self is very deep-rooted. In time there will be more acceptance of the new scenario. sometimes one can even smile at all the dosa (anger) which is just to visible objects, sounds, feelings and imaginatary concepts in the end;-) ..... A: >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(?) ..... We all have lots of mistaken views, especially about people really existing. I’m sure it’s a difficult time for your ex-partner too. (Maybe you have friends you could stay with or could consider renting a cheap place til the flat is sold??) ..... A: > 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. ..... Understanding feelings and other realities for what they are can only be with detachment. Why does understanding develop slowly, a friend asked, and perhaps we can answer by saying ‘not enough detachment’. .... <....> A: > 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. ..... I’d say, just appreciate and understand what makes senseand is useful at this point without being too concerned for now about ‘transplanting the core of buddhism into western soil’. Sometimes, aspects of the teachings which seem senseless, irrelevant or culture-bound now take on greater relevance at another time. Just put them aside without rejection for now. The same applies to any discussions here. .... A: > 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? ..... You’d get a wide set of responses on this if everyone replied. I’m an ‘as is’, only because I think that most the time it is our ignorance which speaks when we think there needs to be a radical reworking. After all, we’re reading about the Buddha’s omniscient knowledge. I think that even the ‘radical reworkers’ can be grateful for the long and strong tradition of ‘as is’ bhikkhus who have preserved the original teachings for us to read, consider and form our own judgments about. Metta, Sarah p.s Look forward to a progress report and what you’re finding helpful at each stage;-) Glad to have you here. ===== 30280 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Catching Anger Hi Philip, --- Philip wrote: > Hello Sarah. Thank you for remembering me! It may still be a while > before I understand once and all that studying seriously with a group > like this is more beneficial than cavorting at the general Buddhist > forums where I spend too much of my time, but I sense that day is > coming. ..... Good news;-) As I just said to Andy who is also pretty new here, just read what is helpful in the beginning and put aside anything too technical or not relevant to your concerns. Also, I recommend to any newcomers to just start new threads of your own anytime. .... P: >I found it a bit hard going here because of my lack of > knoweledge of the Pali terms, but that's why there is a glossary > available for us here. .... For others, this is in the files section: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Glossary_of_pali_terms We all use this dictionary a lot as well: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic_idx.html It’s been my invaluable guide for 30 years in book form! ..... P: > I still haven't read Nina's book on the Paramis. The intention has > been ripening, though. :) .... Now you’ve got the link, why not start on the first chapter and share your comments or any quotes of special significance. Nina and the rest of us would be glad to hear them. ..... P: > This and the comments that followed were helpful for me. I have > been reading and thinking more about Upekkha since I last posted, and > see that I was taking it in the wrong way. Without Right View to > remind me of the true nature of phenomena, I was taking Upekkha as a > kind of bubble to protect ME from the world, instead of seeing it as > an energy to be safe in because there is no real barrier of self > there and no attachment, therefore, to worldy concerns which feed on > self-image. .... I think you’d find it helpful to read more about upekkha at this link under ‘equanimity’ in Nina’s book on the Cetasikas (mental factors) http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas32.html Also see upekkha and brahma viharas in U.P> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts .... P: > I should have elaborated more about what Ayya Khema said. She said > that those whose primary defilement is greed could possibly channel > that energy into faith, which would be a way of generating energy and > enthusiasm for one's practice. So it wasn't consciously justifying > greed, per se, but channeling any remnant of it into faith. .... Hmm....I’m not sure about this. Maybe I’m taking it too literally, but I don’t see that any defilement can be ‘channeled’ into a wholesome factor. It also sounds rather ‘self-like’ to me. Perhaps it means simply to contrast the characteristics of factors such as wholesome faith and energy with unwholesome states such as greed? .... P:> Thank you, Sarah, and all. > Now, hopefully I WILL be going into this group's files for serious > study rather than fooling around at general forums. :) .... We’re all allowed some fun too :-) We may have all sorts of intentions,but anything can happen by conditions. Let us know how your reading and reflecting goes, wherever that takes place. Metta, Sarah p.s thx RobK for promptly giving the link ====== 30281 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] definately faithless Hi John, S:Welcome to DSG. The ‘faithless’ are welcome too;-) --- John Hoban wrote: > Hello, > I'm in the Pocono mtn.s of Pennsylvania .... S:Thanks for letting us know. I think there are a few posters from Penn. .... > I'm not selling anything, I don't think, but I'd like to find some > answers. I think I've heard the stuff about no answers and paths to > grow and experience not words. > I agree. So what are we doing here? Exchanging words I mean. Beats > the > hell outta me. .... S:LOL.... the answers may not be words, but they can help us to understand the answers....;-) .... >I probably won't be here (on the board I mean) long. > You may detect a chord of negativism. Absolutely. And sarcasm,.... .... S:That’s a no-no here....hmmm....maybe you could follow the route of some members who write in draft form first and leave it for a while if it seems to be a problem. Maybe you’ll just find us all so cool that these past habits won’t arise;-) ... <..> >But > I'll > tell you why I'm here... This debate about annatta vs. reincarnation > has always bothered me. Long before I heard the words or any > arguments > about it. The simple question: Is there any personal identity (if > anything at all for that matter) after biological death? > I think when I was younger it bothered me more in a vanity kinda way. .... S:Deep thinking even if ‘faithless’.... .... > Then 6 years ago, my wife died. Things were left unsaid. So now I > think > the question takes on another broader perspective. One of fairness. I > think she deserved more than what she got in that incarnation and I'd > like to know she's getting better stuff now or at least on her way to > better stuff, depending on the scale of things. .... S:It’s so difficult for us to know what’s fair. From the way we mostly see things here, everything is fair and we all get what we deserve. If it seemed like she deserved better, don’t fear, her good deeds will bring their own good results sooner or later. We think in terms of ‘personal identity’, but really there’s just a stream or current of mental and physical phenomena arising and falling by conditions. Your comments touch me and act as a reminder to treat those around us as well as we can while we have the chance. Thanks for this. John, we’re all full of lots of rotten stuff - none of us do as well as we like. We just have to let the past go. .... > Some may argue that it's still for selfish reasons I want to know, be > that as it may, let me ask you, isn't it a good question? Can't you > think of people and examples in your own life, who have died, whose > PRESENT welfare and balancing of the scales of fairness and joy you'd > like to be confident about. .... S:Your Qs are good ones and of course we’d all like to know that the life streams of those we’ve loved are in happy realms and experiencing joy as you say. We can’t know, but we can perform good deeds and hope they might appreciate these and also be confident that any good they did will bring joy sooner or later. .... > If your answer is wait and see. That too unsure. What if I simply > forget everything when I die. No. NOW is the only time for knowing, > for > me. And I don't. Anybody know? .... S:Nobody knows - no anybody to know. As you say, NOW is the only time for knowing. So if there’s thinking about the past now, the thinking can be known as real. The past is just an imagination. It’s gone, never to return. Pls ask more questions and let us know how this sounds. Pls be patient with any slow responses from me or anyone too. Metta & Peace, Sarah ====== 30282 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 2:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Catching Anger Hi Victor, --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah and (Ken H), > > I read the commentary you quoted. But how does the commentary that > you quoted support the claim that the first sign of right > understanding comes when nama is directly known as nama and rupa as > rupa? .... The commentary showed that the sutta (you selected) is describing supramundane wisdom and not the first signs of right understanding. Sometimes we have to look at various suttas and other texts for more details as I indicated;-) This is why Ken H is trying to have you look at the Satipatthana sutta for example. Metta, Sarah p.s On dry-insight..... see Kitagiri sutta M70 for more details about all the various ways of attaining arahantship (the seven kinds of persons). The second is the 'one liberated by wisdom' (pa~n~naavimutta). ~Naa.namoli/Bodhi transl: "What kind of person is one liberated-by-wisdom? Here some person does not contact with the body and abide in those liberations that are peaceful and immaterial, transcending forms, but his taints are destroyed by his seeing with wisom.* I do not say of such a bhikkhu that he still has work to do with diligence. Why is that? He has done his work with diligence; he is no more capable of being negligent." *footnote: Pa~n`naavimutta. MA: This includes those who attain arahantship either as dry-insight meditators (sukkha-vipassaka) or after emerging from one or another of the four jhaanas. The Pug. definition merely substitutes the eight liberations for “those liberations....transcending forms.” I think that it depends on the context what kind of pannavimutta is being referred to: in the Susima sutta, it indicates they are sukkha-vipassaka, whereas in an AN sutta you quoted, it is referring to those who have emerged from jhanas. Thanks for all your sutta references and challenging comments. Metta, Sarah ====== 30283 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:38am Subject: The 10 Winners of Clever Conduct! Friends: The 10 Protectors of Clever Conduct: There are 3 kinds of advantageous Bodily behaviour. There are 4 kinds of advantageous Verbal behaviour. There are 3 kinds of advantageous Mental behaviour. ------------------ What are the 3 kinds of advantageous Bodily behaviour ? 1: Avoiding Killing of living beings, harmless with rod & weapon laid down, gentle & kind, understanding & friendly to all breathing beings! 2: Avoiding Stealing others property, avoiding taking what is not given, whether in forest or village, leaving all theft & fraud behind! 3: Avoiding Sexual Misconduct by abstaining from partners protected by father, mother, brother, sister, family, who is married or engaged to other side, imprisoned or protected by the law... These are the 3 kinds of advantageous Bodily behaviour ! ------------------ What are the 4 kinds of advantageous Verbal behaviour ? 4: Avoiding Lying and all false speech, so when called to the court, hearing, conference, family or professional gathering and asked as a witness, when knowing one answers: 'I know', when not knowing one answers: 'I does not know', when having seen one answers: 'I saw', when not having seen one answers: 'I did not see'. Thus one does not, fully aware -consciously- speak any false, for the purpose of one's own gain, neither for the sake of another's, nor for some trifling thing. 5: Avoiding Aggressive, abusive, irritated & malicious Speech, one does not hurt others with the weapon of the tongue or pen. One speaks kindly, gently, courteously, pleasing to the ear, what is agreeable to the majority. 6: Avoiding Splitting Speech & slander, one do not report there what heard here, nor here what was heard there, with the intention of dividing people. Rather one re-unites those who are in opposition, a promoter of friendships, who enjoys & delights in harmony & unity. 7: Avoiding babbling nonsense, chatting, idle & Empty Gossip one speaks the naked facts, at the appropriate time, tells what is really Good, what is Dhamma, what is Moral, what is worth remembering, what is Rational, Reasonable & Advantageous. These are the 4 kinds of advantageous Verbal behaviour ! ------------------ What are the 3 kinds of advantageous Mental behaviour ? 8: Avoiding any Envy, Jealousy & Desire after other's possessions, associations & property by wishing: "Oh may what is his, be mine". 9: Avoiding any Ill-will & Hostility, inwardly freed from any aversion, always well-wishing thus: "Oh may these beings be freed from enmity, pain & anxiety. May they live happily, without sadness or sorrow!" 10: Avoiding any Wrong View such as: "There is no benefit in giving, offering or self-sacrifice. There is neither good nor bad action nor any effects thereof. There is neither this world nor any other world. There is no reason to honour neither father nor mother. Spontaneously arised beings & recluses, who by own power visit & explain this & other worlds do not exist... These are not ..." One expels all such wrong views . These are the 3 kinds of advantageous Mental behaviour ! ------------------ Constantly remaining well within these 10 kinds of behaviour, caused by these, some beings here, at the breakup of the body, after death, will reappear in a happy & blissful state, even in the Divine realms of existence. No painful downfall will be theirs. Thus are these the 10 protectors of advantageous behaviour. All yours in the Dhamma. Constructions Decay & Vanish. Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ 30284 From: icarofranca Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 2:27am Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/sacca Dear Howard: >;-) > One question, though, about which I am curious as to your > understanding is the following: What is meant by "Sabbe dhamma anatta"? Doesn't this mean > that nothing is self? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps a straightfowrad translation would fit it well: "Sabbe Dhamma Anatta" = Dhammas are always devoid of Self Mettaya, Ícaro 30285 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 2:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 02 ) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Htoo: Not exactly. I am talking how to get through the samsara. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: What do you mean by `get through'? For worldlings, is there anything other than cittas, cetasikas and rupas in samsara? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Breaking the circle up. Citta, Cetasika, Rupa at the site of Sankhata Dhatu and Nibbana at the site of Asankhata Dhatu. If you lose yourself and you have been merged with Paramattha, yes there are only 3 things in the circle. And the breaking of the circle again has to do with these 3 things again. But if you have not lost yourself and you are talking cittas, cetasikas and rupas, you are learning theories of cittas, cetasikas, and rupas. But not other certain way. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: So when you mention `choice' , do you mean `by conditions'..... For example, when you mention `choosing to concentrate', or here `choosing to become a Sammasambuddha', how do you understand it in paramattha terms? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: While you are living in Pannatta domain your talk on Paramattha would be different. Someone once wrote, ' A citta and a group of cetasikas enter a room '. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: We're talking about the conditions for panna to arise. We can use the word self or atta or any other word. It just depends on the understanding when we use them what is meant. Sometimes we need to discuss for sometime to know. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Learn on the way. Arising is conditions related. No one can choice. As you said, there was no Sumedho but citta and a group of cetasikas and pannindriya cetasika arose. Cittas and Cetasikas arose and fell away continuously and Cittas and Cetasikas failed to arise over 2600 years back. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: I think it's only finally eradicated without trace by sotapatti- magga citta. Until then, even though we agree there is no `we' and throw it out of the bag and say it's not on the map, it has a bad habit of creeping in whenever there's an opportunity. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Got it. But you seem eradicated Atta but still with traces. Even though you have thrown away it will creep in back into your bag. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: I am just collecting materials, tools, equipment and other things that might be needed during the journey. I have not even drawn out the map from the drawer. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: Oh, this is great;-) We're going to be really well equipped;-) Yes, let's not worry about the map or route until we have all the right materials at the outset. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: So you have right materials? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: As soon as you have thrown it away, then ... clear? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: Clear for an instant. Panna is so very brief. It's a bit like bailing out water on a boat as we cross a river....there'll be more bailing out of `atta' on route I'm sure;-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: That's great! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: I am not thinking but I am seeing 'Atta'. Atta of fun. :-)) Be happy all the time. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: Yes, let's have fun and be happy as we bail out `atta' - or rather, I should say, as panna bails out `atta';-) Thanks for sharing your comments and your good humour, Htoo. Metta, Sarah ====== ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I really appreciate your kind communication. May you be free of wrong view. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 30286 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:52am Subject: What is mental fermentation (Asava) ? Hi friend asked: > what is Mental Fermentation (asava)? Asava, asava ?, friend Sariputta. Please tell me what is the asavas ? 'There are these three asavas, Friend: The mental fermentation of Sensuality, [ex: sensing is always good, never painful] The mental fermentation of Becoming, [ex: existence is all fun, always painless] The mental fermentation of Ignorance, [ex: not knowing is innocent & painless] These are the three mental fermentations (asavas), friend.' Comments: Asavas means literally: Fermentations, 'that which is brewed', the result of a chemical [in this case though: mental] reaction, where 2 or more things have gone together, reacted, and become a third and different thing! Like when making fermented brew: Sugar + water + yeast + heat => alcohol + gas. Neither alcohol nor gas is identical with sugar nor water, nor yeast nor heat ... Its something else ... !!! Same, Same with the Fermentations (Asavas); these are newly produced [mis]-conceptions & [mis]-assumptions like in this example: We make the observation: 'The horizont is linear.' We then assume & project by conceptual thinking: 'The earth is flat'! This asava, mental fermentation, this mental construction: 'flat earth' which is not the same at all as the observation: 'the horizont is linear'. Nor is it implied nor can it be deduced from the observation. It have (un-noticed) become something different: 'An idea' which is an mere 'internal representation', merely 'a painted image of how it MIGHT MAYBE look-alike'...!!! Mind always produce an answer even if not asked! The BIG AS THEY COME failures result when we mistake 'the idea' that the earth is flat, for as 'real' as the horizont is linear. Then we do not dare sail out to sea!!! Hehehe ;-), as there must be an 'edge' (yet another unverified 'idea') on this 'big pancake flat earth', that we then fear falling down from. Same, Same withThe Fermentation of Sensuality: We observe: 'sensing is (sometimes) followed by pleasant feeling' Then we assume, project, construct two radically 'fermented' non-truths: 1: 'not-sensing is followed by unpleasant feeling' 2: 'sensing cannot be followed by pain' As a result of this: We do not dare go to the state of non-sensing. We keep on searching for pleasure by sensuality. Effect of that is: We have to deal with sensing pain too !!! We never reach the non-sensing state, which is the only one where pain cannot ever be sensed. Same, Same with The Fermentation of Becoming: We observe: 'becoming is nice, as then 'I' exist and can sense pleasure' Then we assume, project, construct two radically 'fermented' non-truths: 1: 'not-re-becoming is painfull as then 'I' do not exist' 2: 'not-re-becoming is painfull as then 'I' cannot have joy' As a result of this: We do not dare go to the state of non-becoming. We keep on becoming something else, moment by moment, life after life, endlessly caught up in sea of samsara, craving to be first this and then that. Effect of that is: We have to deal with becoming to bad states too ! We never reach non-becoming state which is the only one where 'bad-state' cannot ever be reached again. The ultimatively SAFE state. Same, same with The Fermentation of Ignorance, We observe: 'Not-knowing is acceptable as it is not felt as painful' Then we assume, project, construct two radically 'fermented' non-truths: 1: 'No pain follows Not-knowing, it is neutral' 2. 'From Knowing no ease, no joy follows, so no need to care' As a result of this: We keep on making mistakes, whose result is inevitable painfull and lead to regret. We do not seek up, search for real knowledge and therefore never reach a state where we do not make mistakes at all, assured, ascertained. Effect of that is: Blinded, not seeing, not knowing how it really is as in a dark room, and how it works, the laws, the mechanics behind reality, we keep on falling as over our own feet, stumbling at any hindrance. These are the fermentations. Caused by and themselves causing Ignorance. : - ] samahita All yours in the Dhamma. Constructions Decay & Vanish. Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ 30287 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 4:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 02 ) Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi James (& Htoo), > > I hope your laptop gets fixed quickly - I get withdrawal symptoms when > you're away and no one's giving me a hard time ;-) HA! You think you have withdrawal symptoms! ;-)) The Internet is like my air supply!! ;-)) I am at a computer at the school, before the weekend, so I will make this brief (and may elaborate further later). > .... > -- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > > > Sarah: 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'? > > > > James: Sarah, could you please explain in detail, in your own words, > > why `trying', or `striving', or `effort' suggests an `atta', a self? > > Just as `smoke' would suggest a `fire', and one can be linked to the > > other, please explain why `trying' would suggest a self and how they > > are linked. I would like your own words as explanation since this is > > obviously an idea that you have. > ..... > I think it depends on the context and meaning of the writer. This is why > I've been discussing in some detail with Htoo as I'd like to understand > his meaning when he uses these terms. I asked about your meaning, no Htoo's or anyone else's. Why do you care about anyone else's meaning? You should just concern yourself with yourself. > > To give a few examples: > > 1. We may talk in everyday language about striving to keep the house > clean, trying to correct the students' homework or making an effort to do > more exercise. > > I say these things all the time and they're perfectly good and > acceptable examples of conventional language. When we use them, they are > clearly not being made as statements of any special deep truths or methods > of mental development. > > 2. We may talk about striving to be aware of the body or trying to focus > on walking or sensations or meditation. > > We start to enter what I might call a `fudged picture' area. What you, > Htoo and I might mean by any of these expressions could be quite different > and quite significant with regard to any understanding of the Buddha's > teachings. Okay, now I think I more understand where you are coming from. Frankly, this is the wrong way of looking at things. You are putting the cart before the horse and expect people to approach the dhamma when they are already enlightened. Why do you think the Buddha said that enlightenment takes such a long time? Because the sense of self can't be eliminated overnight. It goes away little by little. If you wait for it to completely go away before you start to practice, you will never start to practice. Which is what I see that you do. You don't practice. You hope to gain enlightenment, when you aren't looking. Like you will wake up one day and have a surprise party, "Happy Enlightenment!!" ;-)) > > As I see it, if there is any suggestion of `selection' or any nama or rupa > other than what has arisen aleady as being the object of understanding, > then it is an indication of desire. In addition, it would indicate a lack > of appreciation of the conditioned nature of present dhammas as being > anatta. Furthermore, if there is any idea that `body' or `walking', for > example, can be objects of satipatthana, this would be wrong. Htoo and I > agree on this. > > 3. We may talk about making an effort or striving to be aware of feelings > or anger or rupas or mental factors. > > In this case, there is no argument about the objects of satipatthana, but > again an idea of someone making an effort or striving or being able to > select objects can creep in. Well, then let the sense of self creep in. The sense of self isn't going to be gone until full enlightenment. Gosh, I would hate to be one of your students! You wouldn't have them attempt to read until they were able to recite Shakespeare or something! ;-)) > ..... > > Let me ask you this Q: > > If you talk about/think about trying or striving to do some chores/be > aware of the body or breath/or striving to know feelings or mental factors > in meditation practice, who or what is `trying', `striving' or making this > `effort'? I am, James Mitchell. That personality of 'James' won't be gone until enlightenment. Till then, "I" keep on trucking on!! ;-)) > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== Metta, James 30288 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] smile of the Buddha Dear Nina (& Ken O), --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Ken Ong, > In the Co to the Middle Length Sayings, sutta 81, on Ghatikara we read > that > Buddhas smile with five kinds of citta: one ahetuka and four sahetuka > kiriyacittas acoompanied by somanassa: two of these are with panna and > two > without. ..... I was glad to read this detail - I'd looked in a number of Abh.texts for it, but couldn't find it. Narada gives the following info in a note in his transl of A.S. which must be wrong (no textual support). I think it's understandable - it's easy to assume all such cittas of the Buddha are accompanied by panna. Narada: >Arahats and Pacceka Buddhas may smile with one of the four sobhana kiriya cittas or hasituppada. Samma Sambuddhas smile with one of the two sobhana kiriya cittas, accompanied by wisdom and pleasure.