32400 From: Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 2:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? In a message dated 4/21/04 10:45:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: Jack: >> I'm not clear what the Abhidhamma and Visud. say about the ultimates of> a > thought as object of attention, i.e., that which we can deconstruct a> thought > into. Cetasaikas arise with the object of attention but I am talking > about the >> object itself. Ideas? ...... [snip] .... S: I think you’re suggesting above that thoughts can be deconstructed into ultimates. I’m suggesting that again this is merely more thinking about concepts. For example, thinking about how the body consists of elements is a conceptual analysis, even though in this case it’s a correct conceptual analysis. all, I am not suggesting that thoughts can be deconstructed into ultimates. As I said, I am unclear on this. "Unclear" to me means I don't know. See below for my comments about deconstructing body and conceptual analysis. ..... J: > Using my previous example, I look at a situation and then start to > reduce the > situation into ultimates. For example, I am nervous waiting in a > dentist's office. > I then say to myself, look at what is really happening. I check what is > at > each of my 5 sense doors and there isn't a problem. .... S: This may well be helpful reflection, but I’m suggesting that thinking in this way or ‘reducing the situation into ultimates’ is thinking about concepts of ultimates, not satipatthana which has ultimate realities as objects of awareness. Of course, even whilst thinking like this (or on the contrary, nervously pacing up and down), satipatthana can arise and know any ultimates directly without any special ‘reducing’ or ‘deconstructing’. Here is what I mean by deconstructing. I'm sitting in the dentist's office. I see I am in discomfort. I think (use concepts) to decide to put my attention on my physical body sense door. Once my attention is there, I just observe with no thought or direction. At times, my training in 4 material elements (ultimates) meditation kicks in and my attention goes to the physical body elements without the first step of using concepts to decide to do it. It all happens with "my" doing anything. Thinking, deciding and using concepts in this situation to me is only useful in that it points me toward a state of not thinking, deciding or using concepts. My meditation practice has benefits to me such as reducing stress but its ultimate use to to practice "directly understanding dhammas with detachment and without any idea of self." as you say below. "Understanding" in this sense means direct, non-conceptual wisdom not book learning. By the way, I am worried that I am coming off as claiming advanced powers. Most people who have been meditating for a few years and been on some vipassana retreats would probably say the same. I am still very much a beginner. ..... >As long as I keep in > touch > with the object of these 5 sense doors instead of letting my imagination> run > wild, no problem. This is not that complicated or hard to do. .... S: I agree and I don’t think this kind of concentration on the sense door objects is unique to those who have heard the Buddha’s teachings. I don’t understand it to be the same as directly understanding conditioned dhammas with detachment and without any idea of self. For example, whether the imagination runs wild or we feel nervous or there is ‘keeping in touch’ with sense objects, there are realities (‘ultimates’) arising and falling away which can be known regardless without anything special ‘to do’. This concentration on the sense doors (guarding the sense doors the Visud. calls it) can refer to different steps in the process as taught by the Buddha. As its simplest level, it is still part of the process as taught by the Buddha. At its highest level it is "directly understanding dhammas with detachment and without any idea of self." >I’d be grateful for any further comments, Jack. You’ll be doing others a >favour by keeping the dialogue open, however frustrating it may seem;-). Probably not. But, I am thinking and learning about my practice and your views from this dialogue. jack 32401 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 6:46am Subject: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Friend Sukin, > > Sukin: ?.So one has `clung' to some projected method, failing to > appreciate the fact that `sati' is a conditioned reality and cannot > be made to arise by following some conventional activity or even the > lead of `volition'. In other words, if there is an idea of `doing > something' to condition satipatthana, it is believe in a form of > rules or ritual. > > James: This is silly. Not only does it not make logical sense it > doesn't follow the teachings of the Buddha. Please quote where the > Buddha taught this. Your ponderous explanations and questions, > based on seemingly nothing but personal opinion, are getting very > tiresome to me. > > Sukin: What does for example `sitting cross-legged' have anything to > do with the arising of mindfulness? What is the causal connection? > And `bringing mindfulness to the fore', is it so easily aroused? Or > is volition so powerful in bringing about any desired state of mind? > I understand that the experience during formal sitting appears > different from the everyday activity of being caught in one sense or > mind object or the other, like a monkey jumping here and there. But > is it any less being `caught' when there is a sense of now being > able to observe those activities more closely. Is there any > awareness of the characteristic of ignorance, attachment, and > aversion and such, i.e. independent of any `self' doing the noting? > Is such kind of awareness in essence any different from generally > being aware of one's experiences? Except for perhaps, attempting to > relate them to the concept of Anatta and conditionality? Does the > knowledge of the teachings validates the quality of experience or > could it in fact be used to justify any wrong practice? Lobha can > appear calm and peaceful like sati, is one mistaking one for the > other? Panna is accompanied by detachment, why does one seek to > continue sitting? For more sati and panna? Is one equally calm being > interrupted during meditation or not having any chance to meditate > at all? Hi. This is Rob Ep jumping in. Since Nina, Sarah and others were kind enough to invite me to say hello from time to time with a personal hello or update, and perhaps also poke my nose into a thread or two, I decided to say hello right in the middle of the intense issue above. This happens to be one of the recurrent themes that interest me: the distinction between the naturally arising mindfulness in everyday life, and the promotion of sati through formal meditation, or "sitting." I have changed the thread name to reflect this theme so that I will be able to recognize it in case anyone replies. As you know this lively group generates scores of messages every day. I got dizzy just looking for Sarah's kind reply to Nina's posting of my "hello" note. Anyway, there seems to be a view associated with Abidhamma that formal sitting does not promote and may possibly prevent the arising of sati, and that one must foster proper conditions for the development of mindfulness only by the most "passive" or "natural" means. One can understand an aspect of this philosophy, in that the attempt to manipulate the mind brings up more thoughts and expectations. One may promote "thoughts about" sati and expectations that mindfulness is being increased, and this may merely be concept disguised as actual awareness or insight. So one, by raising specific expectations, tied to a practice, may interfere with the natural process of observation of the mind as it occurs in everyday life, and overlay this process with a further layer of conceptual delusion. Obviously, to the extent this happens, it would prevent rather than promote the development of genuine awareness that would lead to gradual awakening. The question is, does formal sitting meditation cause the kind of expectation that prevents rather than promotes the development of sati, and on the other hand, is there a process taking place in formal meditation that promotes rather than prevents the development of sati? And if both are present, does one outweigh the other in the affect they have on understanding? A corollary question then is: does sati in fact develop through ?natural observation? in conjunction with study of suttas and commentaries, and is there any expectation in *that* process that would prevent rather than promote the development of genuine awareness? First of all, from experience, there are definite mental changes that occur from formal sitting meditation, and these occur whether one is expecting something in particular or not. The mind either becomes calmer and thought becomes slower, or the mind becomes more excited as thoughts become aggravated and become more apparent to the observing citta, or other contents of consciousness become more obvious to the observer as he sits without the normal distractions of moving from one activity to another. Just like any activity, sitting still and paying attention allows one to concentrate more fully than jumping around and doing one thing after another. To deny the natural benefit for concentration, insofar as that goes, of sitting still and paying attention, is to deny common sense. This is true not just of observing the mind, but of any activity. There is nothing that is not benefited with increased awareness when it is focused on and paid attention to. If one were to say that the jumpiness of everyday life can be followed equally easy and that the mind can be observed equally while running for the bus as when sitting and focusing, I would say that this person has a philosophical predisposition to think so, as this obviously flies in the face of common sense. The person who is in favor of everyday life observation, naturally occurring as it were, will say that observing the natural cittas occurring during running of the bus is a lot more valuable as a natural mental event, than the contrived situation of sitting somewhere with eyes closed or looking at a wall for the express purpose of observing a mind that is now taken out of its natural environment and put into an artificial one. It is like observing a rat in the wild and how it behaves, as opposed to observing a lab rat under controlled conditions and seeing how it behaves in a cage with a maze and a food box at the end of the maze. To extend this analogy, it might be interesting to observe what one can learn by this laboratory observation, and what one can learn from the naturalist in the wild, following the rat in his daily life. I think it is obvious to anyone who is objective that these two situations do not replicate each other, but instead enhance each other. Why would one say ?We want only the knowledge and scientific development that can be gotten from observing our rat in the wild. We will accept only the natural rat, the whole rat and nothing but the rat.? The lab worker will say on the other hand: ?Please don?t infect my pristine environment with all the extraneous influences of the natural habitat. You will mess up the results of my carefully controlled experiment. Both are wrong, because they have adopted a partial view and clung to it, something that the Buddha warned most explicitly against. Obviously, the ?middle way? is to include both processes, the natural and the scientific, and to let them inform each other for what they have to offer. There is also no way to deny that these two individuals above have become part of a culture that has adopted certain practices and the real reason they are going to work the way they do is because they trust that culture and thus naturally adopt its practices. The scientist trusts his laboratory, and the naturalist trusts the natural habitat. They are not going to be too open to the other view, even if it were logically demonstrated to them. They will go back to their culturally accepted view which they share with others in their field and in their approach. The chiropractor is always going to have some skepticism about the medicine the doctor prescribes, and the doctor is always going to roll his eyes at the chiropractor?s unscientific methods. This is also true for the Abidhammist and the Thai Forest Monk, to give two examples. The Abhidhammist will have a set of reasons why formal sitting meditation is ?bad? which come from the traditional interpretation of the commentaries, and the Thai Forest Monk will laud the benefits of meditation with a bunch of explanations of all the qualities that are developed in his tradition. They are both part of a culture of practices and ideas, and neither one will probably be open to challenges. They will go back to the ideas and rationalizations that come from each of their philosophies. So let us see if we can break open this impasse between cultures. Those who are in favor of practicing meditation will say ?this is the way.? Those who are in favor of naturally arising sati in everyday life promoted by study and understanding of sutta and commentary will say ?this is the way.? They will criticize the others? view, although Buddha would probably say that to do this would harden the mind and make it more difficult to approach the openness and promote the letting go of partial views that actually promotes mindfulness and understanding. I have spoken of the changes in the mind and awareness that occur ?naturally? from sitting in meditation. Concentration increases, awareness of mental processes and of contents of consciousness increases. This should appear to be good for development of sati, but what about that expectation that develops false concepts of mindfulness? It is indeed an obstacle to promote or cling to results from meditation. One must understand the results that meditation may bring and then practice for the living experience of it, not to get those results. It is indeed possible to surrender to the experience of meditation and not spend the time in expectation and concept. In fact, one can spend time dropping those expectations or treating them with awareness as thoughts only when they occur. But when one finishes meditating the go back into life and the meditation experience is dropped. So what does the practitioner do who wants to develop the path continuously, and grow towards awakening? They treat their entire experience as an opportunity to observe the processes of mind and to promote mindfulness. And so they go into the process which is promoted by Abhidhamma, being present naturally for the occurrences of cittas and mental processes in everyday life, to see into their true nature. In other words, there is no conflict necessary between these two modalities given by the Buddha. We don?t have to be confined to the understandings of one culture or another, but can be open to all the skillful devices available for the path. Is it *impossible* that formal meditation will enhance the experience of the development of mindfulness for an Abidhammist? Is it even *impossible* that some physical culture which opens the body and nervous system such as yoga, may have some affect on the mind that allows a greater development of awareness? To say that these things are impossible closes the door to all of the aspects of the body and mind that may possibly promote greater development of awareness and feed the path. I don?t think we should have our cultural doors limited or closed. The body and the mind are what we carry with us in this life, the only equipment we?ve been given for the path, and so we should be open to making the best use of all of this equipment, not restrict ourselves to one modality. We may have a main modality that we think is best, but we should be open, not closed, to other modalities, just as Abidhamma enjoins us to be open to all the moments that occur in life, whatever activity we are doing. There are yoga practices that say, don?t worry about the physical culture so much, but what happens to your mind in this or that position. Be aware of the activity of consciousness at all times, and the yoga thus tests the ability to maintain awareness under shifting conditions. Being aware while running for the bus also gives an opportunity to see what the mind process is under particular conditions. These situations *all* give this opportunity, and we should not fall into prejudice one way or the other, and say ?Oh well, now I?m doing my yoga so there is no opportunity here for observing the nature of cittas and concept.? Of course, it gives its own unique opportunity for observation and growth. And it is a part of daily life itself. But the meditator who only wants to observe his mind like a ?lab rat? and thinks that all meditation takes place on the cushion is also wrong. He is also confined to a false view of what gives results and what doesn?t. Everything gives results if one includes it. The meditator should get up off of his cushion and do the equally hard job of being available with awareness to the events and flow of everyday life. He must take his cushion with him and ?sit? when he is standing, lying, eating, etc., as Buddha enjoined him to. So there is really no separation between Abidhamma and meditation, nor between meditation and Abidhamma. There is only life and its various events and practices to be observed and understood at all times. Practices should not be rejected, but should be included, even if this flies in the face of ?traditional understandings.? We should use common sense and skillful practices of all sorts, not fall into prejudices about what is ?right and wrong.? Sukin says rather disdainfully, already knowing the answer from the culture of Abidhamma, ?What does sitting cross-legged have to do with the arising of mindfulness?? Well, Sukin is wrong to have that opinion. He should have *no* opinion, and that is the problem with Buddhist subcultures, all of them. The participants think they already know all the answers and there is one practice that is good, and all the others are bad. The truth is that Sukin has no idea whether crossed legs promotes mindfulness or not. He really doesn?t know, neither do any of us. We can only judge by actual results, and only that a ways down the road. We may have faith in our given path, but that faith must produce some sort of development or that faith is misplaced. We must see something in this lifetime whereby we can say ?Not only am I comfortable in this culture and enjoy the practice and the company I keep, not only do I admire my teachers, but there is some clear development of sati in this lifetime from following this path.? I personally think there is even a physiological aspect to awakening and the path, and that physical practices such as yoga make a difference in producing the mental awareness and energy necessary to observe the mental and perceptual process and promote understanding. But I don?t really know either. What is most important is that I keep my mind open to observe the process of thought, consciousness, perception, so that I may awaken, and I will engage in the practices I choose to engage in. Buddha?s principles must apply no matter what I am doing. Any tradition that substitutes belief for an open mind, shuts down the development of sati. Perhaps we should practice exactly those things that we are most prejudiced against. Let Sukin sit with crossed legs for a while and observe cittas, and then say whether he experienced anything different by sitting in a comfortable sitting position on a cushion and observing the mind process. Not to say ?Well what does this have to do with anything?? And it would be silly of me to say ?Sorry, I?m only open to sitting meditation? when invited to observe the mind process in everyday life. I should say ?Wow, let?s see what that is about? and do it, as I do try to do. A person who only pays attention when meditating and does not have an interest in the budding apple tree out the window and what mind process allows the blossoms to look pink, is not much of a meditator. Anyway, that is all for now. There is more to say but I will perhaps return to this after hearing any responses. I hope this may generate a few thoughts or perceptions that are out of the ordinary mold or predisposition of our given cultures, as it has for me. And thanks for having me over! : ) Best, Rob Ep 32402 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 6:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Howard Thanks for the additional info. As a general observation, while we are much indebted to the early Western scholar/translators, I don't think they should be regarded as authorities on doctrinal aspects of the teachings. Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi again, Jon - > > Just one more tid bit about the Anupada Sutta. In his book Abhidhamma > Studies, Ven Nyanaponika Thera sites that discourse "as a sutta > source for > Abhidhamma terminology," and he does so after a strong defense of its > authenticity against an attack by Ms. Rhys Davids to the effect > that this sutta is a > clear after-the-fact compilation and not the Buddha word. > Ms. Rhys Davids, according to the Venerable, apparently also went off > the deep end in what he calls her "hypercriticism" of Abhidhamma, itself. It > seems that she thought not only that the Abhidhamma Pitaka is not likely the > literal word of the Buddha, for which many think a good argument can be made, > but that it is not even "the message of the Founder" and was > concocted by later > monks. The inference I draw from Nyanaponika is that she thought that the > Abhidhamma was largely cut from whole cloth. > > With metta, > Howard 32403 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 6:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: greetings from Rob Epstein. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Nina - > > Thanks for passing this on to the group. It'sreally good to hear from > Rob! > > With metta, > Howard Thanks Howard! I hope you are very well! Best, Rob Ep 32404 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 6:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: greetings from Rob Epstein. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Dear Nina & Rob Ep, > > Please > > give > > my best wishes to all of my friends on dsg, and tell them I miss them > > too! > ... > S: As I mentioned, we think of you whenever we open the photo album. Pls > drop by directly from time to time. Glad Emily is doing well and hopefully > your wife too. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= Dear Sarah, Thanks for your response, and for inviting me back to say hello. It's very nice to say hi to you. My family is doing well, although some of us [my wife] are working too hard. I really also thank Nina for her lovely Easter/Passover note to me. I am grateful that my friends here remember me. Well, I hope you won't regret the invitation. I have posted a massive missive on meditation. If you have the patience to read through all of it, I will be very interested in your response. It's really nice to be here, and hope that everyone is well and happy! I may have to pop back out, but I will try to keep popping back in and keep in contact! Best Regards, Rob Ep 32405 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Lodewijk (and Nina) --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Jon and Larry, ... > Lodewijk thinks that when I say vipassana is the same, the > eightfold Path is > the same as satipatthana I create confusion. He suggests: vipassana > developed in stages leads to lokuttara by means of satipatthana. The goal is > understanding that can eradicate defilements. As to the development of the > eightfold Path, panna together with the other factors is developed to reach > enlightenment. This is also done by means of satipatthana. I don’t have anything particular to add to your comments here, except to say that there can only ever be a limited conceptual understanding of satipatthana, since even conceptual level understanding needs direct understanding to support it, just as direct understanding in turn needs correct conceptual understanding. This is the spiral analogy that has been mentioned from time to time. Another way of saying this is that conceptual level understanding can take one only so far. Sooner or later one needs to talk about, consider and reflect upon the teaching concerning the potential objects of satipatthana such as seeing and visible-object, hardness and softness, for these 'bits and pieces' also happen to be parts of 'the whole' that has to be known. And the whole can only ever be known one tiny bit or piece at a time. Remember the parami of patience -- this includes patience with one's own lack of progress. Jon 32406 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anapanasati Sutta (was, satipatthanasutta) Jack I realise you've since bowed out of this thread, so I won't respond at length. Just to say 2 things. First, if by 'non-doer' you mean someone interested only in talking about insight and not interested in its actual development, then I'm definitely a 'doer' and not a 'non-doer'. But that still leaves the question as to what the development of insight entails, and I happen to believe that the Buddha's message was a somewhat deeper, more subtle one than I think you do. Secondly, I do of course have a fair idea of the 'usual method of meditation instruction' and of how people practice meditation, but I don't see how that helps decide what a given sutta means. In my view a careful reading of the sutta itself and its commentary, and of the rest of the Tipitaka, is needed. If our 'doing' gets off to a wrong start it's going to be difficult to admit the possibility of error, especially if we've decided that the 'right' results are being experienced. Jon --- Jackhat1@a... wrote: > In a message dated 4/12/04 12:50:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... > Jon, > > James pointed out something here that I didn't pay any attention to in my > response to you. I keep forgettting I am talking to non-doers. > > When the Buddha (or I) am talking about paying attention to the > breath, he is > using the concept of breath to point us toward an area of > attention. I think > this is a valid use of the concept of breath. The usual method of meditation > instuction is to, at first, teach to pay attention to the breath in general. > Then farther down the road, the instuctions are to pay attention to the body > sensations at one point where the breath touches the body. We are taught to > reduce the breath down to ultimates such as hot/cold. hardness, > etc. > > Another point is that the first teaching in the Anap. Sutta is to pay > attention to a long breath. "Long breath" is a concept that uses a comparison. One > point of doing this is to show us to be mindful of the effect that a long breath > has on the body and mind. Some people with a lot of experience > using the > Anap. Sutta in their practice start off each of their meditation sessions with > deliberately breathing long and being mindful of what is happening then breathing > short (the 2nd teaching) and being mindful of that, working > themselves > through each step. But, once the deliberate invocation of a step is completed, they > leave that technique behind. There would be no deliberately > breathing long, > for instance. They are just mindful, pure seeing in the seeing. > > jack 32407 From: Ken O Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi Rob Ep What a long letter, its been a long time I have seen you in DSG. Good to hear from you. Are you still doing Zen meditation? Ken O 32408 From: Robert Epstein Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:21am Subject: [dsg] Re: Illusion of Control --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Ken - > > In a message dated 4/14/04 3:24:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > kenhowardau@y... writes: > > > > > Hi Howard, > > > > ---------------------- > > H: >Yes, it all can be understood in such a manner. But there is > > understanding, and there is understanding. An intellectual > > translation of the Buddha's suttic teachings into "ultimate form" is > > not the sort of understanding that is liberative, though it can > > certainly be useful. > > ---------------------- > > > > Mere intellectual understanding is liberating in its way. To > > understand that there is no self, only nama and rupa, is to have a > > weight lifted from your shoulders. Don't you get this from your > > own, phenomenalist viewpoint? > > > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Correct intellectual understanding - and we can't be too sure when our > understanding *is* correct - is helpful. It is an important factor. In > itself, however, it is only liberating, as you say, "in its way". > ------------------------------------------------ Hi Howard. Maybe you could say that it liberates the mind to the extent that it clarifies thoughts one might have about the nature of "self" and replaces those thoughts to some extent with thoughts that are geared towards the liberative process. If one sees that there are only arising cittas and not a "self" at the center, and sees this only intellectually, then perhaps they will point their awareness towards the process and away from the false concept? This would only be a partial measure though, as you say, without some practice that is liberative, and not only correcting of the conceptual tendency on a conceptual level. More below. > > ---------------------- > > > > Howard: >Yes, all true. However - there are complex relations that > > hold among the momentary actualities, and a concept such as that of > > a process of meditation is a way of (indirectly) grasping not only > > the actualities involved, but also the multi-layered pattern of > > relations among them. > > --------------------- > > > > I agree that we have to know how concepts are created. I am not > > convinced, however, that the concept of a process of meditation > > bears any relation to actual, momentary, meditation. > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > ---------------------------- > > H: >But substituting belief in a intellectual theory of ultimate > > reality is an ineffective alternative to engaging in the > > conventional practices taught by the Buddha that lead to > > purification of mind and to liberation. > > -------------------- > > > > But is that so? Did the Buddha specify conventional practices? > > > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, indeed. > --------------------------------------------------- > Here > > > at dsg, we are shown a wealth of evidence to the contrary. > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > And in the 45 years of the Buddha's teaching as recorded in the Sutta > Pitaka, we are shown exactly what I claim. If I need to choose between the > two, you can be assured that there is little doubt as to my decision. > -------------------------------------------------- > Why side > > > against it? > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Because I am a *Buddhist* (!), not a DSG-er or even an Abhidhammika. > ----------------------------------------------- > > > Why not stay true to your phenomenalist leanings? > > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I most assuredly do. To be a thoroughgoing phenomenalist doesn't > require not communicating. It only requires understanding the difference between > what is merely manner of speaking and what is actuality. Just quoted this to agree with you Howard. There is a still a conceptual chaos around the issue of meditation as a means to understand realities. How do you personally reconcile Abhidhamma principles with your meditation practice? I think an understanding of how they go together would be very helpful. Best, Robert Robert 32409 From: Ken O Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi Rob M I dont think so. Because recognition is a function of sanna be it explained as marking the object or not. I think a lot of pple make the same mistake that sense process are bare attention only. Just because our panna and sati are weak and we only known the mind door process, that does not mean it is bare attention only. Sense process are equally as potent as the mind door process, or not why would Buddha pay so much emphasis on six sense doors. If it is only the mind door that matters, Buddha would have said one sense door and not five sense doors. Ken O 32410 From: Eddie Lou Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana - "Rebirth with genetic Info." Hi, Sarah, Thanks. I think the scientific community can do more research on such kind of phenomena. I believe they did but never quite heard about real conclusive hypotheses, whatsoever. So I am resorting to our Buddhist community, to find some kind of an explanation in my jig-saw puzzle. I had once asked a learned Buddhist, who has no answer to it. Metta, Eddie Lou --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Eddie, > > --- Eddie Lou wrote: > Hi, > All, > > > > My reasoning is: > > 1. the case of people (like historic figures - > > Beethoven, Mozart, etc), who exhibited prodigial [snipped] > > Now, I have a nagging question..... > ... > S: Your story is interesting and the answer is the > same - causes and [snipped] > surprising things occur, the path remains the > same....;-) > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== 32411 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:43am Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi Howard (and Victor), > > However when it comes to the perception and understanding of nama > > and rupa, it is altogether different. If indeed there has been a > > moment of satipatthana, one may like to have it again. The wanting > > may then seek to create a situation or believe in a practice which > > is supposed to get one there. > > > ------------------------------------------ > Howard: > The Buddha provided such a practice, the noble eightfold path. > ----------------------------------------- Sukin: I think we have gone through this before. It seems to me that there is a group of Buddhists who view the eightfold path as eight factors each to be developed individually, and when conditions are ripe, these come together at enlightenment. This is probably why they stress the practice of concentration, and putting in deliberate effort to bring mindfulness to the fore. And within this kind of interpretation it seems, that right speech, right livelihood and right action are seen as deliberate moral actions which one can "do". Also here, some people may see Right View as necessary `basic knowledge' gathered, but to be put aside when the time to so called `application' comes. Or if they see it as an important accompaniment to the practice from beginning to end, still they make the distinction between intellectual rt. View and Rt. View of the N8FP in a way almost as if the former has nothing to do with the latter. To me, you seem to be inclined more towards this interpretation. I on the other hand, see the development of panna as starting from intellectual understanding (pariyatti) of the Dhamma and this conditions practice (patipatti), which is satipatthana. Satipatthana are moments when five of the eight rights are present, Rt. View, Thought, Mindfulness, Effort and Concentration. There is after all, no sense in saying that the other four cetasikas without Rt. View can be `right'. All these *must* arise together if the object is a paramattha dhamma. True that there is Sati of the samatha level, and the effort, concentration and thought accompanying those moments are kusala. But this has no direct connection with the development of panna. In other words when satipatthana arises, all five factors are being developed. And I believe that *only this* is what culminates in pativedha, the arising of the N8FP. ------------------------------------------------------------ > So one has `clung' to some projected > > > method, failing to appreciate the fact that `sati' is a conditioned > > reality and cannot be made to arise by following some conventional > > activity or even the lead of `volition'. > ------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Not "projected," but taught by the Buddha. and, yes, sati is > conditioned - and the Buddha taught how to go about setting up the condtions. And the > "conventional activity" that you disdain was exactly taught by the Buddha, and > realities underlie that conventional activity as is the case with all > conventional activity. > ------------------------------------------- Sukin: We have gone through this too, and whether the teachings are descriptive or prescriptive. Even here we have not made any progress. So Howard, instead of throwing back and forth between us, the same basic statements (did you make a recording? ;-)), can we discuss our positions in relation to our understanding of paramattha dhammas and the three characteristics? And perhaps consider paccaya (I need some lessons in that)? Or do you have any other suggestion? -------------------------------------------------------------- > In other words, if there is > > > an idea of `doing something' to condition satipatthana, it is > > believe in a form of rules or ritual. > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > That would be news to the Buddha. The Buddha gave training in sila, he > gave rules for the behavior of monks and nuns, and he trained his followers > in guarding the senses and in meditation. None of that was an instruction to > engage in ritual. > I would imagine the Buddha would be amazed to see how adherents to his > Dhamma are critical of what he taught. Whether it is those who say the Buddha > didn't teach anyone to do anything or those who say the Buddha was just > kidding when he talked about rebirth (or didn't know better) or those who say that > nothing need be done for liberation except master the jhanas or those who say > that jhanas are dangerous and should not be cultivated, there seem to be loads > of Buddhists who want to dismantle and throw overboard core parts of the raft > of the Dhamma before reaching the other shore. > ------------------------------------------- Sukin: Those of us who have been studying Buddhism for some time, don't we all have the idea that we *know* the Middle Way, and have a sense that we are at least walking in the Right direction if not always able to keep balance? I think all the above people think of themselves this way, and everyone else is walking in the wrong direction. So who is right? How do we find out? Any suggestions? Keep on discussing I guess? :-) ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Sukin: > > What does for example `sitting cross-legged' have anything to do > > with the arising of mindfulness? What is the causal connection? > > > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > A stable position, not prone to tipping over, is good to have when a > jhana is entered, and one that is balanced and comfortable for a lengthy > period, and conducive to alertness, is supportive of the task of meditation. But it > is not necessary. > ----------------------------------------------- Sukin: What do you mean by "conducive to alertness", and "is supportive of the task of meditation"? Do you mean more than just jhana? ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > And `bringing mindfulness to the fore', is it so easily aroused? Or > > is volition so powerful in bringing about any desired state of mind? > > > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Hmm, guess not. So, better to give up instead of taking the time and > making the effort to develop the needed skills. (Hey, remember when the Buddha > said "This is not easy - better forget it!"? ;-) > ------------------------------------------------- Sukin: This isn't the point at all. The point is that the very idea of `doing it' is contradictory to my understanding of the conditioned nature of realities. In fact in terms of having something to latch on and give direction, formal practice is more alluring to the kilesas. The NAGs don't `forget' the Buddha's teachings; they only try to determine the correct interpretation. The apparent `easy going' attitude is only from the standpoint of `wrong effort', which has the nature of "doing something", but not necessarily anything positive is being done. Right effort appears as laxity only because there is no understanding on the part of those making the criticism, of what the object is. It is sometimes frustrating that what Nina, Sarah, Jon, Robert K. and others have been saying for so long is still misinterpreted and results in the kind of mischaracterization as shown by Victor in his post `Non-action?'