< Many thanks Ken O for this thread. As you always say, the notes are not the text;-) Metta, Sarah ===== >But as you quoted in Summary of the Topics of Abhidhamma > chapter > six number 34, these are preceded by the Buddha's omniscience. Also > arahats > and Buddhas have mahakiriyacittas without panna. I wrote before on the > Buddha's omniscience (see archives). The processes of cittas of a Buddha > also run according to citta nyama, a fixed order. Whatever subject a > Buddha > directs his attention to he can know with omniscience whenever he > wishes. > But he can know only one object at a time, citta nyama. There are also > moments of citta unaccompanied by wisdom. This does not contradict his > capacity of omniscience. > Nina 30289 From: Philip Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:45am Subject: Re: Link to book on Paramis? Hello all. An afterthought and a question. Thanks to Sarah's reminding me that I had stated an intention to read more about Paramis- an intention I had forgotten about- I have started reading it and I sense it's going to add a lot of focus and energy to my beginner's practice. And it's not a stretch for me to imagine that by having a more focussed and energetic practice, I will bring a lot more wholesome energy out into the world and into the classroom where I teach. So a single gesture by Sarah (and link from Robert) will end up having something of what I call a Metta ripple effect here in Japan, no matter how piddly it turns out to be due to my lack of diligence. There are countless examples of this sort of thing in all our lives, of course. The Buddha taught that a single flame can light a thousand candles, or words to that effect. My question for you is if there is a Dhamma term for the way wholesome citta(?) proliferate in the world as a result of our kind gestures? I seem to be very interested in this kind of thing but don't have enough knowledge of the Dhamma to know if I am just cooking up my own pretty notions or not. Thanks. With Metta Philip --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Philip" wrote: > > Hello Robert > > Thanks! > > Philip > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > Hi Philip, > > You can find it here: > > http://www.abhidhamma.org/perfections%20of%20enlightenment.htm > > > > I recommend this link too - here you will another link to 'Useful > > Posts' > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/ > > Robert > > > > > > > > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Philip" wrote: > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah > > wrote: > > > > > > >> p.s How did you get on with your reading on Paramis > > (Perfections)? > > > > ====== > > > 30290 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Dhamma Theory - Sabhava Michael Thanks for setting out your views in some detail. --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello Jon, M: 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'? J: There appears to be a fundamental difference between us here on the question of conventional objects vs. dhammas. To my understanding, every dhamma has a characteristic that can be known by awareness/developed understanding (regardless of whether you think 'sabhava' is an appropriate term for that characteristic). Thus the characteristic of visible datum may appear at *any* moment of eye consciousness regardless of the nature of the 'object' being seen (tree, body, person or whatever) or the 'person' seeing. As I see it, the whole point dhammas being classified as khandhas, sense bases and elements is to highlight that each kind of dhamma has the same distinctive characteristic whenever it is experienced, whether now or in the past or in the future. Dhammas are wholly 'impersonal'. So regarding your comment above, the fact that people perceive the 'same' conventional object differently is really beside the point. And as regards proliferations, people proliferate differently because of different accumulated tendencies. M: 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. J: The view you refer to as a 'metaphysical essentialist stand[point' (whatever that means!) is a view that you choose to impute, based on certain assumptions you make about the term 'sabhava'. So far you have not been able to point to any evidence of the *manifestation* of that view in the writings in question (over and above the mere use of the term you object to). If the ancient commentators were indeed guilty of the sin of essentialism or whatever, you would surely expect to find it popping up in their writings. If the criticism has merit it should be apparent on a reading of the texts -- where are the examples from their writings? M: 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. J: Well I might do, but to be frank, while I am happy to read any analysis of passages from the texts, I have reservations about the value of argument based on the kinds of consideration you have mentioned so far in your comments on this subject. But thanks for the concern anyway;-)) Jon 30291 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 6:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Dhamma Theory -- Paramattha Michael --- Michael Beisert wrote: > Hello Jon, ... > 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? The commentaries expand upon the words of the Buddha himself, and explain in detail what has been stated in brief. Obviously, this will involve the introduction of terms not used by the Buddha himself. ... > 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. There is significance in the term 'dhammas' and its connotation of 'realities'. The clinging aspect of the five aggregates is important, but we should not forget that the five aggregates were only 1 of the various ways in which dhammas are classified in the teachings. We find in the suttas and Abhidhamma: dhammas as five aggregates/five aggregates of clinging dhammas as sense bases dhammas as elements dhammas as nama and rupa dhammas as citta, cetasika and rupa [and nibbana] dhammas as conditioned dhammas So the clinging aspect of the aggregates is by no means the whole story. For example, as you yourself have mentioned, the conditioned nature of dhammas is also of great significance. Clinging is a major fact of life, but not necessarily an obstacle to liberation; the main culprits there are ignorance and wrong view. The difference between (the idea of) 'a being' and dhammas is crucial to an understanding of the teachings, in my view. Jon 30292 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 6:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Catching Anger Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > No problem. Thank you for sharing your view. I would ask this: > How does what is being said in the discourses support your view? Well, where would you like me to start? ;-)) First, just to clarify the context of my post, what I said there is not so much my own view as my understanding of what is being said in the texts, including the Abhidhamma and commentaries. I believe that a knowledge of the Abhidhamma and commentaries in necessary for a proper understanding of the discourses. What was said in the suttas was addressed to persons who were on the whole of highly developed understanding, many of them ripe for immediate or imminent enlightenment (in other words, of much greater understanding than ourselves), so much of it goes over our heads, even though the language seems familiar. Without the help of the Abhidhamma and commentaries we may misconstrue the suttas. I am assuming that, while there are aspects of what I said that you consider not to be supported by the discourses, this does not apply to everything in my post. I imagine there is no disagreement over the statement that coming to know the 3 characteristics leads to the lessening of wrong view. It might be best if you indicated which particular statement(s) or comment(s) you are most concerned about, and I will attempt to provide some reference from the suttas. Happy to discuss further. Jon 30293 From: nidive Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 6:21am Subject: Re: the self... how?/sacca Hi Victor, > I know you can reason and conclude that "Sabbe dhamma anatta" means > nothing is self. With the conclusion "nothing is self", you can > again reason and reach the conclusion "there is no self." Consider these passages from Maha-punnama Sutta. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn109.html Now at that moment this line of thinking appeared in the awareness of a certain monk: "So -- form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?" Then the Blessed One, realizing with his awareness the line of thinking in that monk's awareness, addressed the monks: "It's possible that a senseless person -- immersed in ignorance, overcome with craving -- might think that he could outsmart the Teacher's message in this way: 'So -- form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?' Question: Why did the Teacher say that this monk was 'senseless'? What is so SENSELESS about of this monk? Regards, Swee Boon 30294 From: Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Dhamma Theory -- Paramattha In a message dated 2/19/04 8:06:59 AM Central Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: Clinging is a major fact of life, but not necessarily an obstacle to liberation; the main culprits there are ignorance and wrong view. all Wow. This statement seems to do away with the Cycle of Dependent Origination as well as many, many other formulations of the description of suffering as taught by the Buddha. jack 30295 From: Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Dhamma Theory -- Paramattha In a message dated 2/19/04 8:25:07 AM Central Standard Time, Jackhat1@a... writes: Clinging is a major fact of life, but not necessarily an obstacle to liberation; the main culprits there are ignorance and wrong view. all Wow. This statement seems to do away with the Cycle of Dependent Origination as well as many, many other formulations of the description of suffering as taught by the Buddha. jack I retract my statement above. I don't think it will lead to anything productive. Some of the things said on this list really surprise me. Maybe that's a good thing. Or, maybe I should pass on by. jack 30296 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 6:56am Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/sacca Hi Howard, Every phenomenon is not self. Every phenomenon is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." I am saying that the way you engage in your discursive reasoning leads you further away from seeing every phenomenon as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." It occurs to me that you try to justify the idea "there is no self" from the statement "sabbe dhamma anatta" and start with reasoning that all phenomena are not self is logically equivalent to no phenomenon is self. I think you have a strong logico-analytical ability and a discursive tendency and this ability and tendency have served you well in learning and doing mathematics. Nevertheless, this tendency in discursive reasoning has led you reach a conclusion that deviates from the teaching. The deviation in understanding might not be obvious at the beginning and is justified with "hard logic," but a few steps down with that small deviation, aided with discursive reasoning, you reach a conclusion that misrepresents what the Buddha taught. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 2/19/04 1:26:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > Hi Howard, > > > > As I understand it, "Sabbe dhamma anatta" means all phenomena > > (dhamma) are not self. In other words, every phenomenon(dhamma) is > > to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is > > not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." > > > > I know you can reason and conclude that "Sabbe dhamma anatta" means > > nothing is self. With the conclusion "nothing is self", you can > > again reason and reach the conclusion "there is no self." > > Nevertheless, with that kind of discursive reasoning, the original > > meaning of what the Buddha said is further distorted and > > misrepresented. At the end, you adopt the view "there is no self", > > a misrepresentation of what the Buddha actually taught, and that > > view blocks you from seeing every phenomenon as it actually is with > > right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is > > not my self." > > > > It is not easy for one to abandon a speculative view that he or she > > holds onto. > > > > Metta, > > > ============================ > On the basis of language meaning, or any other basis, I would like to > know how you distinguish "All phenomena are not self" from "No phenomena are > self". These are normally logically eqivalent paraphrases, just as "All cows > are not reptiles" means the same as "No cows are reptiles". > As far as formal logic is concerned, using 'A' for the universal > quantifier and 'E' for the existential quantifier, the sentence "All phenomena are > not self" is of the form > (A x) ~ Self(x), and the sentence "No phenomena are self" is of the form > ~ (E x) Self(x). And these are logically equivalent. > What do you understand "All phenomena are not self" to mean? Do you > presume the sense of "all" is restricted in some sense, or do you attribute some > special meaning to it that is not obvious? What about the statement that says > "All sankhara are impermanent"? Using ordinary logic, this is equivalent to > "No sankhara is permanent". Do you think it is possible that all sankhara are > impermanent, and yet some sankhara is permanent? If not, why not? In the same > way, as soon as one knows that all phenomena are not self, one also knows that > no phenomenon is self. It's exactly the same. > > With metta, > Howard 30297 From: Andy Wilson Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 7:00am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Andy, Love lost / the self... how? Sarah: ...is useful at this point without being too concerned for now about 'transplanting the core of buddhism into western soil'. Andy: When I read this I laughed out loud at my expression 'transplanting the core of buddhism into western soil' because it sounds so pompous :) I think that by 'western soil' I really only meant 'my mind', which, of course, is full of views and asssumptions i took from the culture i was born into. i'm embarrased to have used such a cliche ;) Sarah: Still, in between the anger, there must be moments of skilful abstention from expression and perhaps even some kindness and consideration too. Andy: I really hope I haven't given any other impression. Painful and angry feelings have very much been mixed in with the feelings of love and care I have for my (ex-)partner. The problem has been to control all those feelings so that they aren't overwhelming, which is like taming a bag of fleas. In reality so-called 'opposite' feelings mingle and give rise to one another. Sometimes the feeling of anger is there *because* of feelings of love: ie. I'm angry because my love is no longer reciprocated, and my partner's love is now for someone else. In a perfect world I'd feel love without risking rejection, sadness, etc. The problem is that the feelings of love I do have aren't based in equanimity but are bound up instead with my clinging to self, where i *identify* with the feeling, so that if it isn't reciprocated my existence itself seems threatened. If I identify with my self then any threat to it is a threat to my existence. This is frightening to the extent that I cling to my 'self' as being my existence (what i 'really am'). I can accept the idea of anatta conceptually but still be overwhelmed with panic when i feel my 'identity' threatened. Sarah: Sometimes, aspects of the teachings which seem senseless, irrelevant or culture-bound now take on greater relevance at another time. Just put them aside without rejection for now. The same applies to any discussions here. .... Andy: This practical, piecemeal attitude sounds attractive. I'm constantly amazed at my ability to leap into new ideas, draw conclusions and pass judgement, sorting them into 'good' and 'bad' ideas, long before i've any real grasp of what they mean. i do the same with people too :) That reminds me of something that occured to me of late: the way we construct our sense of others based on our own prejudice and obsessions, and how we impose this sense on them, forcing them to fit our projected sense of our own self. I mean, we not only construct our own identity mistakenly but do the same for others too. No matter how close we are to them or for how long we've known them this needs constant attention because we are always being pulled that way, like a planet pulled in toward its star. As well as trying to control hurtful feelings about the end of the relationship (or rather, to stop them controlling me) I think I need to address this question, which has less to do with how I feel about myself than how I see others. I'd like to learn how to let others be without forcing them into my idea of what and who they are (and I tend to be just this sort of controlling person). My regret is that I've lived with someone I love for seven years now and didn't know how to let them be happy on their own terms, so that I could support them in this rather than moulding them to my own understanding. I feel that despite my love for that person I let them down due to ignorance, inexperience and clinging. I find myself wishing hard that I could have made them happier: not to stop them from leaving now but really so that I could have given them more happiness in the time we did have together. It strikes me that to love someone and yet treat them this way is the definition of 'unskilled'. Sarah: I think that even the 'radical reworkers' can be grateful for the long and strong tradition of 'as is' bhikkhus who have preserved the original teachings for us to read, consider and form our own judgments about. Andy: This seems to me to be an excellent point - without tradition there'd be nothing to transmute. I am learning to love this 'artful', practical streak in Buddhism. I read something in the AS this morning that made me laugh out loud for similar reasons; "path consciousness of stream entry cannot occur in the immaterial realms because it is contingent on hearing the Dhamma, which presupposes the ear faculty" (III, #21c) of course! you need ears in order to hear the dhamma! i don't know why that seems funny, but it's like someone saying something very profane and down-to-earth in church. on that slightly brighter note than my usual... metta -- [][][] Andy Wilson | Mob: +44 (0)7739 908 253 [][] Managing Director | Tel: +44 (0)20 7729 7060 [] [] LShift Ltd | Web: http://www.lshift.net 30298 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 7:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack Hi Jack Now its Ken O turn ;-). When you say the mind can be still - I always like to ask pple this question (I think Victor always prefer not to answer my question so I hope you are the first person who can do it ;-)), are you saying that you can still thoughts that is Anatta. When we talk about concentration, are we talking about stilling thoughts or are we talking about one-pointedness. Do you know what is stilling of thoughts in the first place ;-). When pple talk about jhanas, they always say concentration and mindfulness, then the question is there wisdom involved? So do you think jhanas is the key to enlightment or wisdom is the key to enlightement. What do you think, can ignorance be eradicated by jhanas or ignorance eradicated by wisdom? Ken O 30299 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 7:26am Subject: Re: Catching Anger Hi Sarah (and Ken H), Ok, so the discourse Majjhima Nikaya 9 Sammaditthi Sutta The Discourse on Right View http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn009.html and the commentary you quoted do not support the claim that the first sign of right understanding comes when nama is directly known as nama and rupa as rupa. How does the discourse Majjhima Nikaya 10 Satipatthana Sutta Frames of Reference http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn010.html support the claim that the first sign of right understanding comes when nama is directly known as nama and rupa as rupa? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor, > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah and (Ken H), > > > > I read the commentary you quoted. But how does the commentary that > > you quoted support the claim that the first sign of right > > understanding comes when nama is directly known as nama and rupa as > > rupa? > .... > The commentary showed that the sutta (you selected) is describing > supramundane wisdom and not the first signs of right understanding. > Sometimes we have to look at various suttas and other texts for more > details as I indicated;-) This is why Ken H is trying to have you look at > the Satipatthana sutta for example. > > Metta, > > Sarah 30300 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 7:35am Subject: [dsg] Re: Catching Anger Hi Jon, Thank you for sharing your belief about abhidhamma and commentaries. The question I asked does not concern your belief about them. Rather, the questions I would ask are: Could you find a discourse that support your view (or point, if you prefer) in your last message to me? If you could, what is the discourse and how does it support your point? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > > > No problem. Thank you for sharing your view. I would ask this: > > How does what is being said in the discourses support your view? > > Well, where would you like me to start? ;-)) > > First, just to clarify the context of my post, what I said there is > not so much my own view as my understanding of what is being said in > the texts, including the Abhidhamma and commentaries. > > I believe that a knowledge of the Abhidhamma and commentaries in > necessary for a proper understanding of the discourses. What was > said in the suttas was addressed to persons who were on the whole of > highly developed understanding, many of them ripe for immediate or > imminent enlightenment (in other words, of much greater understanding > than ourselves), so much of it goes over our heads, even though the > language seems familiar. Without the help of the Abhidhamma and > commentaries we may misconstrue the suttas. > > I am assuming that, while there are aspects of what I said that you > consider not to be supported by the discourses, this does not apply > to everything in my post. I imagine there is no disagreement over > the statement that coming to know the 3 characteristics leads to the > lessening of wrong view. It might be best if you indicated which > particular statement(s) or comment(s) you are most concerned about, > and I will attempt to provide some reference from the suttas. > > Happy to discuss further. > > Jon 30301 From: John Hoban Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:55am Subject: intelligence to the universe How can there be karma if there is no one to judge the state of the beings heart. Which leads to the idea of one being ones own maker of karma? If I think I am doing good - good comes back? Bad, bad? Or sliding out of my solopsis, if others think I'm doing good, good comes back (Please!? fools abound, including myself) And if I don't know my own heart, karma is as lost as I am. No? John 30302 From: John Hoban Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] definately faithless Thanks Sarah, Your thoughts on the matter make sense and if it wern't for people like Raymond Moody and Elisabeth Kubler Ross maybe I'd stop thinking there might be knowing this side of 'discorporation' as Robert Heinlein called it in one of his books. I suspect Ray Moody is into the NDE stuff for the money, but who knows. Ross has been working with dying people for years and has a Mother Therasa sort of image. I don't think she's in it just for $$$ , talking about contact with dead I mean, but of course, that doesn't mean she isn't imagining what she thinks she sees either. Even experience can be imagined, can't it? That's part of the problem I think. Anybodies testimony can be attributed to self-delusion, including one's own. At this point I have to laugh. I think that very realization is my only sanity. Your words make sense. I have these periodic outbursts of sanctimonious B.S. I must point out that your advantage is that you do believe, as you stated, that if one does good deeds, etc, they will have good reward/karma/feedback/whatever. That's an act of faith and you know me. Also, if death is the end of a personal entity, then how can that entity feel good and get the positive feedback Also this make me think that good deeds should not be done for the goal of reward. That's kinda selfish, no? Hey! Maybe that's why we're not 'permited' to know about what happens when we die. So that we do good stuff out of unselfish altruism! Saw right through the bugger! "But my cynic soon returns and the lifeboat burns, my spirit just never learns" - from The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway CD, Genesis John P.S. I always have trouble finding the right word for 'dead', deceased, passed on, etc. They all imply something and I know nothing. What's Metta mean? > Metta & Peace, > > Sarah > ====== > > > 30303 From: Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack In a message dated 2/19/04 9:27:47 AM Central Standard Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: When you say the mind can be still - I always like to ask pple this question (I think Victor always prefer not to answer my question so I hope you are the first person who can do it ;-)), are you saying that you can still thoughts that is Anatta. When we talk about concentration, are we talking about stilling thoughts or are we talking about one-pointedness. Do you know what is stilling of thoughts in the first place ;-). Ken O, I'll try to answer your questions. When I try to do vipassana meditation, I don't still thoughts. My mind does calm down. Thoughts as well as other sensations arise and pass away without my having to manage or control them. Thinking, hearing, body sensing occur but without involvement of an "I". I can get up from sitting meditation to do walking meditation and no "self" is involved. Concentration is certainly involved in my vipassana meditation. We could discuss access concentration, etc., but I don't think that adds anything to our conversation. I have never tried to reach the jhana steps and don't experientially know much about them. When I try to do pure samadhi meditation as I did this morning, I stay on the surface of my breath and become one-pointed at times especially when the breath turns into a nimitta. Thinking a string of thoughts, hearing, and body sensing fall away and there is just the nimitta thought in my mind. So, there is one-pointedness and a stilling of thoughts in that sense. When pple talk about jhanas, they always say concentration and mindfulness, then the question is there wisdom involved? So do you think jhanas is the key to enlightment or wisdom is the key to enlightement. What do you think, can ignorance be eradicated by jhanas or ignorance eradicated by wisdom? I think wisdom is the key to enlightenment. Ignorance, in my opinion, can only be temporally eradicated by jhanas. Ignorance can be eradicated by wisdom. While you might not agree with my answers, did I answer all your questions? jack 30304 From: Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] intelligence to the universe In a message dated 2/19/04 10:13:15 AM Central Standard Time, hoban-ebay0694@m... writes: How can there be karma if there is no one to judge the state of the beings heart. Does gravity need someone to attract two objects together? Karma is a natural law of my universe just as gravity is. No judging, no external being, just gravity, just karma. jack 30305 From: Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] intelligence to the universe In a message dated 2/19/04 10:43:06 AM Central Standard Time, Jackhat1@a... writes: How can there be karma if there is no one to judge the state of the beings heart. Does gravity need someone to attract two objects together? Karma is a natural law of my universe just as gravity is. No judging, no external being, just gravity, just karma. jack Oops, sorry but I didn't put "all" or "John" in front of my response above. I didn't mean to break the list's rules. So, therefore my karma is clean. jack 30306 From: Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 4:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 2/19/04 2:51:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, sukinder@k... writes: > Hi Howard, > > >========================= > >I approve of studying the Dhamma, and I approve of applying it. > Both of these require volition and effort. > ========================= > > Sure, both these cetasikas will be there in all javana cittas. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: Sure - for *everybody* - saint and sinner, caregiver and killer. And these could be there weakly or strongly. But specific conditions are required for specific results, and it is by volition that a "person" effects an outcome, and only with that. --------------------------------------------- > However, is picking up the Tipitaka to read, or listening to dhamma, > or discussions, be instances of 'pariyatti'? > --------------------------------------------- Howard: Just picking it up to read? Of course not. That would be a mere beginning. It must be read, studied, contemplated - all requiring volition. But, then, it also must be applied! --------------------------------------------- Would telling > > oneself 'to do this' or 'not do that' be 'patipatti'? ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Uh .. no? ;-) Telling oneself to do this or that is just telling oneself. DOING this or that is action, and it requires volition - impulse that leads to action. I can *tell* myself to stand up, and nothing will happen. But let a snake approach me and I will JUMP up and move away in an instant. The fear and desire lead to powerful volition that bears fruit. Vitakka is not the same as cetana. ----------------------------------------------- > > Metta, > Sukin. > ====================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 30307 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 10:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] compound and concept Hi Howard, op 18-02-2004 22:18 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > ========================== > If you give me instances, I will answer for each. As far as earth, air, fire, > and water are concerned, I think of these as solidity/hardness, > motion/movement, (varying degrees of) warmth/cold, and cohesion/fluidity, all > direct elements of experience, and not concepts. Often, though, our minds > substitute the concepts of these rupas for the rupic phenomena themselves, and > when that happens we are not observing what we *think* we are observing. The > mind is a great joker - a magician with a sense of humor! ;-) N: The mind a magician, and so it is. We think of concepts about rupas, and so it is. As said before, each time I go to Thailand, I realize more what I do not know yet, such as taking thinking for awareness. Yes, we think of dhammas such as rupa, and then the object of thinking is a concept of it. I exchanged views with my Thai friends about this, it was very helpful. But we should not despair. Thinking in the right way can be done with a level of sati and understanding, and this is the groundwork for the arising of direct awareness. Being in Thailand gives me always more confidence in the teachings. The mind as magician: I quoted this from the Vis.:,The ³Visuddhimagga² (XI, 98) states that the four Great Elements are like the great creatures of a magician who ³turns water that is not crystal into crystal, and turns a clod that is not gold into gold....