#32358. I have never heard any NAG member express any of the views mentioned in that particular Sutta. But we do see what we like to see. :-/ > > Is such kind of awareness in essence any different from generally > > being aware of one's experiences? > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes. One does better when there is increased calm, concentration, and > mindfulness - much better. > -------------------------------------------- Sukin: Have you considered how much our subjective impressions may be influenced by the kilesas? Here in DSG, there is stress in studying about the characteristic, manifestation, function and proximate cause of dhammas, because only by this means can we gain familiarity and not misidentify. ---------------------------------------------------------- > Except for perhaps, attempting to > > > relate them to the concept of Anatta and conditionality? Does the > > knowledge of the teachings validates the quality of experience or > > could it in fact be used to justify any wrong practice? Lobha can > > appear calm and peaceful like sati, is one mistaking one for the > > other? Panna is accompanied by detachment, why does one seek to > > continue sitting? For more sati and panna? Is one equally calm being > > interrupted during meditation or not having any chance to meditate > > at all? > > These are some questions that come to mind, what do you think? > > > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I think this is all just nay-saying as regards what the Buddha > directly taught. > ----------------------------------------------- Sukin: We could examine each question to see which of them are misdirected!? > ============================= > With metta, > Howard Metta, Sukin. 32412 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi Ken O, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > I dont think so. Because recognition is a function of sanna be it > explained as marking the object or not. I think a lot of pple make > the same mistake that sense process are bare attention only. Just > because our panna and sati are weak and we only known the mind door > process, that does not mean it is bare attention only. Sense process > are equally as potent as the mind door process, or not why would > Buddha pay so much emphasis on six sense doors. If it is only the > mind door that matters, Buddha would have said one sense door and not > five sense doors. This is interesting. I have the opposite viewpoint. I believe that the kammic impact of sense door processes are very weak. How excited can one get over a dot of light - a visible object, as compared to the objects of the mind door - dots of light constructed and recognized as people, flowers, etc.? In the Honeyball Sutta, the Buddha identified the mental proliferation (papanca) as the source of the problems. Consider the vipallasa; ditthi-vipallasa (perversion of view) is the most serious whereas sanna-vipallasa is the least serious. Certainly the sense door processes are important as they act as triggers for the mind-door processes, where the serious kamma gets created. I would be interested in pursuing this further. How do you see the relationship between the sense door process and the mind door process? Metta, Rob M :-) 32413 From: Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 4:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Illusion of Control Hi, Rob - Nice to be talking with you! In a message dated 4/22/04 10:26:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@Y... writes: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Ken - > > > >In a message dated 4/14/04 3:24:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > >kenhowardau@y... writes: > > > >> > >>Hi Howard, > >> > >>---------------------- > >>H: >Yes, it all can be understood in such a manner. But there is > >>understanding, and there is understanding. An intellectual > >>translation of the Buddha's suttic teachings into "ultimate form" is > >>not the sort of understanding that is liberative, though it can > >>certainly be useful. > >>---------------------- > >> > >>Mere intellectual understanding is liberating in its way. To > >>understand that there is no self, only nama and rupa, is to have a > >>weight lifted from your shoulders. Don't you get this from your > >>own, phenomenalist viewpoint? > >> > >------------------------------------------------ > >Howard: > > Correct intellectual understanding - and we can't be too sure > when our > >understanding *is* correct - is helpful. It is an important factor. In > >itself, however, it is only liberating, as you say, "in its way". > >------------------------------------------------ > > Hi Howard. > Maybe you could say that it liberates the mind to the extent that it > clarifies thoughts one might have about the nature of "self" and > replaces those thoughts to some extent with thoughts that are geared > towards the liberative process. If one sees that there are only > arising cittas and not a "self" at the center, and sees this only > intellectually, then perhaps they will point their awareness towards > the process and away from the false concept? > > This would only be a partial measure though, as you say, without some > practice that is liberative, and not only correcting of the conceptual > tendency on a conceptual level. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: We seem to agree on this, Rob. ----------------------------------------- > > More below. > > >>---------------------- > >> > >>Howard: >Yes, all true. However - there are complex relations that > >>hold among the momentary actualities, and a concept such as that of > >>a process of meditation is a way of (indirectly) grasping not only > >>the actualities involved, but also the multi-layered pattern of > >>relations among them. > >>--------------------- > >> > >>I agree that we have to know how concepts are created. I am not > >>convinced, however, that the concept of a process of meditation > >>bears any relation to actual, momentary, meditation. > >> > >------------------------------------------------- > > > >>---------------------------- > >>H: >But substituting belief in a intellectual theory of ultimate > >>reality is an ineffective alternative to engaging in the > >>conventional practices taught by the Buddha that lead to > >>purification of mind and to liberation. > >>-------------------- > >> > >>But is that so? Did the Buddha specify conventional practices? > >> > >--------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Yes, indeed. > >--------------------------------------------------- > >Here > > >>at dsg, we are shown a wealth of evidence to the contrary. > >-------------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > And in the 45 years of the Buddha's teaching as recorded in > the Sutta > >Pitaka, we are shown exactly what I claim. If I need to choose > between the > >two, you can be assured that there is little doubt as to my decision. > >-------------------------------------------------- > > Why side > > >>against it? > >----------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Because I am a *Buddhist* (!), not a DSG-er or even an > Abhidhammika. > >----------------------------------------------- > > > >>Why not stay true to your phenomenalist leanings? > >>------------------------------------------------ > >Howard: > > I most assuredly do. To be a thoroughgoing phenomenalist doesn't > >require not communicating. It only requires understanding the > difference between > >what is merely manner of speaking and what is actuality. > > Just quoted this to agree with you Howard. There is a still a > conceptual chaos around the issue of meditation as a means to > understand realities. How do you personally reconcile Abhidhamma > principles with your meditation practice? I think an understanding of > how they go together would be very helpful. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I see much in Abhidhamma (but far from all) that fits in perfectly both with meditation practice and with a phenomenalist "take" on matters. This coming Sunday I'll be attending a study/meditation workshop on the 4th foundation of mindfulness taught by a meditator-Abhidhammika. I'll "report back" afterwards. ;-) ----------------------------------------------- > > Best, > Robert > ======================== 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) 32414 From: Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 4:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 4/22/04 10:44:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sukinder@k... writes: > Sukin: > Those of us who have been studying Buddhism for some time, don't we > all have the idea that we *know* the Middle Way, and have a sense > that we are at least walking in the Right direction if not always > able to keep balance? I think all the above people think of > themselves this way, and everyone else is walking in the wrong > direction. So who is right? How do we find out? Any suggestions? > Keep on discussing I guess? :-) > ========================= Yes, I guess so as well! :-) 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) 32415 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:03am Subject: Re: dialogue on satipatthana Friend Howard, Howard: James, this position strikes me as an all-or-nothing-at-all position which isn't correct. If, along the way, we were entirely bereft of insight, how could there be further progress? Even the realization that things are not perfect involves a degree of insight. In total blackess, one can't even see the light switch. The path culminates with the perfection of right intention and right understanding, but it must begin with a modicum of these as well. James: I'm sorry you got that impression, please allow me to explain. I was responding specifically to Jon's comment, "whenever there is the understanding of a presently arising dhamma there is mundane insight, and this is the development of the path;" I don't agree that the `understanding' of a presently arising dhamma is mundane insight, that is insight of the highest order! There are different levels of panna (wisdom) and the level of panna which can truly understand arising dhammas is of the highest level; this is panna which only an arahant or Buddha has. Just consider, in order to truly understand arising dhammas (which would be more than just knowing terms memorized from the Abhidhamma) would require that the person understand fully: anatta, dependent origination, rebirth, samsara, and nibbana. Any lack of understanding in any of these areas would mean that the person couldn't truly know the arising, persisting, and ceasing of dhammas. They might have a theoretical understanding, but not an actual understanding…and theoretical understanding doesn't lead to insight, it just leads to more theories! ;-)) Howard: So, while we are angry, or, better said, when we momentarily take that anger as an object (and not as a concomitant), can we not see it clearly for what it is? If not, are we not then lost, consigned to slavery to our base emotions? James: Anger is a defilement and therefore cannot be the object of the level of panna Jon and I were discussing (panna which `understands' dhammas); I do, however, believe that anger can be the object of mundane panna to a limited extent. It would depend on how strong the anger is and how much the person wants to examine and dismantle the anger. Actually, I guess you could say that anger could be the object of mundane insight only when the anger is ceasing, not when the anger is arising or persisting. I don't know if the Buddha taught this last part or not though; I am extrapolating from what I know of the teachings. Howard: That given, cannot moments of insight be interspersed? Is it not insight that spurs letting go of harmful states? James: Yes, but again we are discussing a different level of panna. The type of panna which would understand dhammas is not interspersed, it is continual. If it wasn't continual it wouldn't understand dhammas, it would still be hidden behind the taint of delusion and could only peak out every once in a while. Howard: But mindstates go by quickly, and many kusala and akusala states, it appears to me, can be rapidly alternating in what seem to us to be but a moment. Heightened concentration, mindfulness, and comprehension must be developed, the lighting must be turned up in all states, so that our vision may become clearer, sharper, and more penetrating, and we can come to *see* kusala as kusala and akusala as akusala. James: True; and I like that you used the metaphor of `lighting', I am going to continue with that. The Buddha taught that the mind is naturally luminous and that defilements are those things which block the natural luminosity of the mind, just as clouds, dust, haze, and the moon block the sun. To know kusala as kusala and akusala as akusala means that the mind is completely freed and the light is shining bright. But, even with defilements present some light from the mind is able to get through; it isn't completely dark and it isn't completely light. The important thing is not to mistake darkness for light and to work toward creating the conditions for more and more light until dhammas can be truly seen for what they are. Okay, in the rest of the post you agree with me; I will stop there. ;-)) Metta, James 32416 From: Dan D. Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:59am Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? [benefit of conventional "right" effort] Hi RobEp, The "way"? Right view, right effort, etc. Could it be that the value of sitting is not that it constitutes "right effort" but that it provides great opportunities for recognizing all sorts of wrong effort? Of course, there is plenty wrong effort that arises in the course of a day even without sitting, but presumably, when sitting, the task is to contemplate "right" and "wrong". At the beginning of practice, sitting can bring the benefit of a time set aside for contemplation. Gradually, the mind may learn to recognize the occasional moment of right effort -- but perhaps only after it can recognize the quasi-ubiquity of wrong effort. Sitting has the potential to really help clarify moments of "wrong effort" because so much effort is expended in trying to cause "right effort" to arise. The beginning meditator (i.e., one who does not yet recognize the overwhelming frequency of micchas relative to the sammas) may eventually learn to recognize: "This is wrong effort; this also is wrong effort; this is wrong effort too! And this, and this, and this, and this..." As the avenues of wrong effort are seen with sufficient facility, then the moments of right effort might just be recognized as moments of right effort. But can this happen before a decade or two of practice with serious sitting and then some substantial non- sitting contemplation of the "sitting practice" and of the Dhamma in general? Ooooo..... I didn't mean to spend this much time here. Starting with: "Hmmm... Why don't I look into DSG? I'll only read a post or two to see what's happening.... Interesting comments from RobEp; maybe just a sentence or two in reply," I end up biting off more than I should chew. Dan 32417 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: to old_dead_wood, present moment, no 1 Dear Dhamma friend old_dead_wood, During three hiking days with Lodewijk (my husband) we discussed Dhamma and also your questions. Lodewijk said a few things that may be of help to you. We come to that later on. I shall write all this in several posts. Others (Sarah, Hasituppada) pointed out that we should first understand the present moment. So I will speak more about that. After that we travel to the future, to your last moment which is sure to come. Lodewijk and I do not think lightly about such a depression, our late Prince Consort had them twice. It must be like a torture in hell. Lodewijk knew him personally because of his work with the development section on foreign affairs. He found that it was important to keep on writing to him when he was ill, to give him support. I hope the worst is now behind you. Now you are here, talking about Dhamma. As Larry said, also physics play their part, the Prince Consort had some chemicals missing in his body. So we see that the physical conditions the mental and mental phenomena condition physical phenomena. What is physical, like brain, heart, blood, does not feel or experience anything. What is mental knows, experiences or feels, and it changes each moment. You may feel sad now but the next moment you may think of something else, you may even laugh. We can learn that there is only one experience at a time, they come and go, succeeding one another. By way of referents I use the term rupa for what is physical and nama for what is mental. They are only referents, and actually it is not important how we call them. You found it difficult to be sure what consciousness is. Consciousness is mental, it is nama. I refer to it as citta. Seeing is citta, it cognizes visible object. There are many types of citta, some are unwholesome, some are wholesome and some are neither. Each citta arises and then falls away to be succeeded by the next one. This citta now was preceded by another citta, and so we can go back to the first moment of your life. We all came into this world with different capacities, different talents and inclinations. Inclinations to wholesomeness or to unwholesomeness. Where did they come from? From the past. This teaches us that there are conditions for whatever we think, do or speak. Some doctors make their patients see past lives by hypnosis. However, seeing a few lives does not give you the truth, you would have to go back for aeons and this is impossible. What is the use, it is only thinking and that cannot change our lives. Those who were our foes in our previous life may have been friends in other lives, who can tell? This is the Buddha's domain and belongs to the unthinkables. If one tries to find out about the past it can lead to madness. Let us study more the citta at this moment. But knowing that there were past lives helps us to see that there are conditions for whatever we experience and that these may stem from aeons ago. You may have listened to a Buddha aeons ago and this conditions you to go to the Dhamma now. This intro may not be very meaningful to you, but you need it so that you will understand what Lodewijk has to say to you. You do not like to go into word meanings, but he will not speak about word meanings, but about what is down to earth. I conclude with the verse from a Sutta (often quoted here) that our Dhamma friend Suan who is a psychiatrist uses for his patients who are troubled by the past. But it is good for us all. MN131 Bhaddekaratta Sutta > "A Single Excellent Night" as translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi. .... The Blessed One said this: > > 3. "Let not a person revive the past > Or on the future build his hopes; > For the past has been left behind > And the future has not been reached. > Instead with insight let him see > Each presently arisen state; > Let him know that and be sure of it, > Invincible, unshakeably. > Today the effort must be made; > Tomorrow Death may come, who knows? > No bargain with Mortality > Can keep him and his hordes away, > But one who dwells thus ardently, > Relentlessly, by day, by night - > It is he, the Peaceful Sage has said, > Who has had a single excellent night. (to be continued) Nina. op 18-04-2004 06:50 schreef old_dead_wood op old_dead_wood@y...: > Hi. Thanks to all for responding to my question regarding re-birth. > I didn't really want to end up discussing the meaning of words, > though. 