² We are attached to crystal and gold, we are deceived by the outward appearance of things. There is no crystal or gold in the ultimate sense, only rúpas which arise and then fall away. > The citta itself is tricked, it is obsessed by the perversions. Dhaatu, element: it is devoid of self. We were at Kunying Nopparath's house and spent the greater part of the day on the sutta The Many Kinds of Elements, M. no 115. (I have now the B.B. translation, it was the only book of him available at the Mahamakut Bookshop in Bgk). The Buddha explained to Ananda about the elements in different ways. One of them: eighteen elements; . And so on for all the doorways. There could not be seeing without eyesense and visible object, these are indispensable condiitons for seeing. Element: this word, where it refers to conditioned elements, implies the ephemeral nature. It is there because of conditions, and then it is not there anymore. Then it is replaced, and the new one can never be the same. We cannot see eyesense, cannot touch it, it is already gone. Even the doctor who operates, cannot pinpoint where it is. But as you see in the Sutta, eyesense is real, it is an element. Howard: Where is > the eyesense you are talking about? How and where is it observed - how is it to be known? Certainly there is the *capacity* to see, but such capacity is > nothing more than a bunch of conditions being in effect - some positive, some > negative. There are many paramatthic conditions that underlie what we call the > "the eyes working properly," a conventional expression. I will accept a > paramatthic "eyesense" when someone can say something specific about it, and, > in > particular, describe how and where it can be looked into. N: There is the composite eye and the eyesense itself. The composite eye and actually the rupas of the whole body form up conditions for the eyesense to perform its function. Positive and negative? I do not know what you mean here. Now to be specific: see above: it is an element, as explained in the sutta. There are many suttas on elements. Do you see the Abhidhammic fragrance in the sutta? Very gradually you may recognize this and come to see that the teaching in the Abhidhamma is not different from the sutta. Elements is one of my favorite subjects: so straightforward, simple and true (but here, I should be at Icaro's address! Icaro and I must have similar experiences with Abhidhamma in the past). We read in the "Dispeller of Delusion", Ch 3, § 266 (p. 67): Maybe it becomes clearer now that the Buddha did not refer to conventional realities when he spoke to Rahula about Elements? I can write a whole chapter about this subject, incorporating it in my Thailand Impressions. I have to hurry to attend to Larry's thread. Nina. 30308 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 10:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/sacca Hi Andrew and Ken H, op 19-02-2004 00:48 schreef Andrew op athel60@t...: > Hi Ken H It's your > manner of getting the message across that I was addressing. Whilst > this may seem pretty trivial, it is actually a huge issue on DSG - > witness the continuing debates about why Buddha said "not self" > instead of "no self". N: When I write: people do not exist, or, there are no people, Lodewijk warns me, telling me to add: in the ultimate sense. He says, people may stumble over this. It infuriates him when I say, I have no husband ;-)) B.B. once suggested: non-self. We can also use just the word anattaa. Nina. 30309 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 10:00am Subject: Visuddhimagga, note 27, no 1. bodily intimation. Bodily Intimation: Note 27, no 1. 'It is the mode and the alteration of what? Of consciousness-originated primary elements that have the air-element in excess of capability. N: There is a certain unique change in the great Elements and the element of wind or motion (air) plays its specific part. By means of gestures or bodily movement certain intentions are displayed. Text: What is that capability? It is the state of being consciousness-born and the state of being derived matter. N: all rupas that are not the four Great Elements are derived rupas, and these depend on the four great Elements. Bodily intimation is originated by citta, not by kamma, temperature or nutrition. Text: 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. N: The four great Elements and also four other rupas (colour, odour, flavour and nutrition) form an octad, they are inseparable, always arising together. The excess of the element of wind or motion does not mean: there is more of it in that group, but is means: it plays its specific part in being capable of causing gestures etc. expressing a meaning. Text: 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. N: Some teachers have a different opinion. Text: 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. N: When someone is intimating a meaning to someone else there are different moments of perceiving different objects. There is not immediately the noticing of the meaning displayed. Text: 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. N: Apprehension is the translation of gaha.na: grasping, taking up, apprehending. Text: 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. N: Trees have no citta, no intention. Thus, bodily intimation is not merely motion, even trees move. But they have no intention to display a meaning. Text: 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 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: .... N: Processes of citta take their course and succeed one another very quickly. Seeing colour is one moment, afterwards there is remembrance of different moments of seeing which give the impression of movement of the hands, and after that the meaning displayed is known. If we take into consideration that six javana cittas cause the strengthening and supporting of the body but cannot move it, and that only the seventh sets up mobility which displays an intention, moving forward or backward, bending and extending the limbs, we can understand that this is known by inference. We cannot pinpoint exactly the seventh javanacitta that originates bodily intimation. Countless processes succeed one another, where all this occurs. The ³Expositor²(I, p. 110) suggests . We can imagine that it takes countless processes of citta to intimate a meaning and for the person or animal to understand the meaning. Text: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. N: The intimator should make known a meaning, the citta of the intimator is the cause of bodily intimation. This implies that bodily intimation does not occur to someone else merely when he sees the outward appearance of a person who is standing or moving without intention to display a meaning. ****** P.S. I need time for the next one, did not even look at the Pali. I shall deal with the seven yokes, they are in the Expositor. Nina. 30310 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 02 ) Dear James and Sarah, When we meet a person, we do not have a particular thought related to that person.But soon after we are inroduced to that person there the idea of 'self' has already been introduced along with conventional introduction. Just thinking. Htoo Naing 30311 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 0:19pm Subject: Re: the self... how?/sacca Hi Swee Boon, As I see it, the Buddha characterized the person who came with this line of thinking "So -- form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?" as senseless, immersed in ignorance, overcome with craving, because this person is senseless, immersed in ignorance, overcome with craving in coming up with such line of thinking. Some might think they could outsmart the Buddha's message in this way: "So -- form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not- self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then no form, feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness is self. Is there any self?" Thank you for bringing up this discourse and your questions. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > > I know you can reason and conclude that "Sabbe dhamma anatta" means > > nothing is self. With the conclusion "nothing is self", you can > > again reason and reach the conclusion "there is no self." > > Consider these passages from Maha-punnama Sutta. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn109.html > > Now at that moment this line of thinking appeared in the awareness of > a certain monk: "So -- form is not-self, feeling is not-self, > perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is > not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what > is not-self?" > > Then the Blessed One, realizing with his awareness the line of > thinking in that monk's awareness, addressed the monks: "It's possible > that a senseless person -- immersed in ignorance, overcome with > craving -- might think that he could outsmart the Teacher's message in > this way: 'So -- form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is > not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then > what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?' > > > Question: Why did the Teacher say that this monk was 'senseless'? > What is so SENSELESS about of this monk? > > > Regards, > Swee Boon 30312 From: Htoo Naing Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 0:54pm Subject: Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 11 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, When the mind is well concentrated there are noticably free of hindrances including ignorance. At such a state, a well concentrated mind or Samahitacittas arise. But at another time, mind may be distracted and then ( Asamahitacitta ) a mind without concentration arises. Through out meditation, there have happened many many mind states. At a time, a mind state is associated with greediness and at another time it is not. Sometimes a displeasing mind arises and sometime a mind state without hatred arises. When in a state of worry, different thoughts arise in succession without particular direction and it sounds like ash spreading away when a heap of ash is thrown by a stone. In such a state ignorance or delusion leads the mind. When not in such a state then a mind state without delusion or ignorance arise. Depending on circumstances and conditions, sometimes a slothful mind ( Samkhittacitta ) arises and at another time a distracted mind ( Vikkhittacitta ) arises. When a developed mind state ( Mahaggattacitta ) arises, it works well but when not ( Amahaggattacitta ) an undeveloped mind arises. Meditators will not be well advance at the outset. Before setting in the practice diligently, meditators may be aware of arising of an inferior mind state ( Sauttaracitta ) but this does not last long if mindful. With a long practice, sometimes there arises a superior mind state ( Anuttaracitta ) arises. When well concentrated, Samahitacitta or a concentrated mind arises. If not Asamahitacitta or an unconcentrated mind arises. The practitioner is experiencing mind and mind states. Due to his continuous practising, at a time, defilements are temporarily freed and that mind state is called Vimuttacitta. When with defilements a mind state with defilements ( Avimuttacitta ) arises. May you all be able to see Dhamma as they are. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htootintnaing@y... JourneyToNibbana@yahoogroups.com 30313 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 2:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Dhamma Theory -- Paramattha Jack Your comment is a good one and I'm ignoring your retraction! --- Jackhat1@a... wrote: > In a message dated 2/19/04 8:25:07 AM Central Standard Time, > Jackhat1@a... > writes: > Clinging is a major fact of life, but not necessarily an obstacle > to > liberation; the main culprits there are ignorance and wrong view. > all > > Wow. This statement seems to do away with the Cycle of Dependent > Origination > as well as many, many other formulations of the description of > suffering as taught by the Buddha. My statement was somewhat terse, and should have been explained a little. Actually, you've put your finger on the button here, Jack. Clinging is said to be the factor that keeps us continuting in the round of samsara (this is the first noble truth). However, what breaks that cycle is the development of panna of the kind associated with satipatthana/vipassana (this is the gist of the fourth noble truth). Ignorance and wrong view are the antithesis of that development of panna, as I see it. As the Satipatthana Sutta makes clear, there can be awareness of presently occurring akusala mind-states. This would be an instance of the fourth foundation of mindfulness. > jack > I retract my statement above. I don't think it will lead to > anything > productive. Some of the things said on this list really surprise > me. Maybe that's a good thing. Or, maybe I should pass on by. Hope you'll stick around;-)) I'm sure the benefit will be mutual. Jon 30314 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 2:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Catching Anger Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > Thank you for sharing your belief about abhidhamma and > commentaries. The question I asked does not concern your belief > about them. Rather, the questions I would ask are: Could you find > a discourse that support your view (or point, if you prefer) in > your > last message to me? If you could, what is the discourse and how > does it support your point? There are a number of points in my message. If you would like to mention the point or points that you find questionable, I'd be happy to provide whatever support I can. Jon 30315 From: torloff87048 Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 2:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] compound and concept Hi Howard and Nina, Hope you don't mind me jumping in with a comment here- I think I understand the thread here abouteyesense and have something to add to it... N: > We cannot see eyesense, cannot touch it, it is already gone. Even the doctor > who operates, cannot pinpoint where it is. But as you see in the Sutta, > eyesense is real, it is an element. Howard: Where is > the eyesense you are talking about? How and where is it > observed - how is it to be known? Certainly there is the *capacity* to see, > but such capacity is > > nothing more than a bunch of conditions being in effect - some positive, some > > negative. There are many paramatthic conditions that underlie what we call the > > "the eyes working properly," a conventional expression. I will accept a > > paramatthic "eyesense" when someone can say something specific about it, and, > > in > > particular, describe how and where it can be looked into. Actually, eyesense can be directly known. Otherwise, as Howard points out, on what basis do we call it an ultimate reality? It's not enough that Buddha says it is. There has to be a path by which it can be known as it is. Here is how it can be known and investigated: It is experienced directly as heat in the back of the eye during the act of seeing. This heat is the direct experience of rupa. The connection between this rupa and eye consciousness is directly known at some further level of wisdom, when one's mind is able to directly grasp the relations between the set of conditions present- light, form, eyeconsciousness, and eyesense (as rupa experienced as heat while seeing.) The same is true of the even more difficult to grasp heart-base: It is directly known as heat in the cavity of the heart while citta and cetasika are present. This is the reason the heart-base is said to be the blood in the cavity of the heart. There is a reference for this in the Canon but unfortunately I can't locate it- I think I came across it somewhere in Conditional Relations (which does not have an index in my edition!). With metta, Toby 30316 From: Sarah Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Catching Anger Hi Victor (and Ken H), First please tell us what nama is and what rupa is, as you understand them. Otherwise this will end up with a quibble of words like some anatta threads;-) Metta, Sarah p.s I'll be busy over the next couple of days, so I'll get back on a few threads later. ====== --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > How does the discourse > Majjhima Nikaya 10 > Satipatthana Sutta > Frames of Reference > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn010.html > support the claim that the first sign of right understanding comes > when nama is directly known as nama and rupa as rupa? 30317 From: Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 10:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] compound and concept Hi, Toby (and Nina) - In a message dated 2/19/04 6:21:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, torloff87048@y... writes: > Hi Howard and Nina, > > Hope you don't mind me jumping in with a comment here- I think I > understand the thread here abouteyesense and have something to add to > it... > > N: >We cannot see eyesense, cannot touch it, it is already gone. > Even the doctor > >who operates, cannot pinpoint where it is. But as you see in the > Sutta, > >eyesense is real, it is an element. > Howard: Where is >the eyesense you are talking about? How and where > is it > >observed - how is it to be known? Certainly there is the *capacity* > to see, > >but such capacity is > >>nothing more than a bunch of conditions being in effect - some > positive, some > >>negative. There are many paramatthic conditions that underlie > what we call the > >>"the eyes working properly," a conventional expression. I will > accept a > >>paramatthic "eyesense" when someone can say something specific > about it, and, > >>in > >>particular, describe how and where it can be looked into. > > Actually, eyesense can be directly known. Otherwise, as Howard > points out, on what basis do we call it an ultimate reality? It's > not enough that Buddha says it is. There has to be a path by which > it can be known as it is. Here is how it can be known and > investigated: It is experienced directly as heat in the back of the > eye during the act of seeing. This heat is the direct experience of > rupa. The connection between this rupa and eye consciousness is > directly known at some further level of wisdom, when one's mind is > able to directly grasp the relations between the set of conditions > present- light, form, eyeconsciousness, and eyesense (as rupa > experienced as heat while seeing.) > > The same is true of the even more difficult to grasp heart-base: It > is directly known as heat in the cavity of the heart while citta and > cetasika are present. This is the reason the heart-base is said to > be the blood in the cavity of the heart. There is a reference for > this in the Canon but unfortunately I can't locate it- I think I came > across it somewhere in Conditional Relations (which does not have an > index in my edition!). > > With metta, Toby > ============================ This is interesting. I won't say that I will accept this on faith (a sutta reference *would* be a help), but what you write here certainly does point in the sort of direction I would hope for. Toby, have you experienced this yourself? If yes, would you mind telling me the sort of meditation practice you follow? Goenka sensation-oriented meditation, by any chance? 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) 30318 From: Michael Beisert Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Dhamma Theory -- Paramattha Hello Jon, And I say vow, this statement does away with the whole noble eightfold path. what breaks that cycle is the development of panna of the kind associated with satipatthana/vipassana (this is the gist of the fourth noble truth) Metta Michael ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 5:03 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] The Dhamma Theory -- Paramattha Jack Your comment is a good one and I'm ignoring your retraction! --- Jackhat1@a... wrote: > In a message dated 2/19/04 8:25:07 AM Central Standard Time, > Jackhat1@a... > writes: > Clinging is a major fact of life, but not necessarily an obstacle > to > liberation; the main culprits there are ignorance and wrong view. > all > > Wow. This statement seems to do away with the Cycle of Dependent > Origination > as well as many, many other formulations of the description of > suffering as taught by the Buddha. My statement was somewhat terse, and should have been explained a little. Actually, you've put your finger on the button here, Jack. Clinging is said to be the factor that keeps us continuting in the round of samsara (this is the first noble truth). However, what breaks that cycle is the development of panna of the kind associated with satipatthana/vipassana (this is the gist of the fourth noble truth). Ignorance and wrong view are the antithesis of that development of panna, as I see it. As the Satipatthana Sutta makes clear, there can be awareness of presently occurring akusala mind-states. This would be an instance of the fourth foundation of mindfulness. > jack > I retract my statement above. I don't think it will lead to > anything > productive. Some of the things said on this list really surprise > me. Maybe that's a good thing. Or, maybe I should pass on by. Hope you'll stick around;-)) I'm sure the benefit will be mutual. Jon 30319 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 4:35pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Catching Anger Hi Jon, Whatever point in the message http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/30249 that you want to support with discourses are fine. I think what you can do is to go through the statements you made in the message and list all or some of the points in that message and provide some reference to each of them so the discussion is based on how the discourses support or not support your points. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > > > Thank you for sharing your belief about abhidhamma and > > commentaries. The question I asked does not concern your belief > > about them. Rather, the questions I would ask are: Could you find > > a discourse that support your view (or point, if you prefer) in > > your > > last message to me? If you could, what is the discourse and how > > does it support your point? > > There are a number of points in my message. If you would like to > mention the point or points that you find questionable, I'd be happy > to provide whatever support I can. > > Jon 30320 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 4:35pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Catching Anger Hi Sarah (and Ken H), I think the issue at hand is: How does the discourse Majjhima Nikaya 10 Satipatthana Sutta Frames of Reference http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn010.html support the claim that the first sign of right understanding comes when nama is directly known as nama and rupa as rupa? If this particular discourse does not support the claim that the first sign of right understanding comes when nama is directly known as nama and rupa as rupa, what are other discourses that support the claim, and how? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor (and Ken H), > > First please tell us what nama is and what rupa is, as you understand > them. Otherwise this will end up with a quibble of words like some anatta > threads;-) > > Metta, > > Sarah > > p.s I'll be busy over the next couple of days, so I'll get back on a few > threads later. > ====== > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > > > How does the discourse > > Majjhima Nikaya 10 > > Satipatthana Sutta > > Frames of Reference > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn010.html > > support the claim that the first sign of right understanding comes > > when nama is directly known as nama and rupa as rupa? 30321 From: Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Dhamma Theory -- Paramattha In a message dated 2/19/04 5:04:27 PM Central Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: Actually, you've put your finger on the button here, Jack. Clinging is said to be the factor that keeps us continuting in the round of samsara (this is the first noble truth). Jon, Actually the Second Noble Truth. However, what breaks that cycle is the development of panna of the kind associated with satipatthana/vipassana (this is the gist of the fourth noble truth). Ignorance and wrong view are the antithesis of that development of panna, as I see it. The Fourth Noble Truth/ 8-Fold Path has 8 paths not one. Looking at it another way, Right Knowledge is only 1/8 of the 8-Fold Path. If one looks at the Cycle of Dependent Origination, ignorance is the cause of suffering. But, one could also say vedana (feelings) are the cause of suffering. Or, one could pick any of the links in the Cycle and say they are a cause of suffering. The Cycle is a cycle, i.e., the last link is connected to the first. Change any link and suffering is eliminated. The usual way to look at it is that the two easiest to change are the links of ignorance and feelings. As the Satipatthana Sutta makes clear, there can be awareness of presently occurring akusala mind-states. This would be an instance of the fourth foundation of mindfulness. > jack > I retract my statement above. I don't think it will lead to > anything > productive. Some of the things said on this list really surprise > me. Maybe that's a good thing. Or, maybe I should pass on by. Hope you'll stick around;-)) I'm sure the benefit will be mutual. Jon Thanks for the kind thoughts. jack 30322 From: Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 0:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Catching Anger Hi, Victor (and Sarah and Ken) - In a message dated 2/19/04 8:11:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Sarah (and Ken H), > > I think the issue at hand is: > > How does the discourse > Majjhima Nikaya 10 > Satipatthana Sutta > Frames of Reference > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn010.html > support the claim that the first sign of right understanding comes > when nama is directly known as nama and rupa as rupa? > > If this particular discourse does not support the claim that the > first sign of right understanding comes when nama is directly known > as nama and rupa as rupa, what are other discourses that support the > claim, and how? > > Metta, > Victor ============================ I agree with you, Victor, that making the distinction between mental and physical, which, BTW, I think pretty much all human beings do quite easily for the most part, is not a suttic teaching of the Buddha's. The commentarial tradition seems to give great importance to it, but I have never seen the Buddha do so. It seems to me that for the most part what the Buddha taught as important were the tilakhana, paticcasamupada, and the four noble truths. Seeing into these with wisdom are what right understanding is all about as far as I'm concerned. Now, if it were said that clearly distinguishing between what is actual experience and what is illusion is a sign of right understanding, I would agree. But that is different from distinguishing nama from rupa, and it is not a first sign of right understanding, but an advanced sign, at least at its summit. 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) 30323 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:54pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/sacca Hi Andrew, Your concerns (about choice of language) remind me of a message from Rob M, in which he apologised for any offence he might have caused the non-meditators. That was significant, I think. We know, only too well, that by extolling the virtues of listening, considering and discussing (Dhamma-study), we inevitably dispute the efficacy of formal practice (that is, we risk offending the meditators). However, as Rob implied, the reverse is also true: whenever a Buddhist extols formal practice, he denigrates study. There is no sitting on the fence: it has to be one way or the other. If anatta is to be taken seriously, then formal practice is not compatible with the Dhamma. If formal practice is to be taken seriously, then a literal understanding of anatta (no self who can practice) is an impediment. Some say that anatta (and other ultimate realities) will be relevant when we reach the final goal, not before. This makes us study-bugs look ridiculous – as if we are putting a cart in front of a horse. (The very thing we accuse the meditators of doing.) Inevitably, in a discussion group like this, toes are going to be trodden on! --------------------- A: > How many times have you encountered people who dismiss Dhamma with a wave of the hand and an incredulous laugh when they are first told that, according to Buddha, they "don't really exist". These people are not dummies, either. I believe you have had exactly this same experience with one of our nation's leading intellectuals? --------------------- Before people think I have been hobnobbing with celebrities, I should explain that, about ten years ago, I wrote to my favourite left-wing social commentator (who has a chat show on public radio). He had previously paid lip service to Buddhism and so I thought he would be amenable to a little more information. One of his favourite conversation topics was, "coping with the fear of dying," and so I summarised the Abhidhamma perspective (along the lines of; "Mere suffering exists; no sufferer is found,"). He wrote back; "I can't see how that would help with fear of toothache, let alone fear of dying!" Such was my brush with fame. :-) -------------------------- < . . . . > A: > Well, IMHO, this is exactly the reason why Buddha spoke of "not- self" instead of "no self". ----------------------------- You mean; rather than, `there is no self,' he chose to say, `all dhammas are not self.'' I think you're right. In his case, though, the problem would not have been that people would not believe him -- the people who sought his teaching would have believed anything he said. However, they might have mistaken `anatta' to mean, `nothing exists.' Therefore, he taught that only dhammas exist and that all dhammas have the characteristic, anatta. Some people in dsg are making that same mistake: In my opinion, anyone who thinks there are no paramattha dhammas (with their own sabhava) must believe that, ultimately, nothing exists. Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > Hi Ken H > > My original post really pertained to matters pedagogical. 30324 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 7:49pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/sacca --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Your concerns (about choice of language) remind me of a message from > Rob M, in which he apologised for any offence he might have caused > the non-meditators. That was significant, I think. We know, only > too well, that by extolling the virtues of listening, considering > and discussing (Dhamma-study), we inevitably dispute the efficacy of > formal practice ( ================ dear Ken, I wouldn't want to disparage the virtues of these activities- however, I have come to see that there is much more to it than that. I used to think if anyone would study and consider carefully that eventually they would 'get it'. In fact it is only if there is true investigation of the present moment that understanding grows: and that in turn makes the theory clearer. Robk 30325 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 8:27pm Subject: Dhamma Study Hi all, I find the study guides prepared and introduced by Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/index.html ) can be helpful in Dhamma study in an online forum such as DSG. I am interested to do a Dhamma study using these study guides with anyone who are interested in the same. Let me know if you are interested. Suggestions and feedback on how to go about doing Dhamma study using the study guides are welcome. The topics are listed as following: @Beyond Coping: The Buddha's Teachings on Aging, Illness, Death, and Separation @Body Contemplation An overview of the Buddha's teachings on contemplation of the body, and its role in the development of mindfulness, jhana, and discernment. @The Five Aggregates This anthology of short readings from the suttas explains how the teachings on the five aggregates (pañcakkhandha) -- form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications, and consciousness -- function in the Buddhist path to liberation. @The Four Noble Truths An introduction to the Four Noble Truths, the basic framework on which all the Buddha's teachings are built. @Kamma These readings give an overview of the Buddha's teaching of kamma (karma; intentional action). @Noble Conversation An exploration of the nature of right speech, based on the Buddha's list of ten ideal topics for conversation. @Non-violence @Recognizing the Dhamma Fortunately for us, the Buddha left behind specific guidelines by which we can judge the validity of any interpretation of Dhamma or Vinaya. These eight principles, sometimes called the "Constitution of Buddhism," show us that any teaching must finally be judged by the results that come from putting it into practice. @Stream-entry "Stream-entry" is the first of the four stages of Awakening, the goal towards which all the Buddha's teachings ultimately point. The sutta readings in this study guide are organized around the four factors that lead to the attainment of stream-entry and provide answers to questions of interest to all meditators. @The Ten Perfections The ten paramis (perfections) are skillful qualities that develop (perhaps over many lifetimes) as one follows the Buddha's path of practice. This study guide includes readings from the Pali Canon and from the teachings of Ajaan Lee Dhammadharo. @The Ten Recollections The ten anussati (recollections) are a set of practical tools for meditators to use when confronted with particular challenges (physical pain, for example) or unskillful states of mind (doubt, restlessness, complacency, etc.). Metta, Victor 30326 From: Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 8:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Catching Anger Hi Victor, Sarah, Ken, Howard, & all, Regarding knowledge of nama and rupa as the first stage of insight, the Satipatthana Sutta isn't really concerned with "stages of the path". In MN 24, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn024.html , the path (mundane and supramundane) is divided into 7 stages called "purifications" in the Visuddhimagga. The third stage, Purification of View, is knowledge of nama and rupa. This knowledge is knowledge of the composite nature of nama and rupa. The Visuddhimagga explains it in almost overwhelming detail. Here is a simplified version by Matara Sri ~Nanarama in "The Seven Stages of Purification and The Insight Knowledges" (BPS): "In mindfulness of breathing, for instance, the in-breaths and out-breaths belong to matter while the awareness of them is reckoned as mind. Normally, the in-breaths and the out-breaths strike against the tip of the nose or the upper lip as they enter and go out. The meditator should pay attention only to the occurrence of in-breathing and out-breathing. He should not follow the in-breaths inside the body or outside it, speculating on what becomes of them, since this will hinder concentration. As the meditator continues to keep his calm mind on the point of contact of the air being inhaled and exhaled (i.e. either at the tip of the nose or on the upper lip), he begins to feel as though his mind approaches and strikes the meditation subject. This happens at a developed stage in his meditation when he becomes aware of the distinction between mind and matter. The mind has the nature of bending towards or leaping towards an object. At first, every in-breath and out-breath appears as a compact unit. Later one begins to understand that the breath is a mass or heap. This is Delimitation of Matter. One then understands the awareness of the breath to be a series or "heap" of discrete thought-moments, each one a "heap" or mass of many mental factors. This is Delimitation of Mind. The ability to understand Mind-and-Matter as a heap necessarily implies the ability to distinguish one thing from another, since a heap is, by definition, a group of things lying one on another. This is the preliminary stage of the Knowledge of Delimitation of Mind-and-Matter. At first this understanding is limited to the subject of meditation. Later on it spreads to the other parts of the body connected with the subjects of meditation until it comes to pervade the whole body. Still later the understanding extends outward towards other beings as well as inanimate things, since the knowledge, when complete, is threefold: internal, external, and internal-external." Larry 30327 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sensing own mind whenever it moves ( 02 ) Hi James, op 19-02-2004 13:29 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > Let me ask you this Q: >> >> If you talk about/think about trying or striving to do some > chores/be >> aware of the body or breath/or striving to know feelings or mental > factors >> in meditation practice, who or what is `trying', `striving' or > making this >> `effort'? > I am, James Mitchell. That personality of 'James' won't be gone > until enlightenment. Till then, "I" keep on trucking on!! ;-)) N: I must admit that you are right. Even if there can be a moment of sati without thinking, there is still an underlying idea of *me*. A. Sujin was reminding us of this all the time. but the most important, I believe, is to realize that we are in this way. It is better to know than not to know! I also learnt another interesting point. It is the latent tendency of wrong view that is only eradicated at enlightenment, but, by the development of insight, stage by stage, this latent tendency is already in the process of being worn away. Now this sutta gets more meaning: it is a sutta Sarah quoted once to you that you liked. I could not get in Thailand B.B. edition. S III, Khandhavagga, Middle Fifty, ch 5, § 101: This is said of the fetters, but it can also be said of latent tendencies. Please can you help me with B.B.'s notes? That is, if your computer time allows this. Nina. 30328 From: Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 4:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/sacca Hi, Ken (and Andrew) - In a message dated 2/19/04 9:26:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > > Hi Andrew, > > Your concerns (about choice of language) remind me of a message from > Rob M, in which he apologised for any offence he might have caused > the non-meditators. That was significant, I think. We know, only > too well, that by extolling the virtues of listening, considering > and discussing (Dhamma-study), we inevitably dispute the efficacy of > formal practice (that is, we risk offending the meditators). > However, as Rob implied, the reverse is also true: whenever a > Buddhist extols formal practice, he denigrates study. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I think you are incorrect on both counts. Extolling the virtues of listening, considering and discussing is not, in itself, disputing the efficacy of any other aspects of practice, and extolling other aspects of practice, including, "formal" meditation, is not in itself a denigration of study. There is no reason one cannot do both, and there is every reason to believe that each is supportive of the other. -------------------------------------------------- > > There is no sitting on the fence: it has to be one way or the > other. If anatta is to be taken seriously, then formal practice is > not compatible with the Dhamma. If formal practice is to be taken > seriously, then a literal understanding of anatta (no self who can > practice) is an impediment. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think this is complete nonsense. For the worldling anatta is rarely more than mere belief! You can believe all you want that there is no self, but you still can stand up if you wish, and you can sit down if you wish, and, for that matter, so could the Buddha, who (I believe) *knew* there was no self. When you are an arahant, Ken, and may that be soon, then you will come at things from the perspective of nibbana. Until then, to have the opinion that there is no self and that, thus, nothing can be done because there is no "one" to do it, is to pretend enlightenment when there is none, it is to delude oneself as to what one's possibilities are, and it is to guarantee stagnation on the path. The Buddha taught his followers to DO a variety of things, including act morally, guard the senses, cultivate the divine abidings, master the jhanas, meditate mindfully on the four foundations, and so on and so forth. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Some say that anatta (and other ultimate realities) will be relevant > when we reach the final goal, not before. This makes us study-bugs > look ridiculous – as if we are putting a cart in front of a horse. > (The very thing we accuse the meditators of doing.) > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Hah! Interesting. I had not read ahead to this point when I wrote my earlier comments. It seems that yes, indeed, I am one of those "some", but not entirely so. There can be a growing awareness of anatta prior to arahanthood, even prior to stream entry. But confusing mere belief or even a slight awareness with true direct knowing is a sabotaging error I believe. We MUST always keep in mind that we start where we are, not where we hope to be. The beginning of wisdom is not the awe of God (as Jews and Christians are wont to say), nor the ability to distinguish nama from rupa (as some Buddhists are wont to say), but to know, clearly and with little illusion, what is one's current status, and to be able to distinguish what one believes from what one directly knows. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Inevitably, in a discussion group like this, toes are going to be > trodden on! > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Oh, so what? There are plenty of podiatrists around! ;-)) ---------------------------------------------------------- > > --------------------- > A: >How many times have you encountered people who dismiss Dhamma > with a wave of the hand and an incredulous laugh when they are first > told that, according to Buddha, they "don't really exist". These > people are not dummies, either. I believe you have had exactly this > same experience with one of our nation's leading intellectuals? > --------------------- > > Before people think I have been hobnobbing with celebrities, I > should explain that, about ten years ago, I wrote to my favourite > left-wing social commentator (who has a chat show on public radio). > He had previously paid lip service to Buddhism and so I thought he > would be amenable to a little more information. One of his > favourite conversation topics was, "coping with the fear of dying," > and so I summarised the Abhidhamma perspective (along the lines > of; "Mere suffering exists; no sufferer is found,"). He wrote > back; "I can't see how that would help with fear of toothache, let > alone fear of dying!" > > Such was my brush with fame. :-) > ------------------------------------------ Howard: Mere notions and opinions and beliefs and claims have little useful effect. What we see directly and know for ourselves to be true is what has useful effect. That is the virtue of the Kalama Sutta - to make that clear. ------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------- > <. . . . > > A: >Well, IMHO, this is exactly the reason why Buddha spoke of "not- > self" instead of "no self". > ----------------------------- > > You mean; rather than, `there is no self,' he chose to say, `all > dhammas are not self.'' I think you're right. In his case, though, > the problem would not have been that people would not believe him -- > the people who sought his teaching would have believed anything he > said. However, they might have mistaken `anatta' to mean, `nothing > exists.' Therefore, he taught that only dhammas exist and that all > dhammas have the characteristic, anatta. > > Some people in dsg are making that same mistake: In my opinion, > anyone who thinks there are no paramattha dhammas (with their own > sabhava) must believe that, ultimately, nothing exists. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Of course there are paramattha dhammas - that is, phenomena the clear and direct knowing of which leads to the ultimate goal (parama attha) - and it is the direct knowing of their tripartite nature of anicca, dukkha, and anatta that enables the attaining of that ultimate goal. ------------------------------------------------- > > Kind regards, > Ken H > > ============================ With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 30329 From: Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 4:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Catching Anger Hi, Larry (and all) - In a message dated 2/19/04 11:54:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Victor, Sarah, Ken, Howard, &all, > > Regarding knowledge of nama and rupa as the first stage of insight, the > Satipatthana Sutta isn't really concerned with "stages of the path". In > MN 24, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn024.html , > the path (mundane and supramundane) is divided into 7 stages called > "purifications" in the Visuddhimagga. The third stage, Purification of > View, is knowledge of nama and rupa. This knowledge is knowledge of the > composite nature of nama and rupa. The Visuddhimagga explains it in > almost overwhelming detail. Here is a simplified version by Matara Sri > ~Nanarama in "The Seven Stages of Purification and The Insight > Knowledges" (BPS): > > "In mindfulness of breathing, for instance, the in-breaths and > out-breaths belong to matter while the awareness of them is reckoned as > mind. Normally, the in-breaths and the out-breaths strike against the > tip of the nose or the upper lip as they enter and go out. The meditator > should pay attention only to the occurrence of in-breathing and > out-breathing. He should not follow the in-breaths inside the body or > outside it, speculating on what becomes of them, since this will hinder > concentration. As the meditator continues to keep his calm mind on the > point of contact of the air being inhaled and exhaled (i.e. either at > the tip of the nose or on the upper lip), he begins to feel as though > his mind approaches and strikes the meditation subject. This happens at > a developed stage in his meditation when he becomes aware of the > distinction between mind and matter. The mind has the nature of bending > towards or leaping towards an object. At first, every in-breath and > out-breath appears as a compact unit. Later one begins to understand > that the breath is a mass or heap. This is Delimitation of Matter. One > then understands the awareness of the breath to be a series or "heap" of > discrete thought-moments, each one a "heap" or mass of many mental > factors. This is Delimitation of Mind. The ability to understand > Mind-and-Matter as a heap necessarily implies the ability to distinguish > one thing from another, since a heap is, by definition, a group of > things lying one on another. > > This is the preliminary stage of the Knowledge of Delimitation of > Mind-and-Matter. At first this understanding is limited to the subject > of meditation. Later on it spreads to the other parts of the body > connected with the subjects of meditation until it comes to pervade the > whole body. Still later the understanding extends outward towards other > beings as well as inanimate things, since the knowledge, when complete, > is threefold: internal, external, and internal-external." > > Larry > > ================================ The Vsm may say what it says about this matter, but there is nothing in the sutta itself that gives the slightest suggestion that distinguishing nama from rupa is involved. 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) 30330 From: Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 5:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/sacca Hi again, Ken (and Andrew) - In a message dated 2/19/04 9:26:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Your concerns (about choice of language) remind me of a message from > Rob M, in which he apologised for any offence he might have caused > the non-meditators. That was significant, I think. We know, only > too well, that by extolling the virtues of listening, considering > and discussing (Dhamma-study), we inevitably dispute the efficacy of > formal practice (that is, we risk offending the meditators). > However, as Rob implied, the reverse is also true: whenever a > Buddhist extols formal practice, he denigrates study. > ============================ With regard to the foregoing, and my comment that there need not be a strict choice of one or the other, the following article may be of relevance: http://www.dhammatimes.com/wisetalk/2004/01/040118-scholars-meditators.htm 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) 30331 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack Hi Jack k: Thanks for trying to answer my questions. Please do not miscontrue me. I am not here to win an argument or disparge you to prove I am right or whatever. I am just here to provide you another viewpoint that is different from most modern writers and thinkers. > Ken O, > > I'll try to answer your questions. When I try to do vipassana > meditation, I don't still thoughts. My mind does calm down. Thoughts as well as other sensations arise and pass away without my having to manage or control them. Thinking, hearing, body sensing occur but without involvement of an "I". I can get up from sitting meditation to do walking meditation and no "self" is involved. k: I am wondering, why do you need to sit to be calm. What is satipatthana, is it waiting to sit on one small corner and then do vipassana meditation to achieve it. Can one expect to be calm when one effort is conditioned by a concept of sitting down to achieve something. In that sense, do you believe the calm that you have, can be a result of your believe that these works. Then IMHO your believe is based on the premises of a self that does something. Can self do things which itself which is not self. Are you preceiveing a self to achieve a not-self. Is it possible for making an effort in this self and practise a not-self. Or should it be a not-self that should known in every moment rather than in moments of sitting down which could possible condition by a self that believes by doing this we can realise not-self. The starting premises is very impt in Buddhist practise, wrong start means wrong way of practise. Even if one attain the four jhanas, but if the premise is wrong, one only attained a very long life in the next life, not even a stream entrant. k: Another question I always ask pple samadhi meditation, what is samadhi meditation is it just focusing on one object. Firstly can mind be control to focus on one object. Secondly if you look at Samadhi sutta - one would know that actually Samadhi is the every moment of the six senses. Then, in the sati suttas <"I am breathing in a long breath"; breathing out a long breath, he knows, "I am breathing out a long breath";> - The sutta say - what is know, it is knowing earth as earth, water as water... . It meant it is every single mind or matter element are understood as it is. Hence in sati sutta it is not just sitting down doing breathing and mindfullness exercise, it is panna at work. k: Sometimes, pple assert that it is Buddha that encourage sittig down <>. One got to cross reference with other sutta, in other suttas, going into the forest is not recommend if one is not well guarded in the senses etc.. Hence looking at sati sutta one must look cross reference it with other suttas, pple always disregard the impt words in the sutta like "he knows" or "going into the forest", these are impt, they show this sutta is not just as simple as just sitting down. k: Hence is concentration that is one-pointed is equivalent to stillness or calmness of mind. Do you think it is possible for calmess or stillness of mind to eradicated ignorance? Ken O 30332 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 3:10am Subject: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi Howard, > ========================= > > Sure, both these cetasikas will be there in all javana cittas. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: Sure - for *everybody* - saint and sinner, caregiver and killer. And these could be there weakly or strongly. But specific conditions are required for specific results, and it is by volition that a "person" effects an outcome, and only with that. --------------------------------------------- Sukin: Each one of these persons may have from time to time, the intention to be free of akusala. If all four were faced with a similar situation and for all hiri and ottappa arose, what would determine if guarding of the senses would take place? Volition?!! If none of the above people know anything about Satipatthana, would sati of this level arise? And if one of them, say the killer, has heard the Buddha's teachings on Satipatthana and is reminded about the teachings that very instant, and sati arose, would it be because he intended it? Or would it have been due to prior accumulated knowledge, practice and wisdom? ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Just picking it up to read? Of course not. That would be a mere beginning. It must be read, studied, contemplated - all requiring volition. But, then, it also must be applied! --------------------------------------------- Sukin: The conventional activity of studying and listening to Dhamma does in the same conventional way, require effort and volition. Without this effort and volition, there would not be such activity. But being attracted to the dhamma at all, and consequently from time to time, understanding it, and the conditions which later arise for `contemplation' to take place, these are *not* volitional in the same sense as those conventional activities. These cannot be willed. So who applies? ----------------------------------------------- Would telling > > oneself 'to do this' or 'not do that' be 'patipatti'? ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Uh .. no? ;-) Telling oneself to do this or that is just telling oneself. DOING this or that is action, and it requires volition - impulse that leads to action. I can *tell* myself to stand up, and nothing will happen. But let a snake approach me and I will JUMP up and move away in an instant. The fear and desire lead to powerful volition that bears fruit. Vitakka is not the same as cetana. ----------------------------------------------- Sukin: ;-/ Sorry. I wanted to correct the above, but decided instead to leave it and wait for your reaction. ;-) As in the above case where conventional activity of `reading' is distinguished from paramatthic activity of `understanding', I think it important to remember this difference. When we have a mental picture of what is to be done, then convention comes in. And if this `doing' concerns the idea of `development of wisdom', then silabattaparamasa is there and I think we will instead be developing more ignorance. On the other hand, if the understanding is firm about say, `cause and fruits', namely that akusala leads one way and kusala another, then without `intending', sati may arise to guard the senses. Likewise, whether there will be kusala in subsequent moments would depend on previously accumulated sati and panna. So far we have talked about `guarding the sense', where the understanding of satipatthana is necessary. Now let's talk about just keeping sila. Even if we are sure that the present citta were kusala and so the volition, what would it mean to say, `refrain from harsh speech'? Wouldn't it be only that very moment when the akusala thoughts had arisen and then sati arose? There would be volition no doubt, but what would have conditioned this sati? Would it not have been because of seeing the danger in akusala? We can bite our tongues, but would that be sila? I think I may not be getting your point and I am basically just repeating the same thing as in the other posts. So it is up to you if you would like to elaborate further, otherwise we can just leave this discussion for now. What say you? ====================== With metta, Howard ==================== Metta, Sukin 30333 From: Philip Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 3:34am Subject: Starting out on Abhidhamma Hello everyone. This morning, I read the following passage posted by Jon. "I believe that a knowledge of the Abhidhamma and commentaries is necessary for a proper understanding of the discourses. What was said in the suttas was addressed to persons who were on the whole of highly developed understanding, many of them ripe for immediate or imminent enlightenment (in other words, of much greater understanding than ourselves), so much of it goes over our heads, even though the language seems familiar. Without the help of the Abhidhamma and commentaries we may misconstrue the suttas." I had been going along quite happily having heard of the Abhidhamma but assuming that it was over my head and of theoretical interest only. The passage above, and the first chapter of Nina's "Abhidhamma in Daily Life" have got me thinking otherwise. I expect I'll continue my conceptual practice with it's emphasis on Brahma-Viharas and conventional reality on one hand, while pressing gently ahead into an understanding of absolute reality through study of Abhidhamma on the other. This kind of playing with a balance of conventional and absolute realities seems central to Buddhism, to this beginner's understanding at least. Anyways, thanks for the nudge about Abhidhamma, Jon. Metta Phil P.S And the first chapter of Nina's book has already enabled me to better understand what the heck you folks are talking about all the time! :) 30334 From: Sarah Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 3:37am Subject: Re: [dsg]_Re:_A___HAPPY___VALENTINE´S___DAY_!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hi Icaro, --- icarofranca wrote: > Dear Sarah: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Yes! As a singer I am a complete disaster! > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- S:;-) That’s OK, the Dhammasangani is more precious. .... > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 ! > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: Please keep sharing snippets for us to consider. I was fascinated by your tale of how you came across them and how you learnt English, but surely not from the Abhidhamma in Pali?.....:-/ ....> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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! > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- S:I think it helps a lot to hear and consider what everyone finds useful. Sometimes just a few words considered wisely whilst we’re busy or stressed out can help a lot. .... > > p.sIcaro, what does it mean to say "Sariputta is the Zen of > Angulimala" > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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...". ..... S:I just remembered what you’re referring to (it’s taken me this time ;-)) Sutta-Nipata, Ch of the 8s, Sariputta Sutta: “Venerable Sariputta said: Neither have I seen, nor has anyone heard of such a sweet-tongued Master coming down from the Tusita heaven [S: presumably after teaching the Abhidhamma to his mother] to the midst of the many. The one with vision appears as he really is to the world of men and gods and after having dispelled all darkness he alone attained happiness. Here, from the many, I have come supplicatingly, with a question for the Buddha who is unattached, a guileless teacher who has arrived in the world.....” .... >This initial passage shows some > sarcasm of Sariputta towards Buddha. ... S:I don’t think so. An arahant wouldn’t show any sarcasm (always with unwholesome connotations in English). You’d have to elaborate..maybe a Portuguese equivalent has another meaning. .... >At other passages with Moggalana > we get a suggestion that he was a "Thunderhead" himself. As > Angulimala, that was a murderer. ... S:I’ve changed murder to murderer, but still haven’t worked out the connection here between Moggalana, Angulimala, Sariputta, sarcasm and Tusita:-/ ?? .... > 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!!! .... S: I understand the last line only!! Glad for any further explanations about how zen, MahaKassapa and thunderheads fit in too:-/ Maybe it'll all make sense by next Valentine's Day;-)If anyone else would like to add clues, that would be helpful too. ..... Metta, Sarah ===== 30335 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 3:26am Subject: Universal & Timeless Truths! Friends: The Ovada-Patimokkha: Patience is the Supreme Praxis Nibbana is the Supreme Tolerance By Violence one is not Gone Forth By Harming one is not a Recluse So say all Buddhas! Avoiding all Evil Doing only Good Cleaning the Mind So teach all Buddhas! Harmless & Kinds Controlled by Norm Moderated in Eating Remote Seclusion Training Meditation So practise all Buddhas! This Universal Norm is recited by all Buddhas! From an infinite past into an endless future! Timeless is thus these Universal Truths... All yours in the Dhamma. Constructions Decay & Vanish. Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ 30336 From: icarofranca Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:25am Subject: [dsg]_Re:_A___HAPPY___VALENTINE´S___DAY_!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dear Sarah > S:;-) That's OK, the Dhammasangani is more precious. > .... > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ This could be a sort of attachment of my part... anyway, the other Abhidhamma's other books and Tiikas are very good too. However, the fact is I really like Dhammasangani style! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > S: Please keep sharing snippets for us to consider. I was fascinated by > your tale of how you came across them and how you learnt English, but > surely not from the Abhidhamma in Pali?.....:-/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh! Don't be so amused ;-)). At Pali Language I am threading a path a quite similar for my former learnings(Hah!Hah!). I am taking the Duroseille's, the Elementary Pali Course of Maha Narada Thera and a direct approach of the Abhidhamma itself. It's being very fruitful! The Visuddhimagga I will buy the complete and unabridged book out of Pariyatti and BPS. The first chapter Coonie had provided me arose my appetite! --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Sometimes just a few words considered wisely whilst we're busy or stressed > out can help a lot. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Freud had already pointed out the links between the our sub- conscience and the human being hearing apparatus. a good and nice word makes real good! -------------------------------------------------------------------- > S:I just remembered what you're referring to (it's taken me this time ;-)) > > Sutta-Nipata, Ch of the 8s, Sariputta Sutta: > > "Venerable Sariputta said: > > Neither have I seen, nor has anyone heard of such a sweet-tongued Master > coming down from the Tusita heaven [S: presumably after teaching the > Abhidhamma to his mother] to the midst of the many. > > S:I don't think so. An arahant wouldn't show any sarcasm (always with > unwholesome connotations in English). You'd have to elaborate..maybe a > Portuguese equivalent has another meaning. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Indeed. I can say unto you, Sarah, that reading the portuguese translation of the Chapter of Eights gave me really this impression - something like "Let us try this venerable Holy Man and check out if he has really got a knack on these ascetic matters!". Only reading the Pali originals I can build up a better concept about it! -------------------------------------------------------------------- > S:I've changed murder to murderer, but still haven't worked out the > connection here between Moggalana, Angulimala, Sariputta, sarcasm and > Tusita:-/ ?? -------------------------------------------------------------------- I will try to ellaborate this view: Buddha is really above such low tracts of murdering, slandering and so on. As a matter of fact, a mundane person stucked on these lower realms ought to spend many and many lives to purify his/hers lives and begin to thread up the Path towards Nibbana. No one can expect a state of Satipatthana fully developed on Angulimala, for example, without the direct act of Buddha. But since he is a "Thunderhead" himself, the arahat more akin of his temper could be Sariputta. So, at Zen viewpoint, Sariputta the Arahat is the mindfullness being Angulimala could emulate on to stand at same feet! --------------------------------------------------------------------- Maybe it'll all > make sense by next Valentine's Day;-) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah!!! "Roses are red, Violets are bleargh, But you are the best flower, That came from Armagh!" (No!!! No!!! Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) Mettaya, Ícaro 30337 From: nidive Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:32am Subject: Re: Catching Anger Hi Sarah & Victor, > If this particular discourse does not support the claim that the > first sign of right understanding comes when nama is directly known > as nama and rupa as rupa, what are other discourses that support the > claim, and how? Actually, this claim is all over the suttas. What is the point of classifying the five aggregates as form, consciousness, perception, feelings and fabrications? If one can't even get the distinction between rupa and nama right, how could one even get the distinction between the five aggregates right? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/khandha.html § 8. Form. Sariputta: "And what, friends, is form as a clinging-aggregate? The four great existents and the form derived from them. And what are the four great existents? They are the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property. § 9. Feeling. "And what is feeling? These six classes of feeling -- feeling born of eye-contact, feeling born of ear-contact, feeling born of nose-contact, feeling born of tongue-contact, feeling born of body-contact, feeling born of intellect-contact: this is called feeling." § 11. Perception. "And what is perception? These six classes of perception -- perception of form, perception of sound, perception of smell, perception of taste, perception of tactile sensation, perception of ideas: this is called perception." § 12. Fabrications. "And what are fabrications? There are these six classes of intention: intention aimed at sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas. These are called fabrications." § 15. Consciousness. "And what is consciousness? These six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness. This is called consciousness." Regards, Swee Boon 30338 From: Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 0:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concentration / Jhana!! *Why?* was Re: The Dhamma Theory Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 2/20/04 6:11:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, sukinder@k... writes: > Hi Howard, > > >========================= > > > >Sure, both these cetasikas will be there in all javana cittas. > > > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Sure - for *everybody* - saint and sinner, caregiver and killer. And > these could be there weakly or strongly. But specific conditions are > required for specific results, and it is by volition that a "person" > effects an outcome, and only with that. > --------------------------------------------- > > Sukin: > Each one of these persons may have from time to time, the intention > to be free of akusala. If all four were faced with a similar > situation and for all hiri and ottappa arose, what would determine > if guarding of the senses would take place? Volition?!! -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: There are multiple conditions that determine any event. I don't say "no" to that! The inclinations that one has are, themselves, consequences. ------------------------------------------------------- > > If none of the above people know anything about Satipatthana, would > sati of this level arise? And if one of them, say the killer, has > heard the Buddha's teachings on Satipatthana and is reminded about > the teachings that very instant, and sati arose, would it be because > he intended it? Or would it have been due to prior accumulated > knowledge, practice and wisdom? > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes and yes. Multiple influences. Only a fool would play down "prior accumulated knowledge, practice and wisdom," and, also, only a fool would play down the role of volition in human action. -------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Just picking it up to read? Of course not. That would be a mere > beginning. It must be read, studied, contemplated - all requiring > volition. But, then, it also must be applied! > --------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > The conventional activity of studying and listening to Dhamma does > in the same conventional way, require effort and volition. Without > this effort and volition, there would not be such activity. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I say no more than that. --------------------------------------------------------- But > > being attracted to the dhamma at all, and consequently from time to > time, understanding it, and the conditions which later arise > for `contemplation' to take place, these are *not* volitional in the > same sense as those conventional activities. These cannot be willed. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's quite true. Who says otherwise? Not I. Of course, what we are attracted to is at least in part determined by prior kamma (volition and volitional action). Think about it, Sukin: Doesn't the Buddha make much of the role of kamma in human affairs? And what is kamma? It is volition! -------------------------------------------------------- > So who applies? > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Conventionally, you and I do. Literally speaking, no one does. -------------------------------------------------------- > ----------------------------------------------- > > Would telling > > >oneself 'to do this' or 'not do that' be 'patipatti'? > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Uh .. no? ;-) Telling oneself to do this or that is just telling > oneself. DOING this or that is action, and it requires volition - > impulse that leads to action. I can *tell* myself to stand up, and > nothing will happen. But let a snake approach me and I will JUMP up > and move away in an instant. The fear and desire lead to powerful > volition that bears fruit. Vitakka is not the same as cetana. > ----------------------------------------------- > > Sukin: > ;-/ Sorry. I wanted to correct the above, but decided instead to > leave it and wait for your reaction. ;-) > > As in the above case where conventional activity of `reading' is > distinguished from paramatthic activity of `understanding', I think > it important to remember this difference. When we have a mental > picture of what is to be done, then convention comes in. And if > this `doing' concerns the idea of `development of wisdom', then > silabattaparamasa is there and I think we will instead be developing > more ignorance. On the other hand, if the understanding is firm > about say, `cause and fruits', namely that akusala leads one way and > kusala another, then without `intending', sati may arise to guard > the senses. Likewise, whether there will be kusala in subsequent > moments would depend on previously accumulated sati and panna. > > So far we have talked about `guarding the sense', where the > understanding of satipatthana is necessary. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Devout Catholics guard the senses as well, using, I believe, very much the same terminology. As the Buddha described the process, it amounts to paying attention to what thoughts arise in the mind, and acting as follows: not initiating harmful ones, cutting short harmful ones already begun, initiating wholesome ones, and extending wholesome ones already begun. (And all religions generally lay out what sorts of basic thoughts are wholesome and which are not. The fundamental moral precepts of all religions share a common core - of not taking life, of good will not ill will, being truthful, not coveting the property of others etc, etc) ------------------------------------------------ > > Now let's talk about just keeping sila. Even if we are sure that the > present citta were kusala and so the volition, what would it mean to > say, `refrain from harsh speech'? Wouldn't it be only that very > moment when the akusala thoughts had arisen and then sati arose? > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: That is exactly when it would go into effect. But the cultivation of the tendency towards that is a long-term matter. (And, of course, repeated contemplation of the importance of kind speech is an important aspect of that cultivation, a cultivation which, among other things, requires volition.) ------------------------------------------------- > There would be volition no doubt, but what would have conditioned > this sati? Would it not have been because of seeing the danger in > akusala? We can bite our tongues, but would that be sila? > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Seeing the danger will often be part of the motivation. Also love of sentient beings, lovingkindness and compassion. And, yes, biting our tongues *could* be sila as well - depending on intent. If mostly selfishly motivated, then to that extent not. ------------------------------------------------- > > I think I may not be getting your point and I am basically just > repeating the same thing as in the other posts. So it is up to you > if you would like to elaborate further, otherwise we can just leave > this discussion for now. What say you? > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I have nothing further to add. We can let it go. :-) ------------------------------------------------ > ====================== > With metta, > Howard > ==================== > Metta, > Sukin > > ============================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 30339 From: Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 0:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Catching Anger Hi, Swee Boon (and Sarah and Victor) - In a message dated 2/20/04 7:34:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > Hi Sarah &Victor, > > >If this particular discourse does not support the claim that the > >first sign of right understanding comes when nama is directly known > >as nama and rupa as rupa, what are other discourses that support the > >claim, and how? > > Actually, this claim is all over the suttas. What is the point of > classifying the five aggregates as form, consciousness, perception, > feelings and fabrications? > > If one can't even get the distinction between rupa and nama right, how > could one even get the distinction between the five aggregates right? > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/khandha.html > > § 8. Form. Sariputta: "And what, friends, is form as a > clinging-aggregate? The four great existents and the form derived from > them. And what are the four great existents? They are the earth > property, the liquid property, the fire property, &the wind property. > > § 9. Feeling. "And what is feeling? These six classes of feeling -- > feeling born of eye-contact, feeling born of ear-contact, feeling born > of nose-contact, feeling born of tongue-contact, feeling born of > body-contact, feeling born of intellect-contact: this is called > feeling." > > § 11. Perception. "And what is perception? These six classes of > perception -- perception of form, perception of sound, perception of > smell, perception of taste, perception of tactile sensation, > perception of ideas: this is called perception." > > § 12. Fabrications. "And what are fabrications? There are these six > classes of intention: intention aimed at sights, sounds, smells, > tastes, tactile sensations, &ideas. These are called fabrications." > > § 15. Consciousness. "And what is consciousness? These six classes of > consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, > nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, > intellect-consciousness. This is called consciousness." > > > Regards, > Swee Boon > > =========================== I understand what you have quoted here as consisting of the Buddha defining his terms so that the listener will understand exactly the range of what he is talking about in each case when saying "rupa", "vedana", "sa~n~na", "sankhara", and "vi~n~nana". But what the Buddha says here would be completely unintelligible to the listener if s/he couldn't already distinguish, at least most of the time and in principle, sights etc, pleasantness etc, recognition, volition etc, and awareness from each other. The fact that the Buddha discussed the five khandhas, done as a skillful means to induce nongrasping (of what arises) as me and mine, is far different from his having put forward the distinguishing of mental from physical as an allegedly major step towards enlightenment. If such distinguishing were a major step, then we would all be well on our way! ;-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 30340 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:04am Subject: Re: Catching Anger Dear Swee Boon, It has been nice to read up your message as it is so clear not to confuse anything up. If I may, let me ask you questions here. What are Pali equivalents for 1. Constructing the Aggregates 2. Constructing a Self 3. Constructing ther Path 4. Deconstruction that are discribed in the link you made that is at accesstoinsight. Could you explain mmore on five means of propagation 1. root, 2. stem, 3. joint, 4. cutting, 5. seed-propagation? I will be looking forward to hearing from you. With Metta, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Sarah & Victor, > > > If this particular discourse does not support the claim that the > > first sign of right understanding comes when nama is directly known > > as nama and rupa as rupa, 30341 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:14am Subject: Dhamma Study - Recognizing the Dhamma (1) Hi all, Here is the first part (title, contents, and introduction) of the study guide on recognizing the Dhamma: Recognizing the Dhamma A Study Guide Prepared by Thanissaro Bhikkhu --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- Contents Introduction The Eight Principles 1. Dispassion 2. Being Unfettered 3. Shedding 4. Modesty 5. Contentment 6. Seclusion 7. Persistence 8. Being Unburdensome --------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- Introduction Shortly after her ordination, the Buddha's step-mother, Mahapajapati Gotami, asked him for a short Dhamma-instruction that would guide her in her solitary practice. He responded with eight principles for recognizing what qualifies as Dhamma and Vinaya, and what does not. The commentary tells us that after her instruction, Mahapajapati Gotami in no long time became an arahant. The eight principles have been widely cited ever since. One Thai writer has called them the "constitution of Buddhism" as they form the standards against which the validity of any interpretation of the Dhamma or Vinaya must be judged. Perhaps the most important point that these principles make is that any teaching has to be judged by the results that come when putting it into practice. They are an excellent illustration of the teachings given in the well- known Kalama Sutta (AN III.65), as well as in the teachings that the Buddha gave to his son, Rahula (MN 61). The Canon illustrates these principles not only with abstract discussions but also with stories, and the stories are often more memorable than the discussions. Thus this study guide differs from its companions in that it is predominantly composed of stories. Bear in mind as you read the stories that they are often framed in somewhat extreme terms to drive their points home. Sister Subha [§1.4], Kali [§2.10], Prince Dighavu [§3.3], and the monk whose limbs are being removed by a saw [§2.10] would not be as memorable if their stories were framed in more realistic terms. Also bear in mind that there is some overlap among the principles, and that a passage may illustrate more than one at a time. Thus, for instance, the story of Ven. Isidatta [§2.11] analyzes the fetter of self-identity views, at the same time illustrating the principles of modesty and non-entanglement. The most extensive overlap is between the principle of dispassion and that of not being fettered, as passion in its various forms covers three of the ten fetters that bind a person to the round of rebirth. Thus the section on dispassion contains passages dealing with how to overcome the three "passion fetters" -- sensual passion, passion for the sense of form experienced in the jhanas of form, and passion for the sense of formlessness experienced in the formless jhanas -- whereas the section on being unfettered treats the remaining seven fetters. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recognizing.html Metta, Victor 30342 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack Hi Jack Actually I have more to say, just bear with me for a little while longer. When Buddha said restrain, guard your senses, developed yourself, what does it really meant? Can we said that we could guard our senses purposedly? Whenever there is a pleasant or unpleasant object meet the consciouness, if one is infatuated or immerse in that feelings, one is not guarding. When one is reminded at that instance of that not guarding that is called guarding. That sudden realization of guarding is not a purposed guarding as miscontrue by many pple, it is the accumulated panna that is at work. Furthermore as long as one is awake, one cannot run away from the six senses. We can only guard when mindfullness arise with panna understanding the characteristic of the object. That moment is call vipassana meditation and not otherwise. Furthermore, one cannot purposedly trying to be alert bc it will sap ones energy. If dont believe me, try to do it for just one hour, one will be tired bc it is a purposed actions. There is heighten sense of being alert and that alertness is condition by a concept that *one should do this or do that*. Furthermore, with regards to guarding of the six sense and developing them. Is this said in the context of just sitting down. One can see many examples of mindfullness practise in eating, collecting alms and even about to sleep and waking up mindfully. Could these activities confine mindfullness to just sitting down and doing concentration as you have quoted from TB. These are just my thoughts - throw it away if you think it is rubbish ;-). I am always full of them. See you around here and you might never know what you will know and there are always surprises here. Ken O Guarding of six senses is not taken that you are on a heighten alert level to observe the six sense object, 30343 From: Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 2:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack In a message dated 2/20/04 1:44:33 AM Central Standard Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: k: I am wondering, why do you need to sit to be calm. What is satipatthana, is it waiting to sit on one small corner and then do vipassana meditation to achieve it. Can one expect to be calm when one effort is conditioned by a concept of sitting down to achieve something. In that sense, do you believe the calm that you have, can be a result of your believe that these works. Then IMHO your believe is based on the premises of a self that does something. Can self do things which itself which is not self. Are you preceiveing a self to achieve a not-self. Is it possible for making an effort in this self and practise a not-self. Or should it be a not-self that should known in every moment rather than in moments of sitting down which could possible condition by a self that believes by doing this we can realise not-self. The starting premises is very impt in Buddhist practise, wrong start means wrong way of practise. Even if one attain the four jhanas, but if the premise is wrong, one only attained a very long life in the next life, not even a stream entrant. Ken. When an expert plays a musical instrument, they play without thinking. They just do it without striving, without thought of musical scales, etc. But, to get to that level of expertise, they must start off in their learning process very mechanically and playing scales very slowly. There is a big gap between where they start off learning and where they end up. It is the same with vipassana. One starts off with visible effort striving to see certain aspects of our experience. But, after a time, one is able to just do it--without striving, without the concepts useful earlier in our learning experience. An expert muscian can play anywhere and anytime, for instance, in a crowded club with lots of noise and distractions. But, a beginner needs a quiet space by himself where he can concentrate on practice. Just so with meditation. It is useful, as the Buddha suggests, to get off by yourself to meditate. Eventually, one can bring a meditative approach to all of their life. So, in both playing a musical instrument and in meditation, one needs to start off in a different way than one ends up. k: Another question I always ask pple samadhi meditation, what is samadhi meditation is it just focusing on one object. Firstly can mind be control to focus on one object. Secondly if you look at Samadhi sutta - one would know that actually Samadhi is the every moment of the six senses. Samadhi meditation can focus on one object. One can focus on the breath nimitta and all the other senses are not in evidence. k: Sometimes, pple assert that it is Buddha that encourage sittig down <>. One got to cross reference with other sutta, in other suttas, going into the forest is not recommend if one is not well guarded in the senses etc.. Hence looking at sati sutta one must look cross reference it with other suttas, pple always disregard the impt words in the sutta like "he knows" or "going into the forest", these are impt, they show this sutta is not just as simple as just sitting down. k: Hence is concentration that is one-pointed is equivalent to stillness or calmness of mind. Do you think it is possible for calmess or stillness of mind to eradicated ignorance? I thought I had already answered that in my previous post. Only wisdom eradicates ignorance. jack 30344 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack Hi Jack and (Victor) Hey its me again, I am in a very long winded mood today. So I have the urge again to write something more. Just borrowing some of your time if you dont mind I just read an intersting sutta refer by Swee Boon MN 109 (I am reading the B Bodhi version). In the end, if you see carefully <> - so is there any reference of jhanas here. Then to be fair (before James said that I did not type out the notes) - <> then again is there any reference of jhanas here. They meditated on a different subject - meditate can mean a few things, it can mean comtemplate or thinking or reflecting - depends on what you like. Then again in end of the Fire Sermon SN XXXV.28 sutta. <> (this is using TB version as I do not know how to locate this sutta in Bodhi version) There is no jhanas mention at all in this sutta, so do one need jhanas to gain enlightement ;-). I hope this is the last one I type today so not to bore you too much details kind regards Ken O 30345 From: Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 3:04am Subject: An Instance of the Role of Volition Hi, all - At http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn12.html, one can read: _________________________ (Insight Knowledge) "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, & bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge & vision. ... ------------------------------------------- This can likewise be found in the Kevatta sutta at the link http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn11.html, and also at the link http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/digha/dn02.html ============================ We see here how, from the base of the 4th jhana, it is possible for one to direct and incline the concentrated mind. To direct and incline the mind is to take volitional action. It is particularly easy to effectively do this when the hindrances have been suppressed and the mind is fully equanimous. 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) 30346 From: Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 3:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack Hi, Ken (and Jack and Victor) - In a message dated 2/20/04 11:05:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Jack and (Victor) > > Hey its me again, I am in a very long winded mood today. So I have > the urge again to write something more. Just borrowing some of your > time if you dont mind > > I just read an intersting sutta refer by Swee Boon MN 109 (I am > reading the B Bodhi version). In the end, if you see carefully > < minds of sixty bhikkhus were liberated from the taints>> - so is > there any reference of jhanas here. Then to be fair (before James > said that I did not type out the notes) - < Bhikkhus discarded their original meditation subjects and > investigated a new subject (based on Buddha's discourse MT). Without > breaking their posture, right in their seats they attain > arahantship>> then again is there any reference of jhanas here. They > meditated on a different subject - meditate can mean a few things, it > can mean comtemplate or thinking or reflecting - depends on what you > like. > > Then again in end of the Fire Sermon SN XXXV.28 sutta. < his utterance, the hearts of thousand bhikkhus were liberated through > clinging no more.>> (this is using TB version as I do not know how to > locate this sutta in Bodhi version) There is no jhanas mention at > all in this sutta, so do one need jhanas to gain enlightement ;-). > > I hope this is the last one I type today so not to bore you too much > details > > > kind regards > Ken O > ============================ Meditation is a cultivation practice, and only occasionally an entree to an "enlightenment experience". But the cultivated mind can let go and "leap into nibbana" at a turning word (just the right phrase at the right time) or even at a sound or a sharp sensation. When the fruit is ripe it takes but a small breeze to let it fall from the branch. 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) 30347 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack Hi Jack J: An expert muscian can play anywhere and anytime, for instance, in a crowded club with lots of noise and distractions. k: That is a good example but experts still need a time and space to do it whereas satipatthana can be done even while one is doing toiletering, before sleeping, eating, waking up etc. Then again that is what I meant by starting out the wrong permise. I have also quote a sutta earler to Victor "All the Taints" MN 2. <> So are you perceiving a self that can achieve a not-self by purposedly practising K: Then again your example of the expert, if the expert started on the wrong note, will the expert knows it is the wrong note since all along the expert taught it is the correct one. J> But, a beginner needs a quiet space by himself where he can concentrate on practice. Just so with meditation. It is > useful, as the Buddha suggests, to get off by yourself to meditate. > > Eventually, one can bring a meditative approach to all of their > life. k: Then again about the beginner, do one need quiet space by oneself to meditate. Meditation starts right here and right now even while you are writing to me. Dont wait time or space to do it. Satipatthanas starts in here and now. Please look at MIndfullnes immersed in the body MN119 by TB, look at the paragraph where Buddha describe eating, drinking, chewing etc. Was that in any reference that you must sit on one corner to do mindfullness. Kind regards Ken O > > So, in both playing a musical instrument and in meditation, one > needs to > start off in a different way than one ends up. > > > > k: Another question I always ask pple samadhi meditation, what is > samadhi meditation is it just focusing on one object. Firstly can > mind be control to focus on one object. Secondly if you look at > Samadhi sutta - one would know that actually Samadhi is the every > moment of the six senses. > Samadhi meditation can focus on one object. One can focus on the > breath > nimitta and all the other senses are not in evidence. > > k: Sometimes, pple assert that it is Buddha that encourage sittig > down < foot > of a tree or to an empty place, sits down with his legs crossed, > keeps his body erect and his mindfulness alert.