32418 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] It's so easy ? Dear Bev, Wonderful to see you here! So sorry to miss you and Tom, we often think of both of you and our wonderful time together in India. All the Dhamma talks in between in English, drinking tea in the teashop, or in the halls of hotels. Looking forward to have more discussions with you here. The discussions certainly help to have more understanding of what appears now. What about seeing and thinking of what you see? For all of us it is difficult to really know the difference when they appear. In theory yes, but just now? As Jon says: What impressed you most of what A. Sujin said during your discussions? I think daily life itself reminds us all the time. Realities are never lacking, including our defilements. The more we see this the less there are obstacles for understanding to develop. Dhamma is very much down to earth, and this was the subject I discussed with Lodewijk during our tour which was also a spiritual journey. I hope to render our discussions the next days. Please convey our warmest regards also to Tom, Nina. op 22-04-2004 03:50 schreef Beverly Westheimer op bev@w...: It is > always good to be reminded to be aware of the realities appearing > through the sense-doors and the mind-door in the present moment. How > simple it sounds, yet so difficult to practice! > Tom and Bev 32419 From: Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:16am Subject: The Bikini Buddha Image Hi, all - On another list (none of the three to which this post is being sent) there was posted the original web site with the photo of the bikini that has Buddha images. As you will see, the placement of the main Buddharupa on the suit bottom is *quite* inappropriate and disrespectful. Sould they have the legal right to do this? Well, of course. But others certainly also have the right to complain about it and point out the disrespect 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) 32420 From: Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 8:18am Subject: Re: The Bikini Buddha Image Hi again, all - I forgot to post the url. It is the following: http://www.ondademar.com/site_international/swimsuit.php?ref=2117/2263/B/72 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) 32421 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 0:41pm Subject: Re: The Bikini Buddha Image --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi again, all - > > I forgot to post the url. It is the following: > http://www.ondademar.com/site_international/swimsuit.php? ref=2117/2263/B/72 > > With metta > Howard Friend Howard, Thanks for alerting us all to this! I was never able to find the bikini in question from the links so this is the first time to see it. I wrote a letter to the company and sent it at this link: http://www.ondademar.com/contactus.htm Maybe you and others might want to do the same? Here is the letter I wrote: Dear Sirs, I just wanted to let you know that I find your bikini with images of Quan Yin on the breasts and the Buddha image on the crotch very disrespectful of these holy images. I own a shirt with a Buddha image but it is placed very nicely, and I have seen other articles of clothing with Buddha images that are not disrespectful, but this bikini is very disrespectful. The placements of the images on the female sex organs associate these images with sex and carnal desire. One doesn't need to know much about Buddhism to know that this type of association is inappropriate because to the entire world's religions this type of association would be inappropriate. I ask that you discontinue this article of clothing for the benefit of consumers and your company. Sincerely, James 32422 From: Eddie Lou Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 0:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Bikini Buddha Image Hi, Howard, Thanks for the info. I have just send a protest email to the company saying: 'In my opinion, inappropriate to place a (well-known to be respected) symbol on a bikini.' 'Mild' response but just to let them know at least. Metta, Eddie Lou --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi again, all - > > I forgot to post the url. It is the > following: > http://www.ondademar.com/site_international/swimsuit.php?ref=2117/2263/B/72 > > With metta > Howard 32423 From: Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Bikini Buddha Image Hi, James - Superb letter! With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/22/04 3:45:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi again, all - > > > > I forgot to post the url. It is the following: > >http://www.ondademar.com/site_international/swimsuit.php? > ref=2117/2263/B/72 > > > >With metta > >Howard > Friend Howard, > > Thanks for alerting us all to this! I was never able to find the > bikini in question from the links so this is the first time to see > it. I wrote a letter to the company and sent it at this link: > http://www.ondademar.com/contactus.htm > > Maybe you and others might want to do the same? Here is the letter > I wrote: > > Dear Sirs, > > I just wanted to let you know that I find your bikini with images of > Quan Yin on the breasts and the Buddha image on the crotch very > disrespectful of these holy images. I own a shirt with a Buddha > image but it is placed very nicely, and I have seen other articles > of clothing with Buddha images that are not disrespectful, but this > bikini is very disrespectful. The placements of the images on the > female sex organs associate these images with sex and carnal > desire. One doesn't need to know much about Buddhism to know that > this type of association is inappropriate because to the entire > world's religions this type of association would be inappropriate. > I ask that you discontinue this article of clothing for the benefit > of consumers and your company. > > Sincerely, James > /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) 32424 From: Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Bikini Buddha Image Hi, Eddie - That's great! With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/22/04 3:57:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, eddielou_us@y... writes: > Sent from the Internet > > > > Hi, Howard, > Thanks for the info. > > I have just send a protest email to the company > saying: > > 'In my opinion, inappropriate to place a (well-known > to be respected) symbol on a bikini.' > > 'Mild' response but just to let them know at least. > > Metta, > > Eddie Lou /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) 32425 From: Philip Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 4:15pm Subject: Re: The Bikini Buddha Image HI James, and all. Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to send that letter, James. The Buddha is fortunate to have such a devoted copyright attorney! ;) There are so many examples of the misuse of the Buddha's image or gross misunderstandings of what Buddhism is about I have stopped paying attention, but maybe it's time to be more vigilant. And I will *certainly* ask my wife to throw that damn bikini out and I'll stop looking for the speedo version for guys! Seriously, I wonder if our desire to see the Buddha treated with respect in the world could possibly - and I stress possibly - represent a lack of faith that the great compassion and wisdom inherent in the Buddha's teaching will eventually win out. I think of the Last Temptation of Christ controversy some years back. I wondered at the time why the protestors' faith in Christ wasn't enough to allow them to look past a blasphemous misrepresentation of it. Or could concern about the way the Buddha's image is represented possibly point at an attachment to that image that even the Buddha himself might have frowned upon? Again, I stress possibly. Just playing devil's advocate here. (Mara's advocate?) "If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him," is how one famous saying puts it. I guess it was Zen. Maybe we can update it to "If you see the Buddha on a bikini..." Well, I'll stop there! ;) Metta, Phil 32426 From: Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 4:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mundane jhana and Supramundane jhana? Hi Victor, Re: what is supramundane jhana? Here is something from "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma". Larry Guide to 121 Types of Consciousness, p.72. All meditators reach the supramundane paths and fruits through the development of wisdom (panna)--insight into the three characteristics of impermanence, suffering, and non-self. However, they differ among themselves in the degree of their development of concentration (samadhi). Those who develop insight without a basis of jhana are called practitioners of bare insight (sukkhavipassaka). When they reach the path and fruit, their path and fruit cittas occur at a level corresponding to the first jhana. Those who develop insight on the basis of jhana attain a path and fruit which corresponds to the level of jhana they had attained before reaching the path. The ancient teachers advance different views on the question of what factor determines the jhana level of the path and fruit. One school of thought holds that it is the basic jhana (padakajjhana), i.e., the jhana used as a basis for concentrating the mind before developing the insight that culminates in attainment of the supramundane path. A second theory holds that the jhana level of the path is determined by the jhana used as an object for investigation by insight, called the comprehended jhana (sammasitajjhana). Still a third school of thought holds that when a meditator has mastered a range of jhanas, he can control the jhana level of the path by his personal wish or inclination (ajjhasaya). Nevertheless, no matter what explanation is adopted, for bare insight meditator and jhana meditator alike, all path and fruition cittas are considered types of jhana consciousness. They are so considered because they occur in the mode of closely contemplating their object with full absorption, like the mundane jhanas, and because they possess the jhana factors with an intensity corresponding to their counterparts in the mundane jhanas. The supramundane jhanas of the paths and fruits differ from the mundane jhanas in several important respects. First, whereas the mundane jhanas take as their object some concept, such as the sign of the kasina, the supramundane jhanas take as their object Nibbana, the unconditioned reality. Second, whereas the mundane jhanas merely suppress the defilements while leaving their underlying seeds intact, the supramundane jhanas of the path eradicate defilements so that they can never again arise. Third, while the mundane jhanas lead to rebirth in the fine-material world and thus sustain existence in the round of rebirths, the jhanas of the path cut off the fetters binding one to the cycle and thus issue in liberation from the round of birth and death. Finally, whereas the role of wisdom in the mundane jhanas is subordinate to that of concentration, in the supramundane jhanas wisdom and concentration are well balanced, with concentration fixing the mind on the unconditioned element and wisdom fathoming the deep significance of the Four Noble Truths. 32427 From: Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 4:59pm Subject: 'ocean of concepts' Hi all, TA Sujin said we live in an 'ocean of concepts'. IMO this is neither good nor bad. What is bad is that most of our attachments are to concepts. Attachment to concept arises due to reason and inference. What arises due to reason can be dispelled by reason. What we need is more thinking! Or so it seems to me. Larry 32428 From: Ken O Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Bikini Buddha Image Hi Howard it is just rupas - we cant stop what other people choose to do, they have their own cittas and cetanas to answer. At least we can promote good dhammas ;-) Ken O 32429 From: Dan D. Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:54pm Subject: Re: The Bikini Buddha Image Hi Howard, Isn't the whole bikini thing disrespectful to Buddha, whether there are Buddha icons on the cloth or not? I think one would quickly go mad if they were to get offended whenever they saw disrespect shown toward Buddha. It bothers me more that I show disrespect to Buddha every single day by not carrying out his teachings. Dan 32430 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? [benefit of conventional "right" effort] Dear Dan. So good to see you too! I was thinking of you, but you had told us that you were busy for a few months. I quoted you recently, what you said about meditating on the Abhidhamma. I am happy to see old friends again, Nina. op 22-04-2004 18:59 schreef Dan D. op dalthorp@s...: > I didn't mean to spend this much time here. Starting > with: "Hmmm... Why don't I look into DSG? I'll only read a post or > two to see what's happening.... Interesting comments from RobEp 32431 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Dear Jon, Thank you very much. You will hear more about this subject, we went through the sutta just now and many things became clearer. The recent Dhamma discussions Lodewijk and I had were helpful for both of us in many respects. As you say, patience, and this was one of our topics as you will see. Nina. op 22-04-2004 16:02 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jonoabb@y...: > Another way of saying this is that conceptual level understanding can > take one only so far. Sooner or later one needs to talk about, > consider and reflect upon the teaching concerning the potential > objects of satipatthana such as seeing and visible-object, hardness > and softness, for these 'bits and pieces' also happen to be parts of > 'the whole' that has to be known. And the whole can only ever be > known one tiny bit or piece at a time. > > Remember the parami of patience -- this includes patience with one's > own lack of progress. > 32432 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] It's so easy ? Dear Sarah, this is lovely, greatly appreciated A. Sujin's and Sukin's words about disease. Indeed, Abhidhamma is the best medicine. You wrote: sense-door and mind-door realities. Can we swallow the medicine of satipatthana at this moment?> N: my answer: yes, we can at this moment, but moments are never the same. There are also many moments of kilesa. You said, < I was > reflecting on how what is conventionally encouraging is so very different > from what is considered encouraging from an abhidhamma understanding.> N: We should combine the two ways, no contradiction. The truth can be brought gently, and adapted to the level of understanding and inclinations of persons. If we don't do this, many people will take the Abhidhamma amiss. They will not get the message. As to satipatthana, Lodewijk did not agree that no terms are needed. When one explains the terms are necessary, he said. Of course, it depends on the person's level of understanding. Nina. op 22-04-2004 09:54 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > Nina, I also repeated your message in which you asked K.Sujin for some > encouraging comments for when one is sick. While she responded, I was > reflecting on how what is conventionally encouraging is so very different > from what is considered encouraging from an abhidhamma understanding. The > latter can seem quite sharp and tough when one is not able to hear the > truth. Sukin also stressed at the weekend that abhidhamma was the best > medicine for any difficulties and I appreciated his keen ability to hear > the truth at such times. 32433 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi Sukin, As far as I see, the "NAGs" fall into the first sectarian guild: "There are priests & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences -- pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful -- that is all caused by what was done in the past.' For the "NAGs", there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' They can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done. The very view "The point is that the very idea of `doing it' is contradictory to my understanding of the conditioned nature of realities" reflects that. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Howard (and Victor), [snip] > > Sukin: > This isn't the point at all. The point is that the very idea > of `doing it' is contradictory to my understanding of the > conditioned nature of realities. In fact in terms of having > something to latch on and give direction, formal practice is more > alluring to the kilesas. The NAGs don't `forget' the Buddha's > teachings; they only try to determine the correct interpretation. > The apparent `easy going' attitude is only from the standpoint > of `wrong effort', which has the nature of "doing something", but > not necessarily anything positive is being done. Right effort > appears as laxity only because there is no understanding on the part > of those making the criticism, of what the object is. > It is sometimes frustrating that what Nina, Sarah, Jon, Robert K. > and others have been saying for so long is still misinterpreted and > results in the kind of mischaracterization as shown by Victor in his > post `Non-action?'#32358. I have never heard any NAG member express > any of the views mentioned in that particular Sutta. But we do see > what we like to see. :-/ [snip] > Metta, > Sukin. 32434 From: Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 5:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Bikini Buddha Image Hi, Ken - In a message dated 4/22/04 10:49:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > it is just rupas - we cant stop what other people choose to do, they > have their own cittas and cetanas to answer. At least we can promote > good dhammas ;-) > > Ken O > ======================= Yes, just rupas. Everything is just namas or rupas. Killing is just rupas too, to speak of an extreme. This business is, of course, a relatively minor matter, but something that is wrong, insensitive, and disrespectful shouldn't remain uncriticized. No, we may not be able to stop it, but should we remain silent? If good people don't bother to express disapproval of what deserves disapproval, then there is certainly no motive for people to cease in their improper behavior. How far should inaction go? How far should one take the no-control perspective? Was Jesus right when he said "resist not evil"? I like an awful lot of what he did say, but that is not included. 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) 32435 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mundane jhana and Supramundane jhana? Hi Larry, I appreciate your reply. It occurs to me that the ideas of mundane jhana and supramundane jhana are later classification/complication that has no basis in the Pali Canon. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Re: what is supramundane jhana? Here is something from "A Comprehensive > Manual of Abhidhamma". > > Larry > > Guide to 121 Types of Consciousness, p.72. All meditators reach the > supramundane paths and fruits through the development of wisdom [snip] 32436 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 0:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: greetings from Rob Epstein. Hi Rob Ep & Dan, --- Robert Epstein wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > Thanks for your response, and for inviting me back to say hello. It's > very nice to say hi to you. My family is doing well, although some of > us [my wife] are working too hard. I really also thank Nina for her > lovely Easter/Passover note to me. I am grateful that my friends here > remember me. .... We could never forget all those great marathon sessions (Sukin's are like a quick picnic in comparison;-)). .... > Well, I hope you won't regret the invitation. I have posted a massive > missive on meditation. If you have the patience to read through all > of it, I will be very interested in your response. .... Of course I'm delighted (Jon too) to see you both around and hope to respond to the MMM (massive missive on meditation). I'm busy teaching today and tomorrow, so will get back to it after the weekend. PLS DON'T RUN AWAY in the meantime. I’ve printed out and put aside the MMM to read more carefully, but I can see it’s beautifully crafted and considered. Thankyou also for inspiring other ‘big DSG guns’ like Dan to pop in too. Hope others will follow him. (Is anyone in touch with Erik??) Meanwhile, Dan, I was trying to find that great post you wrote on right and wrong effort with the Abhidhamma quotes, but haven't been able to put my finger on it. Do you have a link you could give or could you repost it? In my search, I did come across these gems which anyone relatively new to the list might enjoy for a taste of Danitis: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/8187 http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m9166.html http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/8823 I see in your recent post to Rob Ep you haven’t lost your way with words either;-) .... > It's really nice to be here, and hope that everyone is well and happy! > I may have to pop back out, but I will try to keep popping back in > and keep in contact! ... S: Rob, Pls don’t use up your year’s supply of posting energy in the first couple of days so that you have to pop out too soon. I hope Nina and others can also find ways to keep you in popped in mode too. Metta, Sarah ====== 32437 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 0:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Suravira, It took me a little time to realize that you’re the same-that was-our friend Chuck. Perhaps you’d care to tell us about the meaning of your new Pali name. We thought of you in Bangkok and I hoped you were going to join us, but perhaps you were busy again or back in Phil. I think you were going to tell us more about your experiences during the services for your late teacher at Wat Amphawan. It would also be good to hear about your recent visit. --- Suravira wrote: > > When the conditions are suitable, stream entry occurs. All Buddhist > meditation practices, regardless of their lineage, have as their aim > facilitating stream entry - and eventually enlightenment. .... Thank you for clarifying this. Of course stream entry is the first stage of enlightenment, but by your last comment I’m sure you’re referring to arahantship. Metta, Sarah ====== 32438 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 1:00am Subject: Re: The Bikini Buddha Image Friend Philip, Philip: The Buddha is fortunate to have such a devoted copyright attorney! ;) James: LOL! Yes, I hope they take action soon or I will have to get a court order and shut down that company! ;-)) Philip: There are so many examples of the misuse of the Buddha's image or gross misunderstandings of what Buddhism is about I have stopped paying attention, but maybe it's time to be more vigilant. James: I think you should do whatever your heart tells you to do in this regard. Don't imitate me with the thought "James has got it right and I have got it wrong; I have to be more like James." We each have our own path. Notice that I didn't say that people should write to the company, I just suggested it as a possible course of action to take…if you so desire. Philip: And I will *certainly* ask my wife to throw that damn bikini out and I'll stop looking for the speedo version for guys! James: LOL! Philip, if you bought a speedo with the Buddha image emphasizing your basket/crotch, I think you would deserve to be flogged and quartered! ;-)) You should know better! Philip: Seriously, I wonder if our desire to see the Buddha treated with respect in the world could possibly - and I stress possibly - represent a lack of faith that the great compassion and wisdom inherent in the Buddha's teaching will eventually win out. James: Philip, this is samsara we are talking about. Samsara is fueled by ignorance and base desires/craving. The wisdom of the Buddha is not going to `eventually win out'—this is wishful thinking based on popular, fantasy ideology (`the good guy always wins'). Actually, according to the Buddha, the wisdom of the Buddha always dies out, at the end of the Buddha Sasana. It is our responsibility, I think, to make it last as long as possible, for the benefit of all sentient beings. Philip: I think of the Last Temptation of Christ controversy some years back. I wondered at the time why the protestors' faith in Christ wasn't enough to allow them to look past a blasphemous misrepresentation of it. James: I don't know a lot about that movie; I didn't see it. My impression was that it was all `much ado about nothing'. And in this case, I had seen several posts about this Buddha Bikini but didn't take any action or think anything about it because I hadn't seen the actual bikini. Now, when Howard provided the direct link and I saw the actual bikini, I was very shocked! I thought that maybe the Buddha image was somewhere on the bikini, which would be no big deal really, I didn't think it would be right on the crotch drawing attention to and simulating the appearance of a woman's vagina! Goodness gracious! That is definitely something to be concerned about, at least to me. So I decided to take a small action, for the benefit of the karma of those who buy this bikini and the company that sells it. Believe it or not, that bikini is going to generate a lot of bad karma for both. I am more concerned for their karma than the `reputation' of the Buddha. Philip: Or could concern about the way the Buddha's image is represented possibly point at an attachment to that image that even the Buddha himself might have frowned upon? James: Again, I am more concerned about the negative kammic consequences, not the reputation of the Buddha. As the last line in my letter stated, "I ask that you discontinue this article of clothing for the benefit of consumers and your company." I meant their karma when I wrote this but didn't want to use that word and thus turn them away from my message…thinking I am some kind of `Buddhist Fanatic'. Philip: Just playing devil's advocate here. (Mara's advocate?) James: This is good and I am glad that you asked me these questions. Perhaps others were thinking the same things. I hope that I replied in a pleasant manner [*James thinks to himself*: "Hmmm…maybe I should take out that part about him being flogged and quartered?? Maybe he will take me seriously and be offended?? Maybe others will be offended?? Hmmm…well, I think it is funny so I am going to leave it in! People should, by now, expect some humor in my posts."] Metta, James 32439 From: Ken O Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Bikini Buddha Image Hi Howard You forget what I said about promote good dhamma. Being out loud will not change things in this world. Because worldings like us will still do what they think how the world should be. Just like previously where the Talibans have destroyed the Buddha statute, the Buddhist world make a big outcry, there is basically nothing they can do. Only create more aversion from more Buddhists that the Talibans should not do this. So attach are we to form. However promoting dhamma, will change the world - that is what we can do. If during the Taliban destroying of statute, someone will have written as such is form, impermanent as what Buddha said. I think more people will have become Buddhists. That is why Buddha said do not depend on me, depend on the dhamma. IMHO respect is inside us and not outside and respect is what Dan said, follow the teacher dispensation. And this is not inaction, to me this is wise move, know when to cry out loud ;-). On the hindsight, it is not the non-Buddhist that destroy dhamma, in fact to me, the Buddhists themselves that are destroying dhamma. Ken O p.s. Something strike me, people cannot stand this, yet many of us can stand shoalin shows that showing monk killing evil doers - ;-). such is the decline of dhamma. 32440 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:19am Subject: Re: The Bikini Buddha Image Friend Ken O, Ken: it is just rupas - we cant stop what other people choose to do, they have their own cittas and cetanas to answer. At least we can promote good dhammas ;-) James: I believe that you are promoting a doctrine of non-causality, which is contrary to the Buddha's teaching. From MN 76 "To Sandaka": [Ven. Ananda:] 16. "Again, Sandaka, here some teacher holds such a doctrine and view as this: `There are these seven bodies that are unmade, not brought forth, uncreated, without a creator, barren, standing like mountain peaks, standing like pillars. They do not move or change or obstruct each other. None is able [to arouse] pleasure or pain or pleasure-and-pain in another. What are the seven? They are the earth-body, the water-body, the fire-body, the air-body, pleasure, pain, and the soul as the seventh. These seven bodies are unmade… Herein, there is no killer, no slaughter, no hearer, no speaker, no cognizer, no intimater. Even those who cut off someone's head with a sharp sword do not deprive anyone of life; the sword merely passes through the space between the seven bodies. There are these fourteen hundred principal kinds of generation, and sixty hundred kinds, and six hundred kinds…There is none of this: "By this virtue or observance or asceticism or holy life I shall make unripened action ripen or annihilate ripened action as it comes." Pleasure and pain are meted out. The round of rebirths is limited, there is no shortening or extending it, no increasing or decreasing it… 18. "This is the fourth way that negates the living of the holy life that has been declared by the Blessed One who knows and sees, accomplished and fully enlightened…" Metta, James 32441 From: Ken O Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi RobM and others > This is interesting. I have the opposite viewpoint. I believe that > the kammic impact of sense door processes are very weak. How > excited can one get over a dot of light - a visible object, as >compared to the objects of the mind door - dots of light constructed > and recognized as people, flowers, etc.? k: I am not qualify to said that it has little or big impact. When we look at a sense process, I think we have to know that there is latency involve. A visible object that is disagreeable may condition akusala javana process and in turn condition latency. And this latency may or may not condition unfavourable mental process. In the Honeyball Sutta, the > Buddha identified the mental proliferation (papanca) as the source > of the problems. k: If you see the para 16 carefully , "dependent on the eye and forms, eye -citta arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as condition, there is feeling. What one feels one perceive" There is two way to say these statement 1. Buddha is seems to say that what you think depends on how we feel ;-) - which is not the intention here 2. IMHO this is what I called latency where one feels one perceive, whereby the feeling is condition by the javana process of the sense process. So the effect of sense process already condition the mind process - in that sense we also have to be in sati, not just in mind process but also in the sense process. As you and I know, the only way is to develop panna till it is strong enough to arise in the sense process. Maybe others could help with the commentary notes. Ken O 32442 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 4:15am Subject: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi Rob Ep, Good to see you back. Long time no write. :-) You have indeed given this topic much thought, and I wish I could find more points to agree with than disagree, but……:-/ !! Your post reminds me of the concept of `informal mediation' used here some time back by some members, which I felt quite uncomfortable with. To me `formal' or `informal' both are equally wrong, both being with the idea of `doing'! You said: > Anyway, there seems to be a view associated with Abidhamma that formal > sitting does not promote and may possibly prevent the arising of sati, > and that one must foster proper conditions for the development of > mindfulness only by the most "passive" or "natural" means. One can > understand an aspect of this philosophy, in that the attempt to > manipulate the mind brings up more thoughts and expectations……… I understand that the idea of "natural" has been expressed a few times, and sometimes even meant to support the argument in the same way you have expressed above. But this is not the whole story, "natural" is only one aspect of it. And natural *really* means natural. That is, without any idea of anyone practicing `naturally'. After all there is *no* one to be practicing naturally or not. So actually, the point is not about whether to meditate or not, both are equally "ideas". But rather about having the correct understanding of this present moment. You said further: > One may > promote "thoughts about" sati and expectations that mindfulness is > being increased, and this may merely be concept disguised as actual > awareness or insight. So one, by raising specific expectations, tied > to a practice, may interfere with the natural process of observation > of the mind as it occurs in everyday life, and overlay this process > with a further layer of conceptual delusion. Obviously, to the extent > this happens, it would prevent rather than promote the development of > genuine awareness that would lead to gradual awakening. The only "interference" I am concerned about is "wrong view". There is no concern about the "natural process of observation of the mind as it occurs in everyday life" being interrupted with any kind of conventional activity, even `sitting and watching the breath' or `doing yoga' is fine, as long as it is not associated with `patipatti'. There is no concern even if days go by without a moment of sati arising, though samvega may arise, there is however no urge to then "do" something. The eight worldly conditions, lobha, dosa or moha is never a problem when it comes to walking the path. The main culprit for prolonging samsara is `wrong view', and this is what I believe, most important to deal with. You said: > The question > is, does formal sitting meditation cause the kind of expectation that > prevents rather than promotes the development of sati, and on the > other hand, is there a process taking place in formal meditation that > promotes rather than prevents the development of sati? And if both > are present, does one outweigh the other in the affect they have on > understanding? A corollary question then is: does sati in fact > develop through ?natural observation? in conjunction with study of > suttas and commentaries, and is there any expectation in *that* > process that would prevent rather than promote the development of > genuine awareness? This is thinking in stories. Rob, do you agree that all there is are just the presently arising dhammas? That the past and future are just ideas? Any right or wrong understanding is contained in this present citta which interprets the experience? Would you agree then that any correct direction the citta takes with respect to the development of `more understanding' depends on whether there is any correct understanding "now" in this moment? So when you talk above about the positive aspect of meditation outweighing the negative, is it being realistic, or is it just a consoling notion? Every moment of `wrong understanding' accumulates, and wrong understanding cannot see itself as wrong. And like I remarked to Howard yesterday, every Buddhist thinks he is walking the Middle Way. Should we not relate any understanding to the present moment? Is the idea of `formal practice' viewed from the standpoint of what it means in relation to `realities' or is it a `belief' that the Buddha taught it, perhaps reinforced by the idea that the `Forest Monks' did it? And now there is added to this a subjective impression of having gained something? Further down you said: > So let us see if we can break open this impasse between cultures. > Those who are in favor of practicing meditation will say ?this is the > way.? Those who are in favor of naturally arising sati in everyday > life promoted by study and understanding of sutta and commentary will > say ?this is the way.? They will criticize the others? view, although > Buddha would probably say that to do this would harden the mind and > make it more difficult to approach the openness and promote the > letting go of partial views that actually promotes mindfulness and > understanding. Favoring one way or the other, both are attachment to an `idea' of practice which I don't promote. How can I promote right understanding!!? ;-) So my criticism is in reality not directed to some defined `practices', but to `wrong view'. So if I perceive wrong view, should I accept it in the name of `openness'? Letting go is good, but that shouldn't mean `agreeing' with wrong view, should it?! Rob Ep: > I have spoken of the changes in the mind and awareness that occur > ?naturally? from sitting in meditation. Concentration increases, > awareness of mental processes and of contents of consciousness > increases. This should appear to be good for development of sati, but > what about that expectation that develops false concepts of > mindfulness? It is indeed an obstacle to promote or cling to results > from meditation. But the clinging to results is seeded *in* the idea of practice. Rob Ep: > Sukin says rather disdainfully, already knowing the answer from the > culture of Abidhamma, ?What does sitting cross-legged have to do with > the arising of mindfulness?? Well, Sukin is wrong to have that > opinion. He should have *no* opinion, and that is the problem with > Buddhist subcultures, all of them. The participants think they > already know all the answers and there is one practice that is good, > and all the others are bad. The truth is that Sukin has no idea > whether crossed legs promotes mindfulness or not. Actually that was just the warm up question ;-), it was supposed to lead to more relevant ones. So it is not an `opinion' in relation to personal experience sitting/not sitting. It was meant to determine if there is right or wrong view with regard to an activity. In the end there is only *one* correct practice, which is satipatthana. And this does not depend on any bodily position, place or time, but hinges upon whether there is any panna (right view), starting with the correct intellectual understanding of the Dhamma. I intended to make this no more than one page, but conditions rule! ;-) Metta, Sukin. 32443 From: Htoo Naing Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:02am Subject: Seeing and seeing of seeing ( 02 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, In the whole universe, there is nothing more than citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana in the ultimate sense. Citta, cetasika, and rupa dhamma are sankhata dhamma. They are influenced by kamma, citta, utu, and ahara. These dhamma are going on their own and no one is influencing on them. When these realities are not recognized, they are viewed in many different ways. Some like them while others hate them and on the basis of attachment and ignorance kusala kamma and akusala kamma have been created and being created and will have still been created as long as there is the source. Due to kamma, which actually was raised by our past lives, we have to be reborn and have to exist in this life. As we are born, we are facing all the worldly things whether good or bad. All these worldly things like birth, rebirth, oldness, disease, death, sorrow, lamentation, physical pains and sufferings, stress and mental pain or dissatisfaction or unpleasant mental feeling, and despair, dissociation with beloved ones, association with hated ones, not getting what one wants and all five clinging aggregates are all dukkha and they all are sufferings of truth. Why are all these happening? Because there is the origin or the source for all these. All these derive from the source. It is attachment or craving or lobha or tanha. There are kamma tanha or craving for sensual pleasure, bhava tanha or craving for existance or better existence, and vibhava tanha or craving for non-existence. We are doing kammapatha actions or actions that bring about kamma while we are in javana cittas or in the mental impulse of citta series. Actually these javana series derive from the first citta in the vithi series. It is pancadvaravajjana citta. It is a consciousness that arises at one of 5 sense door. It is the earliest citta which might lead to javana cittas or mental impulse craving of different kinds is quite evident while in javana even though there always is anusaya or in subtle forms. These cittas arise at cakkhu pasada or eye, sota pasada or ear, ghana pasada or nose, jivha pasada or tongue, and kaya pasada or body. These are sources for craving and javana cittas which might create kamma. Rupa or vanna or colour, sadda or sound, gandha or smell, rasa or taste, photthabba or touch-sense ( including pathavi or hardness-softness, tejo or coldness-warmness, vayo or resilence or compressibility-repressibility ) are also the source for craving and arising of javana citta. When there are conditions appropriate vinnanas arise and these vinnana or consciousness are all the source for craving. Phassa or contact are also the origin or the source for craving. Vedana or feelings are all the source for craving. All sanna or perceptions are the source for craving. All sankhara or mental formations or fabrications or preparations are the source for craving. At eye, at ear, at nose, at tongue, at body these establish and cause arising of successive things without interruption. When these are experienced the first thought or initial thought or initial application also raise craving and it also is the source. These initial thoughts establish sustained thinking and these sustained thoughts also raise craving and they are also the source for craving. May you all see craving the source for all sufferings and see that you see them. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htootintnaing@y... 32444 From: Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Bikini Buddha Image Hi, Ken - In a message dated 4/23/04 5:37:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > You forget what I said about promote good dhamma. Being out loud > will not change things in this world. Because worldings like us will > still do what they think how the world should be. Just like > previously where the Talibans have destroyed the Buddha statute, the > Buddhist world make a big outcry, there is basically nothing they can > do. Only create more aversion from more Buddhists that the Talibans > should not do this. So attach are we to form. However promoting > dhamma, will change the world - that is what we can do. =========================== Yes, promoting the Dhamma is of great importance. (BTW, just in case there is any question on this, I don't doubt your good will and intentions *in the slightest*.) As far as complaints having any impact - well, they can. Companies are interested in profit. Public discontent isn't good for profit, and complaints do have an effect. Moreover, even if this product is not withdrawn, the complaints might dissuade further production of similar items. 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) 32445 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: to old_dead_wood, present moment, no 2 Dear Dhamma friend old_dead_wood, Lodewijk and I spoke about the present moment and we found that it is most valuable to understand the different cittas that arise now because of conditions. Lodewijk said that he finds it very important to consider truthfulness or sincerity, he considered it while we were hiking. Truthfulness is one of the perfections, good qualities, the Boddhisatta accumulated and developed for aeons. These were the necessary conditions for his attainment of Buddhahood. We all have to develop them, though not to the same extent as the Buddha, so that once we shall attain enlightenment. Lodewijk said: We also talked about conceit, and how important we find ourselves. We are attached to people's opinion about us. Our conversation was like a general confession, as the monks have to make, according to the Vinaya. The study of the Abhidhamma leads to this. I talked about the troublesome inclinations and tendencies that I have accumulated and Lodewijk talked about his weak points. People have different variations of them, but they are caused by the three unwholesome roots of attachment, aversion and delusion. The Dhamma is like a mirror, it makes us see our own defilements more clearly, and this is beneficial. While we are talking about the Dhamma we can inwardly pay respect to the Buddha who taught us to know our different cittas and also the deepst motives for all our actions, speech and thoughts. The development of understanding is the way to pay respect to him. Lodewijk said: We were also talking about you, that you should feel safe and secure. Lodewijk said, This is confidence, not vain belief. Confidence should be balanced with understanding. The Buddha speaks to you through the suttas and his message is very consoling. Sutta and Abhidhamma go together, his message is to understand your life as conditioned elements, no self in them. The Dhamma is the best medicine but it cannot help immediately. You should feel safe, because all problems can be solved through the Dhamma. We also talked about your name. It is your own decision what name you like but Lodewijk had a suggestion for a name with a more optimistical ring to it. He said, what about rosewood? Rosewood is strong and resilient, it can stand adversities. But just ignore this, if you do not like to change your name. Nina. 32446 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'ocean of concepts' Hi Larry, op 23-04-2004 01:59 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > TA Sujin said we live in an 'ocean of concepts'. IMO this is neither > good nor bad. What is bad is that most of our attachments are to > concepts. Attachment to concept arises due to reason and inference. N: Attachment arises due to our accumulated defilements. We can reason and think about concepts with kusala citta or with akusala citta, but mostly with akusala citta. L:What > arises due to reason can be dispelled by reason. What we need is more > thinking! Or so it seems to me. N: It depends on the citta. Is it thinking with understanding? That helps to a certain extent, and it can lead to direct understanding if lobha does not play tricks and works in a counteractive way. The last thing happens when we have desire (I mean lobha, not chanda) for insight. We get out of the ocean by understanding paramattha dhammas as they really are. Take tangible object: hardness, softness, heat, cold, motion and pressure are just tangible object, not the body. These are characteristics of the three great Elements to be experienced one at a time. Some people think that fluidity or cohesion is also tangible object. But, we can verify that this is not so. When we touch water it is not fluidity, but one of the other three great Elements that is experienced. But we think of water, of a story of water, that is a concept. We are drowning again. We take our thinking for so great and important, but it is only a kind of nama. People think that there are other tangibles apart from the three great Elements, such as smoothness or roughness. In reality there are many moments of touching hardness, and they join these moments into a whole, they form up a concept of smoothness and roughness. These exist only in their thinking. Thus whatever is experienced through the bodysense, are only the three great Elements. The same goes for breath. We cling to it, but only the three great Elements are experienced. Vis. 76 explains tangible object and understanding this can makes us see the difference between reality and concept. Larry, I am ready for Vis. 76 and Tiika, if you are ready with the footnote 32 which I shall unravel where necessary. Nina. 32447 From: robmoult Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 0:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi Ken O and others, Ken, I know that you like Pali, so I added "extra Pali" to this post :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > Hi RobM and others > > > This is interesting. I have the opposite viewpoint. I believe that > > the kammic impact of sense door processes are very weak. How > > excited can one get over a dot of light - a visible object, as > >compared to the objects of the mind door - dots of light constructed > > and recognized as people, flowers, etc.? > > k: I am not qualify to said that it has little or big impact. When > we look at a sense process, I think we have to know that there is > latency involve. A visible object that is disagreeable may condition > akusala javana process and in turn condition latency. And this > latency may or may not condition unfavourable mental process. > > > In the Honeyball Sutta, the > > Buddha identified the mental proliferation (papanca) as the source > > of the problems. > > k: If you see the para 16 carefully , "dependent on the eye and > forms, eye -citta arises. The meeting of the three is contact. > With contact as condition, there is feeling. What one feels one > perceive" There is two way to say these statement > > 1. Buddha is seems to say that what you think depends on how we feel > ;-) - which is not the intention here > > 2. IMHO this is what I called latency where one feels one perceive, > whereby the feeling is condition by the javana process of the sense > process. So the effect of sense process already condition the mind > process - in that sense we also have to be in sati, not just in mind > process but also in the sense process. As you and I know, the only > way is to develop panna till it is strong enough to arise in the > sense process. > > Maybe others could help with the commentary notes. Let us examine this portion of the Honeyball Sutta in detail. I will give my interpretation of each line (from an Abhidhamma perspective) and ask for your comments / corrections. "Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises." (cakkhun c'avuso paticca rupe ca uppajjati cakkhuvinnanam) My comments: The term "paticca" (because of / dependent on) is reminiscent of paticcasamuppada. This phrase is a somewhat simplified form of the fourth link in paticcasamuppada; "namarupa-paccaya salayatanam" or "conditioned by nama, rupa and namarupa, the sixth base and the sixfold base arise". In this case, the conditioning factor is eye- base and the conditioned factor is eye-consciousness. According to Vism XVII 217, the conditions are support, prenascence, faculty, disassociation, presence and non-disappearance. It is clear by examining the set of conditions involved that this is an impersonal seeing function; there is no pakatupanissaya condition (natural decisive support) at work. It is also clear from the rest of this portion of the Sutta, that the "perceiving" and "thinking about" happen after this "mechanical" function arises. In other words, at this point, we are dealing with the simple function of seeing. This corresponds to the eye-consciousness citta, which is always accompanied by indifference. Let us now consider the remaining of the citta-vithi. Since there is no associated pleasant feeling, there will not be lobha. Since there is no unpleasant feeling, there will be no dosa. The javana cittas of this citta-vithi will be kirya (in the case of an Arahant), maha-kusala (if one sees things as they truly are) or moha-mula (if one does not see things as they truly are). Moha-mula cittas create very weak kamma. This is why I say that the sense door process creates very weak kamma. "The meeting of the three is contact." (tinnam sangati phasso) My comments: We are following paticcasamuppada to the next step; the fifth link in paticcasamuppada is "salayatana-paccaya phasso" or "conditioned by the sixth base and the sixfold base, contact arises". According to Vism XVII 227, the same six conditions (support, prenascence, faculty, disassociation, presence and non-disappearance) are in play. Clearly, this is still a "mechanical" function. I see this as being part of the same citta-vithi that included the eye-consciousness; in other words, the sense-door process. "With contact as a condition, there is feeling." (phassa paccaya vedana) My comments: This is the exact wording of the fifth link in paticcasamuppada. Consulting Vism XVII 231, we see that feeling in the eye- consciousness citta (which is always neutral) is conditioned through conascence, mutuality, support, result, nutriment, association, presence and non-disappearance. This is still a mechanical function. However, Vism XVII 231 also mentions that for the vipaka cittas in the sense-door process (receiving, investigation and registration), pakatupanissaya is the condition. This is where it starts to get "personal". The feeling for receiving and investigation are always neutral, so the kamma produced by the sense-door process will always be very weak. "What one feels, that one perceives." (yam vedeti tam sanjanati) My comments: The sutta now changes direction. It is no longer following the mechanical functions of paticcasamuppada. It is no longer impersonal. Terms such as "yam" and "tam" put a "personal" element into the progression. According to the PTS dictionary, when sanjanti is grouped with vedeti, it means to be aware of the feeling. Clearly, this cannot be the same citta-vithi as the previous activities. The object of this citta-vithi is the feeling associated with the rupa that was contacted. Feeling (vedana) is not a rupa, it cannot be the object of a sense-door process. Feeling can only be the object of a mind-door process. "What one perceives, that one thinks about." (yam sanjanati tam vitakketi) My comments: When one "thinks about" something, one adds to it. One of the things that one adds is a label or designation to help classify the object. The object is no longer the initial rupa nor the feeling that arose; the object is now a concept with layer upon layer being added by subsequent mind door processes as "thinking about" occurs. This is where Ledi Sayadaw's progression of "grasping the object as a whole", "recognizing the colour", "grasping the entity", "recognizing the entity", "grasping the name" and "recognizing the name" occur. In his introductory essay to PTS' Abhidhammattha-sangaha ("Compendium of Philosophy"), Shwe Zan Aung gives more details, "In order to enable a man to say `I see a rose', no less than four classes of the simple group of sequels are required, each of which may be repeated several times. He must first of all perceive a rose, presented in one or other of the forms of external intuition already described. Each process is followed, with a brief moment or two of the subconscious continuum intervening, by the process called `grasping the past', in which there is necessarily a depicting to the imagination of the past object which he has just perceived, the images alone of the different parts of the rose being present in the mind. These two processes may alternate with each other several hundred thousand times before the synthetic process takes place. The alternation of thee two processes may be compared to that of makes and breaks in the connection of an electric dynamo." Bhikkhu Bodhi quotes Nanamoli as making the comment, "What is perceived as `this' is thought about in its differences and is thus diversified from `that' and from `me'. This diversification - involving craving for form, wrong view about permanence of form, etc., and the conceit `I am' - leads to preoccupation with calculating the desirability of past and present forms with a view to obtaining desirable forms in the future." "What one thinks about, that one mentally proliferates." (yam vitakketi tam papanceti) My comments: Papanca (mental proliferation) has been likened to clouds in front of the moon. Because of papanca, one does not see the object for what it truly is. It is through papanca that the defilements find a place to take root. What starts out as perversion of perception (sanna- vipallasa - in the dark, a man spontaneously perceives a coil of rope as a snake) grows into perversion of thought (citta-vipallasa - he assumes that what he has seen is a snake) and eventually into perversion of view (ditthi-vipallasa - he is convinced that he has seen a snake). "With what one has mentally proliferated as the source, perceptions and notions tinged by mental proliferation beset a man with respect to past, future and present forms cognizable by the eye," (yam papanceti tato nidanam purisam papancasanna sankha samudacaranti atitanagatapaccuppqannesu cakkhuvinneyyesu rupesu) My comments: We can see how pananca feeds upon itself. Papanca (conceptual proliferation) is clearly the manifestation of many mind-door processes (only mind-door processes can take concepts as objects). One can see how the kamma created at this stage can be quite strong compared to the kamma created at the previous stages of perception. The sutta now changes direction again. What started as a mechanical process (from eye-consciousness to feeling) evolved into an active involvement of the observer (perception to mentally proliferates) and now the mental proliferation takes control of the observer. Metta, Rob M :-) 32448 From: connie Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 0:06pm Subject: Re: Robber Guests Thanks for the poetry, Sarah. I think we'll all be happier if I don't return the favor. Have rounded up a few more robber types to kick around, though. Hope I'm not being too repetitious. From Mahathera Ledi Sayadaw's Manual of the 4NT: 'Monks, the six somatic bases--the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body, and the mind-base or consciousness (manayatana) are figuratively termed "a ruined village". The six external bases--visible objects, sound, odor, taste, body-impressions and mental-objects are figuratively termed "gangs of robbers who plunder the village."' Sunnogamo sunnogamoti kho bhikkhave channetam ajjhattikanam ayata-nanamadhivacanam; cakkhayatanassa, sotayatanassa, ghanayatanassa, jivhayatanassa kayayatanassa, manayatanassa, gamaghatakacora ti kho bhikkhave channetam bahiranam ayatanam, ruipayatananam, saddayatananam, gandhayatananam, rasayatananam, photthabbayatananam, dhammayatananam. Samyutta-Nikaya, Salayatanavagga, Salayatana-Samyutta (4) Asivisvagga, Asivispama Sutta. 6th syn. Edition. p. 383. I can't find the exact same Pali in the VRI (tipitaka.org) version. It does talk about the cha cora, etc. but doesn't list all the individual ayatanas. I thought that was curious and then ran across Joe Smith's mention of "the addition of the longer section on the Four Noble Truths from the Diigha version to the Majjhima version of the Satipa.t.haana sutta in the Burmese edition (Sixth Sangaayana)" in his article on "The 17 Versions of The Buddha's First Discourse". Just more reminders that it's not so much the words themselves as the understanding and where that leads, or that there are all kinds of 'criminal acts': < There are some foolish persons who learn the Dhamma, Sutta, Geyya, and so on by heart but once they have learned them by heart they do not examine the meaning in order to understand the texts. Those texts, the meaning of which they have not examined in order to understand them, do not please them and the only advantage they gain from their memorization is to be able to contradict others and to give quotations. All the same, they do not reach the goal for the sake of which they memorized the Dhamma. Those texts which they do not understand will, for a long time, earn them much sorrow and suffering. Why? Because those texts have not been understood. Alagaddupama Sutta, M 1:133 > Also, I think, things we've only thought we understood that did please us so we've followed and defended our wrong views with great faith and good intent. Reckon that's the difference between a Path and a 'well' paved road. As always, pardon my pronouns... I just want to feel that I've been in 'good company'. And as long as I'm stealing quotes today, "So long as we are not sotaapanna we shall have the inclination to wrong practice all the time." Then there are those things that might sound criminal but aren't: Having killed mother and father, And two kings, and having slaughtered A realm together with its governor-- The brahman wanders unafflicted (anigho). (Dh 294) "mother" = craving, which gives birth to beings in the 3 planes of existence; "father" = the conceit "I am", which gives the egoist value to individuality; "two kings" = the eternalist and the annihilationist views, that divide the world between them; "realm" = the 6 pairs of sense-bases beginning with eye-and-form; "governor" = the will and lust for those. (NettA 212 f.) from "Teaching Methods of the Buddha: A study of Buddhist hermeutics (a documented research)" by Piya Tan. He also writes about solitude: < the Antevasika Sutta (quoted at Nm 362, 469): Monks, this holy life is lived without students and without a teacher (anantevasika. ida. bhikkhave brahmacariya. vussati anacariyaka.). A monk who has students and a teacher dwells in suffering, not in comfort. A monk who has no students and no teacher dwells happily, in comfort. And how, monks, does a monk who has students and a teacher dwell in suffering, not in comfort? Here, monks, when a monk has seen a form with the eye, there arise in him evil unwholesome states, memories and intentions connected with the mental fetters [S 5:61; A 5:13; Vbh 377]. They dwell within him (antovasanti). Since those evil unwholesome states dwell within him, he is called "one who has students" (santevasiko). They assail him (te na. samudacaranti). Since evil unwholesome states assail him, he is called "one who has a teacher" (sacariyako). There is a pun on two Pali words in this sutta. A "student" (antevasi) is literally "one who dwells within"; thus one for whom defilements do not dwell within (na antovasanti) is said to be "without students". The word "teacher" (acariya) is here playfully connected with the verb to assail (samudacarati); thus one unassailed by defilements is said to be "without a teacher". The Commentary here glosses anantavesika. (one who has no students) with anto vasana,kilesa,virahita. (devoid of defilements dwelling within), and anacariyaka. with acara.a,kilesa,virahita. (devoid of the "assailing" defilements). > peace, connie 32449 From: Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 'ocean of concepts' Hi Nina, Which is more meaningful to you, the thought "feeling is impermanent" or simply attending to feeling? the thought "body is not self" or simply attending to hardness? Also you wrote: "Larry, I am ready for Vis. 76 and Tiika, if you are ready with the footnote 32 which I shall unravel where necessary." L: Did you want to say something about Vism. 75, or did I not get that one? Larry 32450 From: Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 11:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'ocean of concepts' Hi, Larry (and Nina) - In a message dated 4/23/04 6:14:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Which is more meaningful to you, the thought "feeling is impermanent" or > simply attending to feeling? the thought "body is not self" or simply > attending to hardness? > ========================== I think you may be posing the wrong choice, Larry. The thought "Feeling is impermanent" is a good and useful thought. Better yet, I believe, is the observing of decay in conventional objects such as the body, for that leads to a degree of insight. Best of all, I think, is the realization of the impermanence of the phenomena - the actualities - that underlie the decaying conventional objects, for that realization leads to transforming insight. It is not, I think, the mere *attending* to feeling that is superior to the thought "Feeling is impermanent", and it is not the mere *attending* to hardness that is superior to the thought "Body is not self". Rather, what is superior is the direct *knowing* of the impermanence of feeling and of the impersonality and insubstantiality of hardness that is derived from the attending to feelings and hardness. 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) 32451 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 4:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Victor Thanks for the sutta reference, the emphasis of which seems to be on the 3 kinds of action (through body, speech and mind). As I think we've discussed before, 'the body' and 'breathing' are used in the suttas as representative of the rupa-aggregate (perhaps because they are being clung to all the time as being 'self'). One example of this is the 'contemplation of the body' section of the Satipatthana Sutta. The commentary to the sutta clarifies that it is all rupas that are being referred to. Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' gives the following information about rupa-khandha: <> I believe the 'corporeality depending thereon' is a reference to the (24) derived rupas. Jon --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon and James, > > Jon, regarding what you said : > > > - The dhammas/five aggregates spoken of in the suttas do not > include 'breath'. > > > you might find the following quote helpful: > > > "Now, lady, what are fabrications?" > > "These three fabrications, friend Visakha: bodily fabrications, > verbal fabrications, & mental fabrications." > > "But what are bodily fabrications? What are verbal fabrications? What > are mental fabrications?" > > "In-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Directed thought & > evaluation are verbal fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are > mental fabrications." > > "But why are in-&-out breaths bodily fabrications? Why are directed > thought & evaluation verbal fabrications? Why are perceptions & > feelings mental fabrications?" > > "In-&-out breaths are bodily; these are things tied up with the > body. > That's why in-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Having first > directed one's thoughts and made an evaluation, one then breaks out > into speech. That's why directed thought & evaluation are verbal > fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental; these are things > tied up with the mind. That's why perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications." > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn044.html > > > Metta, > Victor 32452 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) James --- buddhatrue wrote: > Friend Jon, ... > James: If you sit down and do it, mindfulness of breathing, you > will eventually figure out what it means. If you are talking about mindfulness of breathing as described for example in the Satipatthana and Anapanasati Suttas then you are only 'doing it' if, in the words of the sutta, you are a person who has gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty place; who sits down, bends in his legs crosswise on his lap, keeps his body erect, and arouses mindfulness in the object of meditation, namely, the breath which is in front of him; and who being mindful breathes in, and being mindful breathes out. I don’t think this is a description of just sitting down and doing it in the hope that somehow it will all become clear in time. The advice the Buddha himself gave to others was to listen more, consider more, reflect more on the presently arising dhammas. I understand this to be advice that applies at any time regardless of the activity or posture, rather than being intended as referring to a special time of 'practice'. Certainly in the suttas there are many instances of people, including lay-followers, becoming enlightened while listening to the Buddha's discourses, with no indication of any special practice involved. > There is no reason to start > looking at numerous commentaries to figure it out. I don't believe anyone can figure out the Anapanasati Sutta entirely on their own without any help or influence from of other people's views and comments on the sutta, and I'm sure you must have been influenced by things you’ve read about it. In my view the most authentic and reliable of all such sources would be the commentaries. It beats me why people are so quick to prefer modern writers over the ancient commentators. > It means that the person will breathe in and out contemplating > the impermanence of > samsara. Samsara would include dhammas and those things that are > fabricated...and the breath. They are all impermanent. Doing this > can rid the mind of defilements through non-clinging. I agree that all dhammas are said to be impermanent. But I don’t find in the sutta any mention of a specific causal connection between mindfulness of breathing and seeing the impermanence of all dhammas. Of course, the whole sutta is a description of how the latter may be developed while doing the former, but it does not seem to be saying that one is *due to* the other. I think if you read the sutta carefully you'll see that mindfulness of dhammas, not of breathing per se, is the key. (BTW, I'm not sure what you mean by 'those things that are fabricated'. In the suttas it is said that all dhammas are 'sankhata', sometimes translated as 'fabricated', but this terms is applied only to dhammas as far as I know. Likewise the term 'sankhara', which is sometimes translated as 'fabrications'.) Jon 32453 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Howard (and James) Your description reflects the generally accepted 'meditative' approach to insight;-)) But if you look at it carefully, there are things you say or imply that are not expressly stated in the suttas, and which you've filled in yourself (e.g., the purpose or effect of mindfulness of breathing is to restrict the domain of attention and hence heighten the level of concentration, and then mindfulness can come in; paramattha dhammas are not directly experienced until enlightenment is near). I prefer to do my in filling from the commentaries ;-)). In any event, what you say here doesn't explain the significance of breathing in particular i.e., why the same insight should not result with concentration on an object other than breathing. It seems to me that the progression from concentration to insight as you have described it here is independent of the nature of the object of concentration. Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James & Jon - ... I think you are both right! We worldlings, are typically unable to attend directly to paramattha dhammas during "ordinary" mindstates. Pretty much all that we experience is passed through a more or less opaque filter of conceptualization. This is where we begin. When the Buddha directs attention to the breath, he is directing our attention to a somewhat restricted range of experience which we conceptualize as in-breathing and out-breathing. The realities subsumed by breathing are earth (solidity), air (motion), fire (temperature), and water (dryness - wetness), and, of course, a variety of derivative touch sensations. Those that are subsumed by in-breathing are somewhat different from those subsumed by out-breathing (for example, coolness vs warmth). Mindfulness of breath begins at the conceptual level. Even at that level, mundane understanding of impermanence and conditionality arises, but it is of minor import. However, the relative restriction of domain of attention tends to heighten the level of concentration. If by effort, with other conditions cooperating, one can maintain clarity and resist succumbing to sloth and torpor, then there is a corresponding heightening of mindfulness and comprehension, and one begins to see through the obfuscating conceptual filter a bit, getting somewhat closer to attending to actualities. At the pinnacle of this process, one attends directly to the subsumed paramattha dhammas, at which point there is the possibilty for supermundane insight into the tilakkhana to arise as the mind gains direct insight into the hindrances, the khandhic elements, the internal and external sense media, the enlightenment factors, and the four noble facts of dukkha. With metta, Howard 32454 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 5:27pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi Jon, No problem. Given the sutta reference, it should be clear now that in-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > Thanks for the sutta reference, the emphasis of which seems to be on > the 3 kinds of action (through body, speech and mind). > > As I think we've discussed before, 'the body' and 'breathing' are > used in the suttas as representative of the rupa-aggregate (perhaps > because they are being clung to all the time as being 'self'). One > example of this is the 'contemplation of the body' section of the > Satipatthana Sutta. The commentary to the sutta clarifies that it is > all rupas that are being referred to. > > Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' gives the following information > about rupa-khandha: > < groups: > "What, o monks, is the corporeality-group? The 4 primary elements > (mahá-bhúta or dhátu) and corporeality depending thereon, this is > called the corporeality-group.>> > > I believe the 'corporeality depending thereon' is a reference to the > (24) derived rupas. > > Jon > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon and James, > > > > Jon, regarding what you said : > > > > > > - The dhammas/five aggregates spoken of in the suttas do not > > include 'breath'. > > > > > > you might find the following quote helpful: > > > > > > "Now, lady, what are fabrications?" > > > > "These three fabrications, friend Visakha: bodily fabrications, > > verbal fabrications, & mental fabrications." > > > > "But what are bodily fabrications? What are verbal fabrications? > What > > are mental fabrications?" > > > > "In-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Directed thought & > > evaluation are verbal fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are > > mental fabrications." > > > > "But why are in-&-out breaths bodily fabrications? Why are directed > > thought & evaluation verbal fabrications? Why are perceptions & > > feelings mental fabrications?" > > > > "In-&-out breaths are bodily; these are things tied up with the > > body. > > That's why in-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. Having first > > directed one's thoughts and made an evaluation, one then breaks out > > into speech. That's why directed thought & evaluation are verbal > > fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental; these are things > > tied up with the mind. That's why perceptions & feelings are mental > fabrications." > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn044.html > > > > > > Metta, > > Victor 32455 From: rikpa21 Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 6:32pm Subject: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher" wrote: > Hello, > > This (rather strange) question is actually about Mahayana Buddhism. > Please forgive me for asking it here, I have often received lots of friendly > help in here, and I'm not sure where else I might find an answer. So > any help is appreciated.. > > When meditating as a Mahayanist, one aims to avoid entering the > stream so as to stay in the round of rebirths in order to help other > beings. I am wondering if there is a certain way that a meditator does > this, and if so, how? Would there come a point in meditation where it is > obvious that entering the stream is possible, and a person can simply > choose not to advance? Or is it possible to 'accidentally' enter the > stream, only realizing afterwards what has happened? If so, what does > a Mahayanist do about this? From the Mahayana Vajracchedika Sutra (Diamdond Cutter): "Subhuti, it is the same concerning bodhisattvas. If a bodhisattva thinks that she has to liberate all living beings, then she is not yet a bodhisattva. Why? Subhuti, there is no independently existing object of mind called bodhisattva. Therefore, the Buddha has said that all dharmas are without a self, a person, a living being, or a life span. Subhuti, if a bodhisattva thinks, 'I have to create a serene and beautiful Buddha field', that person is not yet a bodhisattva. Why? What the Tathagata calls a serene and beautiful Buddha field is not in fact a serene and beautiful Buddha field. And that is why it is called a serene and beautiful Buddha field. Subhuti, any bodhisattva who thoroughly understands the principle of non-self and non-dharma is called by the Tathagata an authentic bodhisattva." 32456 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 6:57pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi Jon, Commentaries, ancient or modern, on anapanasati may be helpful to one who develops anapanasati(being mindful with breath). Why does one want to develop & pursue anapanasati? Because "Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is of great fruit, of great benefit. Mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, brings the four frames of reference to their culmination." Developing & pursuing anapanasati is a "doing" and a skillful one. And by "doing" I mean kamma/action. It is the "doing" that leads to the cessation of "doing." There is nothing wrong spending certain amount of time a day dedicating to developing and pursuing anapanasati. Why does one want to sit down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect? Speaking from my own understanding, because it is a stable posture that keeps the body still, conducive for calming the bodily and mental fabrications and arousing energy. While in the suttas (references would be helpful) there may be many instances of people, including lay-followers, becoming enlightened while listening to the Buddha's discourses, it does not mean that these people did not spending time on developing & pursuing anapasati. As I see it, anapanasati is being mindful of and with in-&-out breathing. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > James > > --- buddhatrue wrote: > Friend Jon, > ... > > James: If you sit down and do it, mindfulness of breathing, you > > will eventually figure out what it means. > > If you are talking about mindfulness of breathing as described for > example in the Satipatthana and Anapanasati Suttas then you are only > 'doing it' if, in the words of the sutta, you are a person who has > gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty place; who > sits down, bends in his legs crosswise on his lap, keeps his body > erect, and arouses mindfulness in the object of meditation, namely, > the breath which is in front of him; and who being mindful breathes > in, and being mindful breathes out. > > I don't think this is a description of just sitting down and doing it > in the hope that somehow it will all become clear in time. > > The advice the Buddha himself gave to others was to listen more, > consider more, reflect more on the presently arising dhammas. I > understand this to be advice that applies at any time regardless of > the activity or posture, rather than being intended as referring to a > special time of 'practice'. Certainly in the suttas there are many > instances of people, including lay-followers, becoming enlightened > while listening to the Buddha's discourses, with no indication of any > special practice involved. > > > There is no reason to start > > looking at numerous commentaries to figure it out. > > I don't believe anyone can figure out the Anapanasati Sutta entirely > on their own without any help or influence from of other people's > views and comments on the sutta, and I'm sure you must have been > influenced by things you've read about it. In my view the most > authentic and reliable of all such sources would be the commentaries. > It beats me why people are so quick to prefer modern writers over > the ancient commentators. > > > It means that the person will breathe in and out contemplating > > the impermanence of > > samsara. Samsara would include dhammas and those things that are > > fabricated...and the breath. They are all impermanent. Doing this > > can rid the mind of defilements through non-clinging. > > I agree that all dhammas are said to be impermanent. But I don't > find in the sutta any mention of a specific causal connection between > mindfulness of breathing and seeing the impermanence of all dhammas. > Of course, the whole sutta is a description of how the latter may be > developed while doing the former, but it does not seem to be saying > that one is *due to* the other. > > I think if you read the sutta carefully you'll see that mindfulness > of dhammas, not of breathing per se, is the key. > > (BTW, I'm not sure what you mean by 'those things that are > fabricated'. In the suttas it is said that all dhammas are > 'sankhata', sometimes translated as 'fabricated', but this terms is > applied only to dhammas as far as I know. Likewise the term > 'sankhara', which is sometimes translated as 'fabrications'.) > > Jon 32457 From: Date: Fri Apr 23, 2004 3:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 4/23/04 8:16:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard (and James) > > Your description reflects the generally accepted 'meditative' > approach to insight;-)) But if you look at it carefully, there are > things you say or imply that are not expressly stated in the suttas, > and which you've filled in yourself (e.g., the purpose or effect of > mindfulness of breathing is to restrict the domain of attention and > hence heighten the level of concentration, and then mindfulness can > come in; paramattha dhammas are not directly experienced until > enlightenment is near). I prefer to do my in filling from the > commentaries ;-)). > > In any event, what you say here doesn't explain the significance of > breathing in particular i.e., why the same insight should not result > with