[3]>>. One got to > cross reference with other sutta, in other suttas, going into the > forest is not recommend if one is not well guarded in the senses > etc.. Hence looking at sati sutta one must look cross reference it > with other suttas, pple always disregard the impt words in the > sutta > like "he knows" or "going into the forest", these are impt, they > show > this sutta is not just as simple as just sitting down. > > k: Hence is concentration that is one-pointed is equivalent to > stillness or calmness of mind. Do you think it is possible for > calmess or stillness of mind to eradicated ignorance? > I thought I had already answered that in my previous post. Only > wisdom > eradicates ignorance. > > jack 30348 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack Hi Howard Interesting comment. These one thousand monks are fire ascetics and not even Buddha disciples. Definitely this means the panna is just right (accumulated for countless lives) for the right condition to arise. But does panna increase with meditation?. It will be interesting to hear you point of view how does meditation increase panna. Ken O 30349 From: Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 3:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack Ken O. At no time have I said the jhanas were necessary for enlightenment. jack Hi Jack and (Victor) Hey its me again, I am in a very long winded mood today. So I have the urge again to write something more. Just borrowing some of your time if you dont mind I just read an intersting sutta refer by Swee Boon MN 109 (I am reading the B Bodhi version). In the end, if you see carefully <> - so is there any reference of jhanas here. 30350 From: Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 3:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack Hi, Ken - In a message dated 2/20/04 11:30:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > Interesting comment. These one thousand monks are fire ascetics and > not even Buddha disciples. Definitely this means the panna is just > right (accumulated for countless lives) for the right condition to > arise. But does panna increase with meditation?. It will be > interesting to hear you point of view how does meditation increase > panna. > > Ken O > ===================== See what the Buddha says, Ken. Meditation that leads into the jhanas suppresses the hindrances and makes the mind a malleable, fit tool for investigation of dhammas. And such investigation by the well trained, well controlled mind leads to insights and wisdom, and ultimately to 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) 30351 From: Htoo Naing Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 9:58am Subject: Sensing Dhamma as they really are ( 01 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, There are five natural laws governing on their own and no one involves in them. These laws are called niyama. These five niyama or natural laws are bija niyama or genetic law, utu niyama or physical law, kamma niyama or kammic law, citta niyama or law of consciousness, and dhamma niyama or law of nature. While these laws are governing on their own and everything is happening because of conditions that favour their arising, no one needs to worry on these matters. What have to concern is that as we all are living beings with a capacity of knowledge and awareness to inside and outside environment, we will have to suffer anything as they arise. These suffering have a cause and all are connected with citta niyama and again by sensible use of this niyama, all these suffering can be wiped out to total extinction and there would be an absolute peace. Suffering have to be realized in due course. The cause of suffering will also be realized at a point and ending them is the goal. To achieve that goal there is the right way, with which no other paths can be comparable as they all will not lead to such blissful state or absolute peace or the state which is totally free of suffering called nibbana. The Path is known as Noble Eightfold Path and there are eight components in that Path. One of eight components is samma-sati or right mindfulness. This mindfulness is not like ordinary mindfulness that arises along with other mind conditions. It has to be meditational mindfulness. Meditation here is not just ordinary sitting meditation but all the way round from first consciousness in waking up in bed till going asleep in bed again. May all being be mindful to their internal and external environments with penetrative wisdom. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htootintnaing@y... JourneyToNibbana@yahoogroups.com 30352 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 11:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] eyesense and heartbase Hi Howard, Larry, Toby and all, When in Bgk I kept in mind Larry's and Howard's questions on heartbase. A. Sujin said: We were wondering how someone can with lobha have the heartbase as object, as said in the Patthana. Yes, when he has understood this rupa with insight. Then he knows what this rupa is. As Toby said, the Buddha taught all these rupas and thus they *can* be directly known. But, it depends on the individual which rupas can be known and realized as they are. A. Sujin also said, not all rupas have to be known for the development of insight. But we can never exclude specific rupas, thinking, they cannot be known. She also mentioned breath that appears as hardness. It depends on someone's accumulated understanding whether he can know breath, a rupa conditioned by citta. The coarse rupas of the seven sense objects appear all the time in daily life. We can begin to understand these when they appear. It is already difficult to understand them as just rupa, a reality that does not know anything, different from nama which is the element that experiences. Gradually we can become used to the characteristics of rupa. We do not have to call hardness anything in order to experience it, its characteristic can be experienced without thinking. op 20-02-2004 00:40 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: Toby, have you experienced this yourself? If yes, would you mind > telling me the sort of meditation practice you follow? Goenka > sensation-oriented > meditation, by any chance? Nina:When we think of rupa, the object is a concept. Thinking is either done with kusala cittas or with akusala cittas. We can think of a concept with right thinking or with wrong thinking. When we try to concentrate on a rupa, we should ask ourselves: is this done with desire? In that case thinking is not a right condition for awareness. We should not have any expectations about which rupas appear, fine or coarse. The Buddha's great disciples also had different degrees of understanding. Detachment is the goal of the development of understanding, from beginning to end. A. Sujin also said: Another point that was stressed: at the Buddha's time there were not so many misunderstandings, and hence not everything needed to be explained in detail. I had not considered this point enough. For example in the Suttas, we read: there is an eye, and there are many suttas about the eye-door. People had no misunderstandings about eyesense, they knew it was a rupa that conditions seeing. We know it is there, because without it we could not see. However, this does not mean that we directly understand its characteristic when it appears to the citta. In a message dated 2/19/04 6:21:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, > torloff87048@y... writes: >> Actually, eyesense can be directly known. Otherwise, as Howard >> points out, on what basis do we call it an ultimate reality? It's >> not enough that Buddha says it is. There has to be a path by which >> it can be known as it is. N: Yes, it can be known. It is among the coarse rupas, but it is difficult to know. We should not select it as an object of insight. Any reality that appears because of conditions can be the object of insight. T: Here is how it can be known and investigated: It is experienced directly as heat in the back of the >> eye during the act of seeing. This heat is the direct experience of >> rupa. N: Heat is one of the three Great Elements that is tangible object. Heat is not the eyesense. When I feel throbbing in the eye, tangible object is experienced, not the eyesense. The throbbing or the heat concerns the "eye of the flesh", different from the infinitesimally tiny rupa in the middle of the black circle that is eyesense. This cannot be seen, it cannot be touched. It arises and then falls away immediately. How could you put a finger on it? T: The connection between this rupa and eye consciousness is >> directly known at some further level of wisdom, when one's mind is >> able to directly grasp the relations between the set of conditions >> present- light, form, eyeconsciousness, and eyesense (as rupa >> experienced as heat while seeing.) N: The second stage of tender insight does not imply knowing all the conditions for each nama or rupa. The main thing is: to know them as conditioned realities, without the need to pinpoint conditions. How could we, insight is not thinking. Eyesense is a condition for seeing, but it is not heat. It originates from kamma, and it is a kind of rupa that is sensitive to colour when this impinges. It is ready for the impact of colour. Capable of receiving colour. T: The same is true of the even more difficult to grasp heart-base: It >> is directly known as heat in the cavity of the heart while citta and >> cetasika are present. This is the reason the heart-base is said to >> be the blood in the cavity of the heart. There is a reference for >> this in the Canon but unfortunately I can't locate it- I think I came >> across it somewhere in Conditional Relations (which does not have an >> index in my edition!). N: In the Visuddhimagga, its tiika, and also in U Narada's Conditional Relations. The heartbase is not experienced as heat. U Narada explains how dosa can cause the flow of the blood, heat, etc. but these are some phenomena caused by dosa. Not the heartbase, this is very subtle and can only be experienced through the mind-door. It is not the blood, it is said that it is near the blood of the heart cavity. But when we hear these words we think immediately about the conventional idea of heart. This does not help us to understand the rupa which is base for many cittas. Nina. 30353 From: Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 6:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] eyesense and heartbase Hi, Nina (and Toby) - In a message dated 2/20/04 2:27:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > N: In the Visuddhimagga, its tiika, and also in U Narada's Conditional > Relations. The heartbase is not experienced as heat. ======================= If heartbase is, indeed, an actual rupa, then, indeed, it is presumably not heat. However, it is said that all rupas either are earth, air, fire, or water, or are derived from them. I wouldn't rule out in advance that heartbase (again presuming it is "for real") is derived from the four great elements with heat weighing heavily as a condition, in which case for someone newly experiencing the previously unexperienced heartbase, it might well seem "heat like". Whenever we experience something new, the mind automatically tries to understand it in terms of what is familiar. (And when we can't do that, we tend to feel confused and perhaps even frightened. This is probably why an initial experience of no-self is so often experienced as frightening, unless one is experiencing it from a "safe" haven of great calm/equanimity.) 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) 30354 From: torloff87048 Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 2:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] compound and concept Hi Howard (and Nina), Howard: > This is interesting. I won't say that I will accept this on faith (a > sutta reference *would* be a help), but what you write here certainly does > point in the sort of direction I would hope for. > Toby, have you experienced this yourself? If yes, would you mind > telling me the sort of meditation practice you follow? Goenka sensation-oriented > meditation, by any chance? > > My experience of the rupa of eyesense and heartbase is limited. One example from recent meditation is this: I was working on developing the red kasina and reached the point where the learning sign arose. There is no mistaking it- suddenly the rather dim visual image of the kasina retained with the eyes closed becomes every bit as bright and detailed as the image seen with the eyes open. I did not reach the next stage of counterpart sign/absorption, but in reviewing the experience of the learning sign, I perceived not only the visual image but the sensation of "something happening" in the back of my eye. The only sense available for that perception is touch, but it's hard to discern exactly what the touch sensation was-heat, pressure or even hardness are all possible. Also, I can't definitely discern the conditions of this sensation- it could be simply the rupa of eyesense, or it could be other rupa born of consciousness or kamma, or even just temperature born. However, I see no reason why at a sufficiently developed stage of calm and insight, these things could not be directly known. The experience is there, all that's missing is the mind that directly apprehends it as it is. In practicing meditation with mindfulness of feeling or mindfulness of mental phenomenon or (my current favorite) the removal of distracting thoughts (ala MN 19 and 20) I experience a lot of stuff going on in the body, including heat in the vicinity of the heart. There is so much sensation throughout the body that it's hard to say what is what. Much of it is clearly kamma born, but when that calms down I find generally that the sensations tend to be located more and more in the heart area and to be more and more like heat, not pressure or hardness. Once more I can't make the ultimate discernments here, but it's enough to lead me to believe that it's possible to make them (with direct knowledge), and that the end result will be as described in the Canon. I'm curious to know what meditation practice you follow? What success have you had and what difficulties do you encounter? With metta, Toby 30355 From: Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 9:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] compound and concept Hi, Toby - In a message dated 2/20/04 5:20:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, torloff87048@y... writes: > > Hi Howard (and Nina), > > Howard: > This is interesting. I won't say that I will accept > this on faith (a > >sutta reference *would* be a help), but what you write here > certainly does > >point in the sort of direction I would hope for. > > Toby, have you experienced this yourself? If yes, would you > mind > >telling me the sort of meditation practice you follow? Goenka > sensation-oriented > >meditation, by any chance? > > > > > > My experience of the rupa of eyesense and heartbase is limited. One > example from recent meditation is this: I was working on developing > the red kasina and reached the point where the learning sign arose. > There is no mistaking it- suddenly the rather dim visual image of the > kasina retained with the eyes closed becomes every bit as bright and > detailed as the image seen with the eyes open. I did not reach the > next stage of counterpart sign/absorption, but in reviewing the > experience of the learning sign, I perceived not only the visual > image but the sensation of "something happening" in the back of my > eye. The only sense available for that perception is touch, but it's > hard to discern exactly what the touch sensation was-heat, pressure > or even hardness are all possible. Also, I can't definitely discern > the conditions of this sensation- it could be simply the rupa of > eyesense, or it could be other rupa born of consciousness or kamma, > or even just temperature born. However, I see no reason why at a > sufficiently developed stage of calm and insight, these things could > not be directly known. The experience is there, all that's missing > is the mind that directly apprehends it as it is. > > In practicing meditation with mindfulness of feeling or mindfulness > of mental phenomenon or (my current favorite) the removal of > distracting thoughts (ala MN 19 and 20) I experience a lot of stuff > going on in the body, including heat in the vicinity of the heart. > There is so much sensation throughout the body that it's hard to say > what is what. Much of it is clearly kamma born, but when that calms > down I find generally that the sensations tend to be located more and > more in the heart area and to be more and more like heat, not > pressure or hardness. Once more I can't make the ultimate > discernments here, but it's enough to lead me to believe that it's > possible to make them (with direct knowledge), and that the end > result will be as described in the Canon. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Thank you for these details! -------------------------------------------------- > > I'm curious to know what meditation practice you follow? What > success have you had and what difficulties do you encounter? > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I used to do the Goenka body-sweeping meditation on Bodily sensations. For many years I've been meditating on the breath. Most recently I've been experimenting with silent-illumination meditation as Ven Sheng-Yen teaches it, but starting out each session with meditation on the breath, and I rather like this. It is similar to the "natural" meditation I did as a child. My prime hindrance is sloth & torpor - that is, I get sleepy! ;-)) ---------------------------------------------------- > > With metta, Toby > > =========================== 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) 30356 From: Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 9:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] compound and concept Hi again, Toby - Did you pick the red kasina for a particular reason, or do you just like red? 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) 30357 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 3:03pm Subject: AN VII, 67 Mental Development (1) Hi all, Following is a passage from discourse on development/cultivation (bhavana). Monks, although a monk who does not apply himself to the meditative development of his mind may wish, "Oh, that my mind might be freed from the taints by non-clinging!", yet his mind will not be freed. For what reason? "Because he has not developed his mind," one has to say. Not developed it in what? In the four foundations of mindfulness, the four right kinds of striving, the four bases of success, the five spiritual faculties, the five spiritual powers, the seven factors of enlightenment and the Noble Eightfold Path. Suppose, monks, a hen has eight, ten or twelve eggs, but she does not sit on them sufficiently long and they are not well warmed, not developed enough for hatching. Although that hen may wish, "Oh, that my chicks might break the egg shells with their claws and beaks and emerge safely!", yet these chicks will not be able to do so. For what reason? Because the hen did not sit on the eggs sufficiently long, so that they are not well warmed and developed enough for hatching. Similarly is it with a monk who has not applied himself to the meditative development of his mind. * Metta, Victor * Numerical Discourses of the Buddha: An Anthology of Suttas from the Anguttara Nikaya, translated and edited by Nyanaponika Thera & Bhikkhu Bodhi, p. 192. 30358 From: Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 3:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Catching Anger Howard: "The Vsm may say what it says about this matter, but there is nothing in the sutta itself that gives the slightest suggestion that distinguishing nama from rupa is involved." Hi Howard, I agree. The sutta doesn't explain the stages it mentions. One point: the knowledge of nama and rupa isn't so much about distinguishing nama from rupa as it is about the composite nature of nama and the composite nature of rupa. What initially appears as one is seen to be (experienced as) many. This is a glimpse of anatta. Of course distinguishing nama from rupa is a preliminary stage of this process. Larry 30359 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 3:55pm Subject: SN I Sagaathaavagga 5 Bhikhunisamyutta 10 Vajiraa Dear Group, From the Samyutta Nikaya study corner: SN I Sagaathaavagga 5 Bhikhunisamyutta 10 Vajiraa "At Saavatthi. Then, in the morning, the bhikkhuni Vajiraa dressed and, taking bowl and robe, entered Saavathi for alms. When she had walked for alms in Saavatthi and had returned from her alms round, after her meal she went to the Blind Men's Grove for the day's abiding. Having plunged into the Blind Men's Grove, she sat down at the foot of a tree for the day's abiding. Then Maara the Evil One, desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in the bhikkhunii Vajiraa, desiring to make her fall away from concentration, approached her and addressed her in verse: "By whom has this being been created? Where is the maker of the being? Where has the being arisen? Where does the being cease?" Then it occurred to the bhikkhuni Vajiraa: "Now who is this that recited the verse - a human being or a nonhuman being?" Then it occurred to her: "This is Maara the Evil One, who has recited the verse desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in me, desiring to make me fall away from concentration." Then the bhikkhuni Vajiraa, having understood, "This is Maara the Evil One," replied in verses: "Why now do you assume 'a being'? Maara, is that your speculative view? This is a heap of sheer formations: Here no being is found. "Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates exist, There is the convention 'a being.' "It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases." Then Maara the Evil One, realizing, "The bhikkhuni Vajiraa knows me," sad and disappointed, disappeared right there." metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 30360 From: nidive Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:12pm Subject: Re: Catching Anger Hi Howard, > The fact that the Buddha discussed the five khandhas, done as a > skillful means to induce nongrasping (of what arises) as me and > mine, is far different from his having put forward the > distinguishing of mental from physical as an allegedly major > step towards enlightenment. If such distinguishing were a major > step, then we would all be well on our way! I totally disagree. If distinguishing of mental from physical is not a major step towards enlightenment, why did the Buddha separate form from the rest? If you noticed my quotes, feeling, perception, consciousness and fabrications each has six classes, but not form. The very simply fact is that the Buddha broke down nama into four other aggregates for the purpose of better understanding the mind. The distinguishing of rupa from nama is implied evidently throughout his teachings. And you could be nearer to nibbana than you might think. Regards Swee Boon 30361 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:14pm Subject: Re: Dhamma Study - Recognizing the Dhamma (1) Hello Victor, and all, I think this is a good idea - I'm glad you chose the Recognizing the Dhamma, I had printed it off to read a few months ago but didn't get around to it. Looking forward, metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi all, > > Here is the first part (title, contents, and introduction) of the > study guide on recognizing the Dhamma: > > > Recognizing the Dhamma > A Study Guide > Prepared by Thanissaro Bhikkhu > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- - > ----------- > > Contents > Introduction > The Eight Principles > 1. Dispassion > 2. Being Unfettered > 3. Shedding > 4. Modesty > 5. Contentment > 6. Seclusion > 7. Persistence > 8. Being Unburdensome > > > Introduction > Shortly after her ordination, the Buddha's step-mother, Mahapajapati > Gotami, asked him for a short Dhamma-instruction that would guide > her in her solitary practice. He responded with eight principles for > recognizing what qualifies as Dhamma and Vinaya, and what does not. > The commentary tells us that after her instruction, Mahapajapati > Gotami in no long time became an arahant. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recognizing.html > > Metta, > Victor 30362 From: Michael Beisert Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/sacca Hello KenH, KenH: Some people in dsg are making that same mistake: In my opinion, anyone who thinks there are no paramattha dhammas (with their own sabhava) must believe that, ultimately, nothing exists. Michael: Both views are incorrect. That dhammas truly exist (paramatha) and that they do not exist. Those are extreme views rejected by the Buddha. His view was co-dependent arising which rejects the extremes of existence and non-existence. Metta Michael 30363 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 6:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack Hi Howard k: If one look at Visud, the conditions for one to meditate is quite a tall order, the monastary conditions, the individual criteria. To me meditation is not for the beginners who do not have a certain level of panna or right understanding. I am not doubting meditation but I am doubting the premises/motivation when one started meditation. Meditation in Buddhism is always with panna as without panna, meditation will not eradicate the kilesa, it will only suppress the five hindrances. Hence in many suttas after the jhanas then Buddha start describing the attaining of past lives, divine eye and the knowledge. Earlier I quoted the sati sutta about or sometimes it is translated as discernment, these are tell tale signs that meditation in Buddhism is always with panna and not just simply concentration meditation. I am just concern when people start meditation because meditation can be very enticing, the sense of calm experience can be very alluring and this might result in lobha rather than panna. I dont discourage nor encourage anyone in meditation, my personal feelings is that it is not for beginners. My hunch is that it should be for those who are ready for to reach stream entrant, I got this hunch from Anapanasati sutta where Buddha describe the community of monks before proceeding with the sutta. Ken O 30364 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/sacca Hi Michael. > Michael: > > Both views are incorrect. That dhammas truly exist (paramatha) and > that they do not exist. Those are extreme views rejected by the > Buddha. His view was co-dependent arising which rejects the > extremes of existence and non-existence. k: I think you don't have the correct idea what are the extreme existence of existence. When we say dhammas truly exist it does not mean this dhamma exist for eternality or exist on its own or uncaused. Eternality is an extreme view. Things exist, can u say Anatta don't exist. Maybe you would like to tell me whether anatta exist or not. Even it is conditional, it still exists. If one claim that even conditional does not exist, then do you think this is the other extreme of existence where nothing exists. Ken O 30365 From: Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 2:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Catching Anger Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 2/20/04 8:16:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > >The fact that the Buddha discussed the five khandhas, done as a > >skillful means to induce nongrasping (of what arises) as me and > >mine, is far different from his having put forward the > >distinguishing of mental from physical as an allegedly major > >step towards enlightenment. If such distinguishing were a major > >step, then we would all be well on our way! > > I totally disagree. > > If distinguishing of mental from physical is not a major step > towards enlightenment, why did the Buddha separate form from the > rest? > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: That's a straightforward matter: It's because rupa is quite different from the rest, whereas all the rest are of the same sort - they are mental. He broke up phenomena into reasonable groupings that fit the facts. -------------------------------------------------------- > > If you noticed my quotes, feeling, perception, consciousness and > fabrications each has six classes, but not form. The very simply fact > is that the Buddha broke down nama into four other aggregates for the > purpose of better understanding the mind. > ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Mind is more complex, and for purposes of liberation, more important. Of course he did break down rupa as well - into five classes: earth, air, fire, water, and the derived rupa. ------------------------------------------------------------- > > The distinguishing of rupa from nama is implied evidently throughout > his teachings. > --------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Why wouldn't it be? It is an obvious fact. -------------------------------------------------------------- And you could be nearer to nibbana than you might > > think. > --------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yep, and if horses had wings, well - watch out below! ;-)) --------------------------------------------------------------- > Regards > Swee Boon > ============================== 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) 30366 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:57pm Subject: Re: Dhamma Study - Recognizing the Dhamma (1) Hi Christine and all, Thank you for your encouragement. I am glad that you consider it a good idea. Using the study guides for online group study is a new endeavor to me. So it is at a stage of experimentation. I will paste the section on the Eight Principles on recognizing the Dhamma. Feedback and suggestions are welcome! Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Victor, and all, > > I think this is a good idea - I'm glad you chose the Recognizing the > Dhamma, I had printed it off to read a few months ago but didn't get > around to it. Looking forward, > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Here is the first part (title, contents, and introduction) of the > > study guide on recognizing the Dhamma: > > > > > > Recognizing the Dhamma > > A Study Guide > > Prepared by Thanissaro Bhikkhu > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- --- > - > > ----------- > > > > Contents > > Introduction > > The Eight Principles > > 1. Dispassion > > 2. Being Unfettered > > 3. Shedding > > 4. Modesty > > 5. Contentment > > 6. Seclusion > > 7. Persistence > > 8. Being Unburdensome > > > > > Introduction > > Shortly after her ordination, the Buddha's step-mother, > Mahapajapati > > Gotami, asked him for a short Dhamma-instruction that would guide > > her in her solitary practice. He responded with eight principles > for > > recognizing what qualifies as Dhamma and Vinaya, and what does not. > > The commentary tells us that after her instruction, Mahapajapati > > Gotami in no long time became an arahant. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recognizing.html > > > > Metta, > > Victor 30367 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:02pm Subject: Recognizing the Dhamma - The Eight Principles The Eight Principles I have heard that at on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Vesali, in the Peaked Roof Hall in the Great Forest. Then Mahapajapati Gotami went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, stood to one side. As she was standing there she said to him: "It would be good, lord, if the Blessed One would teach me the Dhamma in brief such that, having heard the Dhamma from the Blessed One, I might dwell alone, secluded, heedful, ardent, & resolute." "Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead: to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-aggrandizement, not to modesty; to discontent, not to contentment; to entanglement, not to seclusion; to laziness, not to aroused persistence; to being burdensome, not to being unburdensome': You may definitely hold, 'This is not the Dhamma, this is not the Vinaya, this is not the Teacher's instruction.' "As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead: to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may definitely hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'" That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Mahapajapati Gotami delighted at his words. [AN VIII.53] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recognizing.html#8principles 30368 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:25pm Subject: Re: Recognizing the Dhamma - The Eight Principles Hello Victor, and All, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction' ... doesn't that have a stirring ring to it - almost like a Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu! The Dhamma, in this instance, means the Doctrine, doesn't it? That would include everything in the Tipitaka? And the Vinaya means the Discipline. Does this just mean the official rules for the Bhikkhus and Bhikkhunis? I wonder, then, about lay people. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > The Eight Principles > > I have heard that at on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at > Vesali, in the Peaked Roof Hall in the Great Forest. > > Then Mahapajapati Gotami went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, > having bowed down to him, stood to one side. As she was standing > there she said to him: "It would be good, lord, if the Blessed One > would teach me the Dhamma in brief such that, having heard the > Dhamma from the Blessed One, I might dwell alone, secluded, heedful, > ardent, & resolute." > > "Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead: > to dispassion, not to passion; > to being unfettered, not to being fettered; > to shedding, not to accumulating; > to modesty, not to self-aggrandizement; > to contentment, not to discontent; > to seclusion, not to entanglement; > to aroused persistence, not to laziness; > to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': > You may definitely hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, > this is the Teacher's instruction.'" > > That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Mahapajapati Gotami > delighted at his words. > > > [AN VIII.53] > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recognizing.html#8principles 30369 From: Sarah Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 11:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack Hi Ken O. --- Kenneth Ong wrote: > I just read an intersting sutta refer by Swee Boon MN 109 (I am > reading the B Bodhi version). In the end, if you see carefully > < minds of sixty bhikkhus were liberated from the taints>> .... Thx for your and Swee Boon's quotes. .... > > Then again in end of the Fire Sermon SN XXXV.28 sutta. < his utterance, the hearts of thousand bhikkhus were liberated through > clinging no more.>> (this is using TB version as I do not know how to > locate this sutta in Bodhi version) There is no jhanas mention at > all in this sutta, so do one need jhanas to gain enlightement ;-). .... BB transl v.similar: see 35:28 (6) Burning, p1143 "This is what the blessed One said. Elated, those bhikkhus delighted in the blessed One's statement. *And while this discourse was being spoken, the minds of the thousand bhikkhus were liberated from the taints by nonclinging." .... > I hope this is the last one I type today so not to bore you too much > details .... I'm sure no one would ever find your posts boring, Ken O....(they might not agree, but not boring;-)). Oops, students arriving... Metta, Sarah ====== 30370 From: ashkenn2k Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 0:31am Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack Hi Jack --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jackhat1@a... wrote: > Ken O. > > At no time have I said the jhanas were necessary for enlightenment. > > jack k: Then why do you meditate for ;-). Ken O 30371 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 2:30am Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/sacca Hello Michael, When I wrote: -------------- >> Some people in dsg are making that same mistake: In my opinion, anyone who thinks there are no paramattha dhammas (with their own sabhava) must believe that, ultimately, nothing exists.>> -------------- You responded: ---------------- > Both views are incorrect. That dhammas truly exist (paramatha) and that they do not exist. Those are extreme views rejected by the Buddha. His view was co-dependent arising which rejects the extremes of existence and non-existence. > ----------------- When the Buddha taught about dhammas -- wrong view, for example -- he was talking about things that are real (paramattha). Some dhammas (like wrong view) are not universal. And so it could be said that sometimes, wrong view exists at other times wrong view does not exist. The same cannot be said about non-dhammas, for example, a flying purple elephant. It would be facile to say that a flying purple elephant does not exist -- as if it ever does! Ultimately, a self is just as fanciful as a flying purple elephant. Unlike a [non-universal] cetasika, it can't be said, sensibly, that a self either exists or that it does not exist. When we do think "a self exists," or, "a self does not exist" the one thing that certainly exists is wrong view :-) So, don't confuse dhammas with non-dhammas. Although individual types of dhammas (ditthi, for example) sometimes exist, sometimes do not exist; there are always dhammas of some kind. It is absurd to say the Buddha did not teach, "Dhammas do exist." Absurd or not, the idea is occasionally canvassed by some thinkers. And so there is at least one sutta in which the Buddha was specifically asked, "Do dhammas really exist?" Robert K has quoted this sutta to you. I am too disorganised to find it now, but, to summarise it very briefly, the Buddha categorically said he was one of those wise thinkers who say, "Dhammas do exist." Kind regards, Ken H 30372 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 1:20am Subject: The Commentaries in Memoriam... Friends: "I believe there to be a increasingly aware understanding of that the Buddha-Dhamma of the Pali Canon is so deep, subtle, precise, comprehensive & systematic, that it is not as easy to grasp, as often initially imagined... It is true that the Pali words can be translated, yet what they might mean in this or that context, can best be elucidated by utilizing the ancient commentaries and their accurate, exhaustive & thorough method of explanation... The Pali Canon & the Commentaries are thus an interdependent Pair! The latter is the essential & only prevailing tool for understanding -as exact as possibly can be- of the former... Together they form an ordered whole, to guide Humanity in its quest for Independence and the Perfection of Freedom..." --oo0oo-- Miss Isabel Blew Horner (1896-1981), President of the Pali Text Society 1959-81. Author of over 200 works on Buddhism. A western pioneer & promoter of Buddhist study. In the 'Clarifier of Sweet Meaning' The Buddha-Vamsa commentary. For English translations of the Pali Canon: http://www.palitext.demon.co.uk/ http://www.accesstoinsight.org http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/index.html http://www.pariyatti.com/frontpage.htm All yours in the Dhamma. Constructions Decay & Vanish. Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ 30373 From: Sarah Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 4:01am Subject: Scholars & Meditators (was: the self... how?/sacca) Hi Howard (Ken H & All), --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi again, Ken (and Andrew) - > > In a message dated 2/19/04 9:26:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, > kenhowardau@y... writes: > K:> > Your concerns (about choice of language) remind me of a message from > > Rob M, in which he apologised for any offence he might have caused > > the non-meditators. That was significant, I think. We know, only > > too well, that by extolling the virtues of listening, considering > > and discussing (Dhamma-study), we inevitably dispute the efficacy of > > formal practice (that is, we risk offending the meditators). > > However, as Rob implied, the reverse is also true: whenever a > > Buddhist extols formal practice, he denigrates study. > > > ============================ H:> With regard to the foregoing, and my comment that there need not > be a > strict choice of one or the other, the following article may be of > relevance: > http://www.dhammatimes.com/wisetalk/2004/01/040118-scholars-meditators.htm .... S: Very relevant, Howard and with regard to this sutta and more detail on Scholars and Meditators in this context, I included some commentary detail in this old post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/7421 Metta, Sarah ====== 30374 From: nidive Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 4:14am Subject: Re: Catching Anger Hi Htoo Naing, > What are Pali equivalents for > > 1. Constructing the Aggregates > 2. Constructing a Self > 3. Constructing ther Path > 4. Deconstruction > > that are discribed in the link you made that is at accesstoinsight. I know very little Pali, so I don't think I am of help here. > Could you explain more on five means of propagation 1. root, 2. > stem, 3. joint, 4. cutting, 5. seed-propagation? From what I read, I don't think the Buddha is emphasizing on these means of plant/tree propagation. You may read more about these in gardening or horticulture books. What the Buddha means is that (using an example) if a good mango seed has no footing(soil/earth) and is not watered, that seed would not propagate(grow into a healthy mango tree). Regards Swee Boon 30375 From: Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 1:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/sacca Hi, Ken (and Michael) - In a message dated 2/21/04 5:30:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Hello Michael, > > When I wrote: > -------------- > >>Some people in dsg are making that same mistake: In my opinion, > anyone who thinks there are no paramattha dhammas (with their own > sabhava) must believe that, ultimately, nothing exists.>> > -------------- > > You responded: > ---------------- > >Both views are incorrect. That dhammas truly exist (paramatha) and > that they do not exist. Those are extreme views rejected by the > Buddha. His view was co-dependent arising which rejects the extremes > of existence and non-existence. > > ----------------- > > When the Buddha taught about dhammas -- wrong view, for example -- > he was talking about things that are real (paramattha). Some > dhammas (like wrong view) are not universal. And so it could be said > that sometimes, wrong view exists at other times wrong view does not > exist. > > The same cannot be said about non-dhammas, for example, a flying > purple elephant. It would be facile to say that a flying purple > elephant does not exist -- as if it ever does! > > Ultimately, a self is just as fanciful as a flying purple elephant. > Unlike a [non-universal] cetasika, it can't be said, sensibly, that > a self either exists or that it does not exist. > > When we do think "a self exists," or, "a self does not exist" the > one thing that certainly exists is wrong view :-) > > So, don't confuse dhammas with non-dhammas. Although individual > types of dhammas (ditthi, for example) sometimes exist, sometimes do > not exist; there are always dhammas of some kind. It is absurd to > say the Buddha did not teach, "Dhammas do exist." > > Absurd or not, the idea is occasionally canvassed by some thinkers. > And so there is at least one sutta in which the Buddha was > specifically asked, "Do dhammas really exist?" Robert K has quoted > this sutta to you. I am too disorganised to find it now, but, to > summarise it very briefly, the Buddha categorically said he was one > of those wise thinkers who say, "Dhammas do exist." > > Kind regards, > Ken H > ============================== There is so much bandwidth being taken up on what I think are differences in language use instead of substance. I wonder what Michael's reaction would be to language of the form "Dhammas occur when needed conditions have occurred, and in complete dependence on those conditions" as opposed to "Dhammas exist." When Nagarjuna used the word 'exists' he seems to mean "is a true, separate, self-supporting entity," and when he used the terminology 'does not exist' he seems to mean "does not exist in any sense whatsoever, is a complete nullity, and never occurs". In other words, 'exists' and 'does not exist' are not mere negations as used by Nagarjuna, but are diametrical opposites. He then goes on to say that the Buddha's ontological middle way is neither of these extremes, but is along the lines expressed in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta. If I'm not mistaken, Michael is accepting this definitional perspective, whereas you and others here, Ken, are not. (When I use the word 'exists' I don't mean unconditional, substantive self-existence either. For that I would add some additional adjectives. I do find myself wary, however, of using the word 'exists' at all, and I tend to use 'arises' or 'occurs' or 'appears' instead in order to avoid even the odor of atta view.) 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) 30376 From: Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack In a message dated 2/21/04 2:31:39 AM Central Standard Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jackhat1@a... wrote: > Ken O. > > At no time have I said the jhanas were necessary for enlightenment. > > jack k: Then why do you meditate for ;-). Ken O, Your question mystifies me. I meditate to reduce suffering in myself and others. jack 30377 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 8:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack Hi Jack This is very interesting, to my understanding most pple meditate to reach jhanas as it provide a support to suppress the five hindrances to reach enlightement. To my reading of Howard mail <> meditation is a lead factor of jhanas then eventually to wisdom. As for your case, you said to reduce suffering? Then how does meditation reduce suffering? Then again how does meditation increase panna in your case? How does meditation reduces other suffering? Do you mean the aggregates of others suffering can be reduce by your aggregates? Or do you mean you can borne other pple's kamma. Ken O 30378 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 9:37am Subject: Points of Controversy Hello All, I have just received the book "Points of Controversy - Kathavatthu" and started to read Book I on the Existence of a Personal Entity. I came across a note on page 54 which has caught my attention, and maybe someone would care to confirm whether my reading is correct. The question placed by the Theravadin and the note reads as follows: [225] The person [you say] is known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact - is the person conditioned? The note at the bottom of the page reads: This is an inquiry into the nature of 'a real and ultimate [or self dependent] fact.' Comy. 'Conditioned (sankhata) is, in Buddhist tradition, what has been prepared, brought about by something else, made, has come together by conditions. My understanding is that a conditioned thing is the opposite of a self dependent thing, i.e. a conditioned thing exists by virtue of internal and external conditions, and apart from those conditions it is impossible for that thing to exist, while a self dependent thing is something that does not depend on conditions but depends on something intrinsic to it for its existence. My reading of the note is that a real and ultimate fact is a self dependent fact, i.e. not subject to conditions. Any comments? Metta Michael 30379 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 9:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/sacca Hello Howard, I fully concur with what you are saying. Tks. for explaining it so clearly. Sometimes I am lost for words. Metta Michael ----- Original Message ----- From: upasaka@a... To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 9:31 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/sacca Hi, Ken (and Michael) - In a message dated 2/21/04 5:30:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Hello Michael, > > When I wrote: > -------------- > >>Some people in dsg are making that same mistake: In my opinion, > anyone who thinks there are no paramattha dhammas (with their own > sabhava) must believe that, ultimately, nothing exists.>> > -------------- > > You responded: > ---------------- > >Both views are incorrect. That dhammas truly exist (paramatha) and > that they do not exist. Those are extreme views rejected by the > Buddha. His view was co-dependent arising which rejects the extremes > of existence and non-existence. > > ----------------- > > When the Buddha taught about dhammas -- wrong view, for example -- > he was talking about things that are real (paramattha). Some > dhammas (like wrong view) are not universal. And so it could be said > that sometimes, wrong view exists at other times wrong view does not > exist. > > The same cannot be said about non-dhammas, for example, a flying > purple elephant. It would be facile to say that a flying purple > elephant does not exist -- as if it ever does! > > Ultimately, a self is just as fanciful as a flying purple elephant. > Unlike a [non-universal] cetasika, it can't be said, sensibly, that > a self either exists or that it does not exist. > > When we do think "a self exists," or, "a self does not exist" the > one thing that certainly exists is wrong view :-) > > So, don't confuse dhammas with non-dhammas. Although individual > types of dhammas (ditthi, for example) sometimes exist, sometimes do > not exist; there are always dhammas of some kind. It is absurd to > say the Buddha did not teach, "Dhammas do exist." > > Absurd or not, the idea is occasionally canvassed by some thinkers. > And so there is at least one sutta in which the Buddha was > specifically asked, "Do dhammas really exist?" Robert K has quoted > this sutta to you. I am too disorganised to find it now, but, to > summarise it very briefly, the Buddha categorically said he was one > of those wise thinkers who say, "Dhammas do exist." > > Kind regards, > Ken H > ============================== There is so much bandwidth being taken up on what I think are differences in language use instead of substance. I wonder what Michael's reaction would be to language of the form "Dhammas occur when needed conditions have occurred, and in complete dependence on those conditions" as opposed to "Dhammas exist." When Nagarjuna used the word 'exists' he seems to mean "is a true, separate, self-supporting entity," and when he used the terminology 'does not exist' he seems to mean "does not exist in any sense whatsoever, is a complete nullity, and never occurs". In other words, 'exists' and 'does not exist' are not mere negations as used by Nagarjuna, but are diametrical opposites. He then goes on to say that the Buddha's ontological middle way is neither of these extremes, but is along the lines expressed in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta. If I'm not mistaken, Michael is accepting this definitional perspective, whereas you and others here, Ken, are not. (When I use the word 'exists' I don't mean unconditional, substantive self-existence either. For that I would add some additional adjectives. I do find myself wary, however, of using the word 'exists' at all, and I tend to use 'arises' or 'occurs' or 'appears' instead in order to avoid even the odor of atta view.) 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) 30380 From: Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 6:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack In a message dated 2/21/04 10:34:31 AM Central Standard Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: This is very interesting, to my understanding most pple meditate to reach jhanas as it provide a support to suppress the five hindrances to reach enlightement. To my reading of Howard mail <> meditation is a lead factor of jhanas then eventually to wisdom. As for your case, you said to reduce suffering? Then how does meditation reduce suffering? Then again how does meditation increase panna in your case? ken o, Some people go right to vipassana/wisdom without jhana work. I would guess that more than 1/2 of meditators never do jhana work. In my and most senior Buddhist teacher's view, jhanas are not necessary but helpful for insight/wisdom. In any case, I have never said that jhanas are necessary for enlightenment. Meditation slows events down in a protected environment so I can start to see all phenomena is temporary, not self and unsatisfactory. I have yet to meet anyone or hear about anyone who can even start this clear seeing without formal meditation. This is the wisdom that alleviates suffering. Just talking about wisdom is worthless in itself. How does meditation reduces other suffering? Do you mean the aggregates of others suffering can be reduce by your aggregates? Or do you mean you can borne other pple's kamma. Ken O If I see clearly, I show compassion and loving kindness toward others. This reduces their suffering. jack 30381 From: Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 6:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Points of Controversy Hi, Michael - In a message dated 2/21/04 12:41:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, mbeisert@h... writes: > Hello All, > > > > I have just received the book "Points of Controversy - Kathavatthu" and > started to read Book I on the Existence of a Personal Entity. I came across a > note on page 54 which has caught my attention, and maybe someone would care to > confirm whether my reading is correct. The question placed by the Theravadin > and the note reads as follows: > > > > > > [225] The person [you say] is known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact > - is the person conditioned? > > The note at the bottom of the page reads: This is an inquiry into the nature > of 'a real and ultimate [or self dependent] fact.' Comy. 'Conditioned > (sankhata) is, in Buddhist tradition, what has been prepared, brought about by > something else, made, has come together by conditions. > > > > > > My understanding is that a conditioned thing is the opposite of a self > dependent thing, i.e. a conditioned thing exists by virtue of internal and > external conditions, and apart from those conditions it is impossible for that thing > to exist, while a self dependent thing is something that does not depend on > conditions but depends on something intrinsic to it for its existence. > > My reading of the note is that a real and ultimate fact is a self dependent > fact, i.e. not subject to conditions. Any comments? > > > > Metta > > Michael > > ============================ You quote the following: ________________________ [225] The person [you say] is known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact - is the person conditioned? ------------------------------------------ This item seems to be a lead-in by Moggaliputta Tissa in which he is criticizing the position that takes a person to be an actuality (a "real and ultimate fact"). He is beginning the criticism by asking whether or not such a person could be conditioned. That sounds very much like something Nagarjuna might do, with the idea of pointing out that what is conditioned is not a self-existent reality. (Of course, I don't see the full context here.) You then go on to say the following: _______________________ The note at the bottom of the page reads: This is an inquiry into the nature of 'a real and ultimate [or self dependent] fact.' Comy. 'Conditioned (sankhata) is, in Buddhist tradition, what has been prepared, brought about by something else, made, has come together by conditions. ------------------------------------------ It seems to me that the note asserts that Moggaliputta Tissa is saying that the party he is addressing is speaking of a person as 'a real and ultimate [or self dependent] fact', and he (Moggaliputta Tissa) goes on to question whether such a "person" could be conditioned precisely because, as per commentary, "Conditioned (sankhata) is, in Buddhist tradition, what has been prepared, brought about by something else, made, has come together by conditions." I see the point of the note being that to have been prepared, brought about by something else, made, and come together by conditions is incompatible with being a real and ultimate [or self dependent] fact. An unexpressed, but I think very important, fact in all this is that all schools of Buddhism accepted that nothing is unconditioned except for nibbana (and, for some schools, space), and, thus, a person, if it is anything at all, must be conditioned. 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) 30382 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 0:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: distinction between nama and rupa. Dear Swee Boon, I had been thinking of what sutta supports the fact that nama has to be known as nama and rupa as rupa. But here you say it very clearly! Thank you. In Bgk A.Sujin stressed that we should not see the khandhas as groups but as realities, dhammas. They arise and fall away. Nina. op 20-02-2004 13:32 schreef nidive op nidive@y...: >> If this particular discourse does not support the claim that the >> first sign of right understanding comes when nama is directly known >> as nama and rupa as rupa, what are other discourses that support the >> claim, and how? > > Actually, this claim is all over the suttas. What is the point of > classifying the five aggregates as form, consciousness, perception, > feelings and fabrications? > > If one can't even get the distinction between rupa and nama right, how > could one even get the distinction between the five aggregates right? 30383 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 0:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Study - Recognizing the Dhamma (1) Hi Victor, I like the intro and the stories referred to, but I have no time to go to the link. Did you write the intro? Thank you. Nina. op 20-02-2004 16:14 schreef yu_zhonghao op yu_zhonghao@y...: > Hi all, > > Here is the first part (title, contents, and introduction) of the > study guide on recognizing the Dhamma: > 30384 From: Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 8:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: distinction between nama and rupa. Hi, Nina (and Swee Boon) - In a message dated 2/21/04 3:18:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > Dear Swee Boon, > I had been thinking of what sutta supports the fact that nama has to be > known as nama and rupa as rupa. But here you say it very clearly! Thank you. > In Bgk A.Sujin stressed that we should not see the khandhas as groups but as > realities, dhammas. They arise and fall away. > Nina. > op 20-02-2004 13:32 schreef nidive op nidive@y...: > > >>If this particular discourse does not support the claim that the > >>first sign of right understanding comes when nama is directly known > >>as nama and rupa as rupa, what are other discourses that support the > >>claim, and how? > > > >Actually, this claim is all over the suttas. What is the point of > >classifying the five aggregates as form, consciousness, perception, > >feelings and fabrications? > > > >If one can't even get the distinction between rupa and nama right, how > >could one even get the distinction between the five aggregates right? > > > > ============================= If a biologist wrote a book about trees, s/he would, no doubt, point out the various parts of a tree and their functions - the trunk (consisting of bark, inner wood, and heartwood), the root system, the branches, and the leaves. But by so doing his/her point would not be to teach people to see the trunk as trunk and to distinguish it from the rest. Everybody who is sighted can see and distinguish these parts. This issue of distinguishing nama from rupa strikes me as being much ado about nothing (or, if not "nothing", then at least "not much"!). The point of detailing all the khandhas is, as I see it, to emphasize their impersonality so that one is pointed in the direction of seeing that nothing that is actually observed is me or mine. 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) 30385 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 1:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Points of Controversy Hello Howard, Howard: It seems to me that the note asserts that Moggaliputta Tissa is saying that the party he is addressing is speaking of a person as 'a real and ultimate [or self dependent] fact', and he (Moggaliputta Tissa) goes on to question whether such a "person" could be conditioned precisely because, as per commentary, "Conditioned (sankhata) is, in Buddhist tradition, what has been prepared, brought about by something else, made, has come together by conditions." I see the point of the note being that to have been prepared, brought about by something else, made, and come together by conditions is incompatible with being a real and ultimate [or self dependent] fact. An unexpressed, but I think very important, fact in all this is that all schools of Buddhism accepted that nothing is unconditioned except for nibbana (and, for some schools, space), and, thus, a person, if it is anything at all, must be conditioned. Michael: As I can see you agree with my interpretation of the note that conditionality is incompatible with a real and ultimate fact. And as you rightly say, all schools of Buddhism accept conditionality. Therefore the logical conclusion is that a real and ultimate fact cannot be accepted by any school of Buddhism. I wonder what Sarah, Jon, KenH, KenO and RobertK would say about this understanding. BTW: real and ultimate fact is the equivalent of saccikattha paramattha in Pali. Metta Michael 30386 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 1:39pm Subject: Re: Recognizing the Dhamma - The Eight Principles Hi Christine, I think I get your point regarding 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction' having a stirring ring to it. Recognizing the Dhamma, the Vinaya, the Teacher's instruction is an affirming experience, if not without a sense of conviction and joy. I tend to understand `Dhamma' as `Principle' and `Vinaya' as `(Ethical) Conduct.' The Principle is the principle on dukkha and the cessation of dukkha. The meaning of `conduct' is not limited to the rules of conduct for bhikkhus and bhikkhunis as codified in the vinaya pitaka as the Buddha taught ethical conduct not only to bhikkhus and bhikkhunis but also to lay people. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Victor, and All, > > 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, > this is the Teacher's instruction' ... doesn't that have a stirring > ring to it - almost like a Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu! > The Dhamma, in this instance, means the Doctrine, doesn't it? That > would include everything in the Tipitaka? And the Vinaya means the > Discipline. Does this just mean the official rules for the Bhikkhus > and Bhikkhunis? I wonder, then, about lay people. > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- > [snip] > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recognizing.html#8principles 30387 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 1:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Study - Recognizing the Dhamma (1) Hi Nina, No, I did not write the intro. The introduction is written by Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Feedback and suggestions are welcome. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Hi Victor, I like the intro and the stories referred to, but I have no time > to go to the link. Did you write the intro? > Thank you. > Nina. > op 20-02-2004 16:14 schreef yu_zhonghao op yu_zhonghao@y...: > > > Hi all, > > > > Here is the first part (title, contents, and introduction) of the > > study guide on recognizing the Dhamma: > > 30388 From: Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 9:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Points of Controversy Hi, Michael - In a message dated 2/21/04 4:13:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, mbeisert@h... writes: > I see the point of the note being that to have been prepared, brought about > by > > something else, made, and come together by conditions is incompatible with > being > > a real and ultimate [or self dependent] fact. An unexpressed, but I think > > very important, fact in all this is that all schools of Buddhism accepted > that > > nothing is unconditioned except for nibbana (and, for some schools, space), > and, > > thus, a person, if it is anything at all, must be conditioned. > > > > Michael: > > As I can see you agree with my interpretation of the note that > conditionality is incompatible with a real and ultimate fact. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, provided that, as in the note, "real and ultimate" is considered synonymous with "self-dependent". On the other hand, if one takes "real and ultimate" to just mean "actually observed (rather than imagined or merely imputed on the basis of other things)", then I would *not* take that to be at all incompatible with being conditioned. In the particular case we are discussing, it would seem that both Moggaliputta Tissa and the writer of the note give "real and ultimate" the first meaning (as would Nagarjuna). ------------------------------------------------- And as you rightly say, all schools of Buddhism accept conditionality. Therefore > the logical conclusion is that a real and ultimate fact cannot be > accepted by any school of Buddhism. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Not in the first sense of "real and ultimate" (as "self-dependent"), but it certainly can be accepted in the second sense. ------------------------------------------------ I wonder what Sarah, Jon, KenH, KenO and RobertK would say about this > > understanding.BTW: real and ultimate fact is the equivalent of saccikattha > paramattha in Pali. > > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I couldn't find that word in the PTS dictionary or in Nyanatiloka's dictionary. But in any case, I have no doubt that these folks you mention all accept the second interpretation I gave of "real and ultimate", and not the first. And they all believe, as far as I know, that anything that is actually observed, actually occurs, actually appears, and is not merely imagined or imputed on the basis of other things, is conditioned, is dependent, and is not self-existent. ========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 30389 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:07pm Subject: Re: Recognizing the Dhamma - The Eight Principles Hello Victor, and all, O.K. - I'm happy with that definition :-) Post the next excerpts whenever you're ready - people will pop in, or not, as inspiration takes them, that is if the Samyutta study corner and the Visuddhimagga study corner is anything to go by. :-) From Nyanatiloka's dictionary: "dhamma: lit. the 'bearer', constitution (or nature of a thing), norm, law (jus), doctrine; justice, righteousness; quality; thing, object of mind (s. áyatana) 'phenomenon'. In all these meanings the word 'dhamma' is to be met with in the texts. The Com. to D. instances 4 applications of this term guna (quality, virtue), desaná (instruction), pariyatti (text), nijjívatá (soullessness, e.g. "all dhammá, phenomena, are impersonal," etc.). The Com. to Dhs. has hetu (condition) instead of desaná. Thus, the analytical knowledge of the law (s. patisambhidá) is explained in Vis.M. XIV. and in Vibh. as hetumhi-ñána, knowledge of the conditions. The Dhamma, as the liberating law discovered and proclaimed by the Buddha, is summed up in the 4 Noble Truths (s. sacca). It forms one of the 3 Gems (ti-ratana, q.v.) and one of the 10 recollections (anussati q.v.). Dhamma, as object of mind (dhammáyatana, s. áyatana) may be anything past, present or future, corporeal or mental, conditioned or not (cf. sankhára, 4), real or imaginary." http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_d.htm And putting 'dhamma' in the first search area of the pali-english dictionary, comes up with five choices - the first of which contains a few pages of meanings, at: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/index.html metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > I tend to understand `Dhamma' as `Principle' and `Vinaya' > as `(Ethical) Conduct.' The Principle is the principle on dukkha > and the cessation of dukkha. The meaning of `conduct' is not > limited to the rules of conduct for bhikkhus and bhikkhunis as > codified in the vinaya pitaka as the Buddha taught ethical conduct > not only to bhikkhus and bhikkhunis but also to lay people. > > Metta, > Victor > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recognizing.html#8principles 30390 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:37pm Subject: Re: Recognizing the Dhamma - The Eight Principles Hi Christine, That is great! Thank you for providing the definitions from Nyanatiloka's dictionary. I will post the next excerpt on the dispassion. Metta Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Victor, and all, > > O.K. - I'm happy with that definition :-) Post the next excerpts > whenever you're ready - people will pop in, or not, as inspiration > takes them, that is if the Samyutta study corner and the > Visuddhimagga study corner is anything to go by. :-) > > From Nyanatiloka's dictionary: > > "dhamma: lit. the 'bearer', constitution (or nature of a thing), > norm, law (jus), doctrine; justice, righteousness; quality; thing, > object of mind (s. áyatana) 'phenomenon'. In all these meanings the > word 'dhamma' is to be met with in the texts. The Com. to D. > instances 4 applications of this term guna (quality, virtue), desaná > (instruction), pariyatti (text), nijjívatá (soullessness, e.g. "all > dhammá, phenomena, are impersonal," etc.). The Com. to Dhs. has hetu > (condition) instead of desaná. Thus, the analytical knowledge of the > law (s. patisambhidá) is explained in Vis.M. XIV. and in Vibh. as > hetumhi-ñána, knowledge of the conditions. > > The Dhamma, as the liberating law discovered and proclaimed by the > Buddha, is summed up in the 4 Noble Truths (s. sacca). It forms one > of the 3 Gems (ti-ratana, q.v.) and one of the 10 recollections > (anussati q.v.). > > Dhamma, as object of mind (dhammáyatana, s. áyatana) may be anything > past, present or future, corporeal or mental, conditioned or not (cf. > sankhára, 4), real or imaginary." > > http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_d.htm > > And putting 'dhamma' in the first search area of the pali-english > dictionary, comes up with five choices - the first of which contains > a few pages of meanings, at: > > http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/index.html > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > I tend to understand `Dhamma' as `Principle' and `Vinaya' > > as `(Ethical) Conduct.' The Principle is the principle on dukkha > > and the cessation of dukkha. The meaning of `conduct' is not > > limited to the rules of conduct for bhikkhus and bhikkhunis as > > codified in the vinaya pitaka as the Buddha taught ethical conduct > > not only to bhikkhus and bhikkhunis but also to lay people. > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > > > > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recognizing.html#8principles 30391 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:41pm Subject: Recognizing the Dhamma - 1. Dispassion (§ 1.1.) 1. Dispassion § 1.1. I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Gaya, at Gaya Head, with 1,000 monks. There he addressed the monks: "Monks, the All is aflame. What All is aflame? The eye is aflame. Forms are aflame. Consciousness at the eye is aflame. Contact at the eye is aflame. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye -- experienced as pleasure, pain or neither- pleasure-nor-pain -- that too is aflame. Aflame with what? Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire of aversion, the fire of delusion. Aflame, I tell you, with birth, aging & death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. "The ear is aflame. Sounds are aflame... "The nose is aflame. Aromas are aflame... "The tongue is aflame. Flavors are aflame... "The body is aflame. Tactile sensations are aflame... "The intellect is aflame. Ideas are aflame. Consciousness at the intellect is aflame. Contact at the intellect is aflame. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect -- experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor- pain -- that too is aflame. Aflame with what? Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire of aversion, the fire of delusion. Aflame, I say, with birth, aging & death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. "Seeing thus, the instructed noble disciple grows disenchanted with the eye, disenchanted with forms, disenchanted with consciousness at the eye, disenchanted with contact at the eye. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye, experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain: With that, too, he grows disenchanted. "He grows disenchanted with the ear... "He grows disenchanted with the nose... "He grows disenchanted with the tongue... "He grows disenchanted with the body... "He grows disenchanted with the intellect, disenchanted with ideas, disenchanted with consciousness at the intellect, disenchanted with contact at the intellect. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect, experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain: He grows disenchanted with that too. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. 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.'" That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted at his words. And while this explanation was being given, the hearts of the 1,000 monks, through no clinging (not being sustained), were fully released from fermentation/effluents. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recognizing.html#dispassion 30392 From: Michael Beisert Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Points of Controversy Hello Howard: Howard: Yes, provided that, as in the note, "real and ultimate" is considered synonymous with "self-dependent". On the other hand, if one takes "real and ultimate" to just mean "actually observed (rather than imagined or merely imputed on the basis of other things)", then I would *not* take that to be at all incompatible with being conditioned. In the particular case we are discussing, it would seem that both Moggaliputta Tissa and the writer of the note give "real and ultimate" the first meaning (as would Nagarjuna). Michael: Maybe it wasn't clear from my message but the interpretation that real and ultimate means self dependent comes from the commentary to the Kathavatthu, therefore I assume this is the 'official' interpretation for the meaning of real and ultimate. In respect of your second interpretation, that would be a nice way of accommodating conditionality with real and ultimate but that is not what the commentary says. Howard: And they all believe, as far as I know, that anything that is actually observed, actually occurs, actually appears, and is not merely imagined or imputed on the basis of other things, is conditioned, is dependent, and is not self-existent. Michael: I don't understand why something that is imagined, which is the same as a thought or mental object, would also not be conditioned. Why only the product of contact with the other five sense media is considered to be conditionally arisen and not the contact with the mind? I don't understand what you mean by 'imputed on the basis of other things'. Metta Michael 30393 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Points of Controversy Hello Michael and Howard, The wonders of pali :-) Sometimes there are variations in spelling and also of punctuation. I think the meaning you are looking for is in the PTS definition below .. saccik' attha. "Saccika (p. 668) (adj.) [cp. Sk. satyaka] real, true Miln 226 (the same passage at Ps I.174 & Nd1 458 spells sacchika). <-> saccik' attha truth, reality, the highest truth Kvu 1 sq.; DhsA 4 (nearly=paramattha); KhA 102." metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- 30394 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 4:19pm Subject: Re: Recognizing the Dhamma - 1. Dispassion (§ 1.1.) Hello Victor and all, This sutta also fits in with the Samyutta study corner, and also with the Vinaya. :-) Bhikkhu Bodhi calls it 'Burning' and has a note about its origination, which is below: BB: "This sutta, often called "The Fire Sermon", is the third discourse of the Buddha as recorded in the narrative of his ministry at Vin I 34-35. According to this source, the thousand bhikkus were former jatila (matted-hair) ascetics under the leadership of the three Kassapa brothers. The Buddha had converted them by a series of miracles, after which he preached the present sermon. The sermon gains special meaning from the fact that before their conversion these ascetics had been devoted to the fire sacrifice. The full account is at Vin I 24-34; see Naanamoli, 'Life of the Buddha', pp. 54-60, 64-69. Spk: Having led the thousand bhikkhus to Gayaa's Head, the Blessed One reflected, "What kind of Dhamma talk would be suitable for them?" He then realized, "In the past they worshipped the fire morning and evening. I will teach them that the twelve sense bases are burning and blazing. In this way they will be able to attain arahantship." In this sutta the characteristic of suffering is discussed." This sutta fits in very well with the heat wave we are having in S.E. Queensland. 42 Celsius yesterday - and my aircon isn't working :-) Dog and I hopped in the airconditioned car and went to visit my Mum in her airconditioned home. Today has the same prediction. Are you chaps any cooler up round Cooran? (KenH, Andrew, Steve) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > 1. Dispassion > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recognizing.html#dispassion 30395 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 4:22pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/sacca Hi Howard and Michael, Howard wrote: -------------- > I wonder what Michael's reaction would be to language of the form "Dhammas occur when needed conditions have occurred, and in complete dependence on those conditions" as opposed to "Dhammas exist." > -------------------------- Is that the same as saying, "Dhammas `exist' when needed conditions have occurred, and in complete dependence on those conditions?" If so, I see no problem; in fact, it is the exact understanding I have been given all along. So what has all the fuss been about? There must, surely, be some perceived difference between "occurs," which Michael likes, and "exists," which Michael objects to. What is that difference? --------------------------- H: > When Nagarjuna used the word 'exists' he seems to mean "is a true, separate, self-supporting entity," -------------------------- Does he mean, "not subject to conditions?" Is that what he accused the ancient commentators of saying? If so, how could he ever support such a ludicrous accusation? Without having studied a word of Nagarjuna, I wonder if he was trying to teach something altogether different from, "dhammas are real." I suspect he believed that dhammas are not real and that only the conditions-for-dhammas are real. That is, that dhammas are created in the mind as logical explanations of the prevailing conditions. This would explain why Michael has trouble differentiating between concepts and dhammas: by his definition, both are equally unreal – they are both mere, conventional designations. ---------------- H: > If I'm not mistaken, Michael is accepting this definitional perspective, whereas you and others here, Ken, are not. ----------------- By this point, I seem to have lost the gist of what you are saying, Howard. Let me just stress; it is very important to know that dhammas are realities. Visible object can be seen, not touched; tactile object can be touched, not seen. If we don't fully appreciate their reality, how is panna ever going to directly know them? Kind regards, Ken H PS: As I post this, I see that this argument is being thrashed out on "Points of Contraversy." Maybe the above is already obsolete, but I will post it anyway." KH 30396 From: Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 0:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Points of Controversy Hi, Michael - In a message dated 2/21/04 6:46:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, mbeisert@h... writes: > Hello Howard: > > > > Howard: > > Yes, provided that, as in the note, "real and ultimate" is considered > synonymous with "self-dependent". > On the other hand, if one takes "real and ultimate" to just mean > "actually observed (rather than imagined or merely imputed on the basis of > other > things)", then I would *not* take that to be at all incompatible with being > conditioned. In the particular case we are discussing, it would seem that > both > Moggaliputta Tissa and the writer of the note give "real and ultimate" the > first > meaning (as would Nagarjuna). > > > > Michael: > > Maybe it wasn't clear from my message but the interpretation that real and > ultimate means self dependent comes from the commentary to the Kathavatthu, > therefore I assume this is the 'official' interpretation for the meaning of > real and ultimate. In respect of your second interpretation, that would be a > nice way of accommodating conditionality with real and ultimate but that is not > what the commentary says. > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, you were clear. That slipped my mind. So that was the sense of "real and ultimate" used in the *commentary*! That's interesting, now that I think about it, in that it is compatible with the Madhyamaka perspective. So, yes, if one takes the commentaries as official - I don't, but others here seem to - that makes this the "official" take on the terminology. ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Howard: > > And they all believe, as far as I know, that anything that is actually > > observed, actually occurs, actually appears, and is not merely imagined or > imputed > > on the basis of other things, is conditioned, is dependent, and is not > > self-existent. > > > > Michael: > > I don't understand why something that is imagined, which is the same as a > thought or mental object, would also not be conditioned. Why only the product > of contact with the other five sense media is considered to be conditionally > arisen and not the contact with the mind? I don't understand what you mean by > 'imputed on the basis of other things'. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: By something that is imagined, I do NOT mean a thought or mental object. Now you, Michael, are starting to talk like some of the others here!! ;-)) A thought or mental object is NOT imagined, at least not as far as I'm concerned. It is an actual experience arising at the mind door. Thoughts and ideas are just as real or unreal as any other elements of experience. What a thought or mental object intendedly *points to*, on the other hand, may well be imagined. In fact, I believe that what it points to is *always* imagined in a way, because the intended object of a thought or idea, even when something such as hardness or heat, is never the same as the directly experienced object - the actual experience referenced just isn't there, only the idea or thought of it is there, and that is always different. The thought of heat may arise in the mind, but that which is thought *of*, namely heat, just isn't there; the thought of heat is not heat. Having a thought of something, however, and actually experiencing such a thing, may have some consequences in common. For example, experincing pain, and recalling pain or imagining it, are both likely to elicit an aversive reaction. As far as the "imputed" terminology is concerned, I borrowed that from the Gelugpa centrist school of Tibetan Buddhism. They use it in discussing concepts, saying, for example, that a chariot is not a "reality", because it is merely imputed on the basis of its parts. I thought that you might be aware of that terminology, and so I purposely used it as a possibly useful means of communication with you. You can ignore it. It isn't important. ------------------------------------------------ > > > > 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) 30397 From: Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 0:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Points of Controversy Thanks, Christine! With metta, Howard In a message dated 2/21/04 6:51:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > > Hello Michael and Howard, > > The wonders of pali :-) Sometimes there are variations in spelling > and also of punctuation. I think the meaning you are looking for is > in the PTS definition below .. saccik' attha. > > "Saccika (p. 668) (adj.) [cp. Sk. satyaka] real, true Miln 226 (the > same passage at Ps I.174 &Nd1 458 spells sacchika). > <-> saccik' attha truth, reality, the highest truth Kvu 1 sq.; DhsA 4 > (nearly=paramattha); KhA 102." > > 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) 30398 From: Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 0:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/sacca Hi, Ken (and Michael) - In a message dated 2/21/04 7:25:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > > Hi Howard and Michael, > > Howard wrote: > -------------- > >I wonder what Michael's reaction would be to language of the > form "Dhammas occur when needed conditions have occurred, and in > complete dependence on those conditions" as opposed to "Dhammas > exist." > > -------------------------- > > Is that the same as saying, "Dhammas `exist' when needed conditions > have occurred, and in complete dependence on those conditions?" If > so, I see no problem; in fact, it is the exact understanding I have > been given all along. So what has all the fuss been about? There > must, surely, be some perceived difference between "occurs," which > Michael likes, and "exists," which Michael objects to. What is that > difference? > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: The difference is that sometimes "to exist" has an atta sense to it, a sense of being a separate, self-sufficient entity, as opposed to a phenomenon that is nothing more than a fleeting condition that appears automatically due to other conditions having been or being in effect, and in complete dependence on those conditions. The expressions 'occur, and 'arise' and 'appear' are freer of a connotation of independent status than is "exist". ---------------------------------------------------- > > --------------------------- > H: >When Nagarjuna used the word 'exists' he seems to mean "is a > true, separate, self-supporting entity," > -------------------------- > > Does he mean, "not subject to conditions?" Is that what he accused > the ancient commentators of saying? If so, how could he ever support > such a ludicrous accusation? > > Without having studied a word of Nagarjuna, I wonder if he was > trying to teach something altogether different from, "dhammas are > real." I suspect he believed that dhammas are not real and that > only the conditions-for-dhammas are real. That is, that dhammas are > created in the mind as logical explanations of the prevailing > conditions. This would explain why Michael has trouble > differentiating between concepts and dhammas: by his definition, > both are equally unreal – they are both mere, conventional > designations. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I'll let Michael speak for himself on this. ------------------------------------------------ > > ---------------- > > H: >If I'm not mistaken, Michael is accepting this definitional > perspective, whereas you and others here, Ken, are not. > > ----------------- > > By this point, I seem to have lost the gist of what you are saying, > Howard. Let me just stress; it is very important to know that > dhammas are realities. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: In the sense of reality as "not imagined, but actually experienced" I quite agree. ---------------------------------------------------- Visible object can be seen, not touched; > > tactile object can be touched, not seen. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Indeed. ---------------------------------------------------- If we don't fully > > appreciate their reality, how is panna ever going to directly know > them? > > Kind regards, > Ken H > > PS: As I post this, I see that this argument is being thrashed out > on "Points of Contraversy." Maybe the above is already obsolete, > but I will post it anyway." > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Actually, from that thread it's starting to seem that the official commentarial notion of "real and ultimate" actually may be incompatible with being conditioned, and very much the same as Nagarjuna's! -------------------------------------------- > KH > > ====================== 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) 30399 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 6:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the self... how?/Jack J: In any case, I have never said that jhanas are necessary for enlightenment. k: thats good J> Meditation slows events down in a protected environment so I can > start to see all phenomena is temporary, not self and unsatisfactory. I have yet to meet anyone or hear about anyone who can even start this clear seeing without formal meditation. This is the wisdom that alleviates suffering. Just talking about wisdom is worthless in itself. k: Let me ask you this question, can one control thoughts and tell thoughts to slow down. Do one need to go to a protect environment to realise that dhammas are anatta, anicca and dukkha? Do you think satipatthana only works in a protected environment or in every moment when we are talking, walking or eating? So what do you do when you come out of the protected environment, are you still able to see dhammas as anatta, anicca and dukkha. J> If I see clearly, I show compassion and loving kindness toward > others. This reduces their suffering. k: By just being compassion, do you think this will reduce other pain Let me quote you MN 82 Ratthapala Sutta <<"And what do you think, great king: Can you say to your friends & advisors, relatives & blood-kinsmen, 'My friends & advisors, relatives & blood-kinsmen are commanded: all of you who are present, share out this pain so that I may feel less pain'? Or do you have to feel that pain all alone?" "Oh, no, Master Ratthapala, I can't say to my friends & advisors, relatives & blood-kinsmen, 'All of you who are present, share out this pain so that I may feel less pain.' I have to feel that pain all alone." >> then again what is compassion. To me, what I call compassion, is someone who follow the teachings, attain the path even in the stream entrant level and teach others how to attain the path. Ken O