concentration on an object other than breathing. It seems to me > that the progression from concentration to insight as you have > described it here is independent of the nature of the object of > concentration. > > Jon > ============================ I don't claim that the subject need be the breath. Iused that as an example. But as to why it is a good subject, I suppose you'd have to ask the Buddha (were he around), because it was he who taught the Anapanasati Sutta, not m e. ;-) 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) 32458 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 0:04am Subject: Tiika Vis 75 reposted, a note. Hi Larry and all, This was posted around the time there was some Yahoo trouble. Some of you may not have got it. Just in case I post it again. Ignore it if you saw it already. Nina. 32459 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 0:04am Subject: "Tiika Vis. 75 reposted" "Tiika Vis. 75 reposted" (all English of Tiika, see below) "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV, 75 75. According to the kamma-born triad, etc., however, that born from kamma is 'kamma-born'; that born from a condition other than that is 'not-kamma-born'; that not born from anything is 'neither-kamma-born-nor-not-kamma-born' That born from consciousness is 'consciousness-born'; that born from a condition other than consciousness is 'not-consciousness-born'; that not born from anything is 'neither-consciousness- born-nor-not-consciousness-born'. That born from nutriment is 'nutriment-born'; that born from a condition other than that is 'not-nutriment-born'; that not born from anything is 'neither-nutriment-born-nor-not- nutriment-born'. That born from temperature is 'temperature-born'; that born from a condition other than that is 'not-temperature-born'; that not born from anything is 'neither-temperature-born- nor-not-temperature-born'. Pali: 75. kammajaadittikavasena pana kammato jaata.m kammaja.m, tada~n~napaccayajaata.m akammaja.m, nakutocijaata.m neva kammaja.m naakammaja.m. cittato jaata.m cittaja.m, tada~n~napaccayajaata.m acittaja.m, nakutocijaata.m neva cittaja.m naacittaja.m, aahaarato jaata.m aahaaraja.m, tada~n~napaccayajaata.m anaahaaraja.m, nakutocijaata.m neva aahaaraja.m naanaahaaraja.m. ututo jaata.m utuja.m, tada~n~napaccayajaata.m anutuja.m, nakutocijaata.m neva utuja.m naanutujanti eva.m kammajaadittikavasena tividha.m. Intro to Vis 75: This is again a different classification of all rupas. It reminds us that past kamma that has fallen away keeps on producing the sense-bases of eye, etc. which are faculties (leaders in their own field), and the other faculties. Nobody can make them arise, they depend on kamma. We are reminded of the other causes that produce rupas of the body, and only the four characteristics inherent in all rupas are not produced by any of the four causes. We read: what was born, what is born and what will be born, also all that is called kamma-born. Kamma produced rupas of the body in the past, and will do so in the future and it does at this very moment. What U Narada wrote in his Introduction to the translation of Dhåtu-Kathå, an Abhidhamma text (PTS:Discourse on Elements) can be applied to rupas, these are only elements. We read: “The elements are not permanently present. They arise to exhibit their own characteristic natures and perform their own characteristic functions when the proper conditions are satisfied, and they cease after their span of duration. Thus no being has any control over the arising and ceasing of the elements and they are not at his mercy or will however mighty and powerful he may be. In other words, the elements have no regard for anyone, show no favour to anyone and do not accede to the wishes of anyone. They are entirely dependent on conditions.² Tiika, Vis 75: Kammato jaatanti ettha ya.m ekantakammasamu.t.thaana.m a.t.thindriyaani *, As to kamma-born these are here the eight faculties which are solely originated by kamma, hadaya~ncaati navavidha.m ruupa.m, and with the heart(base) they are thus nine kinds of materiality, ya~nca navavidhe catusamu.t.thaane kammasamu.t.thaana.m navavidhameva ruupanti eva.m a.t.thaarasavidhampi kammato uppajjanato kammaja.m. and besides, among the nine kinds of materiality originated by the four causes, there are nine kinds originated by kamma **, and what is kamma-born materiality is thus also eighteen kinds, since they have arisen because of kamma. Ya~nhi jaata~nca ya~nca jaayati ya~nca jaayissati, What was born, what is born and what will be born, ta.m sabbampi ³kammajan²ti vuccati yathaa duddhanti. also all that is called kamma-born... Tada~n~napaccayajaatanti kammato a~n~napaccayato jaata.m utucittaahaaraja.m. As to the expression, born from a condition other than that, this means, born from a condition other than kamma, namely, temperature, consciousness and nutrition. Nakutocijaatanti lakkha.naruupamaaha. As to the expression, not born from anything, he said that these are the material phenomena as characteristics ***. Vi~n~nattidvaya.m, saddo, aakaasadhaatu, lahutaadittaya.m cittasamu.t.thaanaani avinibbhogaruupaaniiti eta.m pa~ncadasavidha.m ruupa.m cittaja.m. The pair of intimation, sound, the element of space **** , the triad of lightness, are originated by citta, and with the inseparable rupas there are thus fifteen kinds born of consciousness. Aakaasadhaatu, lahutaadittaya.m, aahaarasamu.t.thaanaani avinibbhogaruupaaniiti eta.m dvaadasavidha.m ruupa.m aahaaraja.m. The element of space and the triad of lightness etc. are originated by nutrition, and together with the inseparable rupas there are thus twelve kinds originated by nutrition. Ettha sadda.m pakkhipitvaa terasavidha.m ruupa.m ututo samu.t.thita.m utuja.m. Here sound is included and thus thirteen kinds of materiality originated by nutrition are materiality born of nutrition. Sesa.m kammajatike vuttanayaanusaareneva veditabba.m. The remaining part should be understood in accordance with what is said with regard to the triad of kamma *****. ***** English: As to kamma-born these are here the eight faculties which are solely originated by kamma, and with the heart(base) they are thus nine kinds of materiality, and besides, among the nine kinds of materiality originated by the four causes, there are nine kinds originated by kamma **, and what is kamma-born materiality is thus also eighteen kinds, since they have arisen because of kamma. What was born, what is born and what will be born, also all that is called kamma-born... As to the expression, born from a condition other than that, this means, born from a condition other than kamma, namely, temperature, consciousness and nutrition. As to the expression, not born from anything, he said that these are the material phenomena as characteristics ***. The pair of intimation, sound, the element of space **** , the triad of lightness, are originated by citta, and with the inseparable rupas there are thus fifteen kinds born of consciousness. The element of space and the triad of lightness etc. are originated by nutrition, and together with the inseparable rupas there are thus twelve kinds originated by nutrition. Here sound is included and thus thirteen kinds of materiality originated by nutrition are materiality born of nutrition. The remaining part should be understood in accordance with what is said with regard to the triad of kamma *****. _________ * the eight faculties of eyesense, earsense, smelling-sense, tasting-sense, bodysense, life-faculty, femininity, masculinity. ** The four causes of kamma, citta, temperature (utu) and nutrition. The rupas dealt with here are sometimes originated by kamma, sometimes by one of the three other causes. These rupas are: the eight inseparable rupas and space. When originated by kamma the inseparable rupas arise in a group of at least nine rupas, including life-faculty that is solely originated by kamma. As to space: this delimits the groups of rupas originated by the four causes, arising and falling away together with them. Thus, space is reckoned as originated by the four causes. *** The characteristics of origination, continuity, decay and impermanence. This is explained in Vis. XIV, 80. **** åkåsa dhåtu, the word dhåtu is used to show that it is a paramattha dhamma, not a concept. ***** The triad of consciousness-born, not-consciousness born, neither consciousness-born-nor-not-consciousness-born. As to the second one, born from a condition other than consciousness, namely, kamma, temperature, and nutrition. As to the last one of this triad, this is again the four characteristics of all materiality. The same with the triads of temperature and of food. **** Nina. 32460 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 3:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'ocean of concepts' Hi Larry and Howard, op 23-04-2004 23:38 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Which is more meaningful to you, the thought "feeling is impermanent" or > simply attending to feeling? the thought "body is not self" or simply > attending to hardness? N: When we read the satipatthanasutta we are reminded of the impermanence of body and feelings in many different ways. For example, we read the corpse in different states of falling apart. This can bring us back to reality now, and that is the purpose of all the four satipatthanas. We have to develop understanding of the different rupas the body consists of, they are only elements, their characteristics exhibit themselves. Hardness appears now, but there is also the nama that experiences it. The arising and falling away of one rupa and one nama at a time can only be realized when insight is developed. As often repeated here, you have to know first rupa as rupa and nama as nama, you have to distinguish their different characteristics. Much patience is needed to develop insight, we cannot realize impermanence immediately. Thinking about how impermanent the body is is quite different from insight, vipassana panna, that realizes the arising and falling away of nama and rupa through the mind-door. As to attending to feeling and body, we have to remember that only when sati and panna, sati-sampajanna, arise, there can be right attention to the nama or rupa that appears. This is not a matter of focussing or concentration. When intellectual understanding is right, there are conditions for sati to be aware precisely of the characteristic that appears, so that understanding of it develops. Howard, the fourth satipatthana will be your subject now. The five khandhas, the hindrances, factors of enlightenment etc. We read about them in the satipatthanasutta, and again the purpose is to bring us back to reality now. The five khandhas, nama and rupa, appear now. The hindrances such as lobha and dosa, they all appear now in our daily life. They can be realized as just dhammas, seeing dhamma in dhamma, not seeing the self in them. Citta, cetasika and rupa, paramattha dhammas, they are in us and everywhere in our surroundings, if we could only see that they appear in daily life at this moment. If we could only let ourselves be reminded of them in whatever circumstances we are. Then we can profit to the full of the Dhamma we learnt. We do not have to be distracted by daily life, on the contrary! Paramattha dhammas, that is Abhidhamma. Satipatthana is the application of Abhidhamma. Wishing you a fruitful retreat, Nina. 32461 From: Eznir Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 3:55am Subject: Re: Video Games? Dear Sukin, Sukin: :-) I just wrote to you that my knowledge of Abhidhamma, i.e. the technical details, is quite low. I don't know the answer to your second question above. :-( But I don't have any urgent need to find out……… eznir: Don't you think it necessary that the Teachings will first have to be read and understood properly (in a conventional manner!) so as to gain a reflective acceptance of the Teachings before taking any approach to The Dhamma? Even the word "approach" in the preceding sentence implies action, let alone the whole of the Tripitaka which is full of words of this nature! Sukin: , because as far as I am concerned, if the perception and mindfulness is not of a paramattha dhamma, then whatever else is perceived is `not real'. eznir: How often do you think that you will get to know when you have the perception and mindfulness of a paramattha dhamma? For example, let's say that there are a billion thought moments that occur for a second at the end of which one comes to know that what one has sighted, say, is an Apple. According to the Abhidhamma, when processing an object from one of the sense doors, the Javana thought moments start from the 9th to the 15th thought moment. Therefore the kind of "perception and mindfulness" of a paramattha dhamma that you refer(since you don't deal with concepts) occurs for only upto the 8th billionth of a second, in this case. Because in the 9th billionth of a second the Javana thought process starts. And this is supposed to happen repeatedly till you come to know what the object is. It is in this javana thought process that you will be processing what your sense- door received. These `ideas' are not my concepts, it is in the Abhidhamma(except the assumption of the thought rate per second as a billion). Now I leave the rest of the analysis upto you. Mind you, the Javana thought process is already karmically effective. So whether you understood your approach or not, non-active or otherwise, you are on "active" mode! The javana thought process is functional only in Arahats. Sukin: I classify this as concept, this may be a wrong term, but I am not sure. eznir: "I classify this as concept, this may be a wrong term, but I am not sure". Don't you think you are groping in the dark, like the blind, when there is the Lord Buddha's Teachings for guidance? The Abhidhamma is a Teaching of Ultimate Truth and only the commentaries in it can be discussed. But the Sutta provides an avenue to understand "Abhidhamma", the higher Dhamma, which is profound and so difficult to see! Sukin: Also if there is any sense experience, by the time I realize it, it is a `thought' about what has just been experienced. eznir: Exactly! This cannot be avoided. And if we are to see the difference between "sense experience" and "`thought' about what has just been experienced" we cannot operate on a "normal" level. We have to "crossover" to a different domain altogether, one that is not subjected to time & space. This is where formal meditational practice becomes useful. Unless of course, if one has lots of paramis to one's credit. We come across in the suttas where just by listening to the Dhamma, Bhikkus attain Noble states! Sukin: So I am dealing with only shadows, even though there may not be any labeling and that other experiences occur before there is any recognition. eznir: Whatever it is that you deal with is karmically effective. Therefore Javana thought moments are involved. Hence you must know whether it is akusala or kusala. If akusala it(shadows) must be abandoned. If kusala you must know what the "shadows" are, for there is no kusala citta with not-knowing! If you are not sure of what the shadow is but think it is some positive sign of progress, then you must repeatedly deal with this "shadow" and get to know its characteristics. Now all that is said here involves concepts, and if you are fighting shy of concepts………………:-/ Sukin: As above, I believe the cittas dart amongst not only realities, but alternately, the signs and details, before any apparent `thing' becomes arammana and this is before recognition and labeling. And those signs and details may not be paramattha dhammas, and most likely informed by akusala cittas. What do you think? eznir: Consciousness(citta) is never without an object(arammana). So your statememt "cittas dart amongst not only realities, but alternately, the signs and details, *BEFORE* any apparent `thing' becomes arammana" is a mis-statement. Consciousness always arises with namarupa(Vinnana paccaya namarupa) according to the Suttas. In the Abhidhamma one may understand it as Consciousness and mental states (cetasikas). Therefore, the "arammana" may be gross, which is when you would have come to know as an object here, when you said "any apparent `thing' becomes arammana". Or it may be subtle, as when "the cittas dart amongst not only realities, but alternately, the signs and details". For the citta to "dart amongst realities and signs and details" their must be subtle forms(colour, shape), perceptions, feelings, intentions involved, until one comes to know the object *proper*. And what are these "realities", "signs and details"? It is said that our eye retains an image in its retina for 1/25th of a second. So perhaps till one comes to the final conclusion that "this is an apple", say, the thought process operate between eye-sense door and mind-door and refers to the past memories of what one has of an apple or a-round-shaped-red-object". Perhaps if one has eaten one before one may even feel the saliva that comes to the mouth at the sight of one. If one is penniless and hungry one may even see the thought to steal the apple. Now these are real "events" that one may experience, if one is mindfull. "And those signs and details may not be paramattha dhammas,". I could give a conditional answer here, Yes & No. Yes, because it is said in the Abhidhamma that the Paramattha Dhammas are Matter, Consciousness, Mental States and Nibbana. Now, Matter, Consciousness and Mental States, these three constitute the *All*, everything that is experienced. In the Suttas it is said that there is nothing outside of the 5 aggregates (matter, feeling, perception, formations and consciousness, the same paramatthas as in Abhiddhamma) that can be experienced. And also says that in brief this 5 aggregates is suffering. Now these are not my ideas but what is stated in the Suttas and Abhidhamma. So if one sees this with the eye of wisdom then the answer is "Yes". But the worldling doesn't see it this way. He sees a self, hence the answer is "No". Perhaps an illustration would help here.(This is just to give a perspective view of things.) Say there is a funnel, one end is wide and the other narrow(obviously :-)). A worldling (puthujjana) sees this funnel from the narrow end. Hence what he sees is the *outside* of the funnel. His views are diversified as his eyes travel towards the wide end of the funnel. He conceives "self" in four different ways with each of the 5- aggregates, ie 20 in all, hence the diversification. A trainee(sekha) sees this funnel from the wide end towards the narrow end. Hence what he sees is the *inside* of the funnel. Therefore the Trainee "funnels" down, so to speak, sees all his experience, converging into the 5-aggregates, as stemming from this 5- aggregates. An Arahat(asekha) has no need of this "funnel", he has got rid of the stem altogether. He "has" Nibbana, the *only* Ultimate Truth. "……and most likely informed by akusala cittas. What do you think?" If you understood what is given above you wouldn't worry about akusala cittas. Because, you see akusala cittas as akusala cittas (refer Bala- pandita Sutta SN XII.19). (Note also in the Satipatthana Sutta even the akusala cittas(hindrances) are taken into account. In fact the whole gamut of experience is included.) Being mindful in this way, you are no more *subjected* to akusala cittas. Then by applying the 4- fold effort one develops the other path factors(easier said than done, though! :-)). Metta eznir --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Dear Eznir, > > Metta, > Sukin 32462 From: Eznir Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 4:26am Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Dear Sarah, S: I understand you to be referring to the sequence of cittas in a mind-door process and the fact that the javana cittas occur just before the tadarammana or registration consciousness at the end of the process. S: As I understand, there are a multitude of mind-door processes occurring before there is any recognizing or naming. eznir: False. There are a multitude of mind-door processes occurring *for the purposes* of cognizing, and not *before* cognizing. *And then* *for the purpose* of naming, and not *before* naming. By which time there is *recognizing*. The point I'm driving at here is that when a discussion gets down to the level of thought moments, precision is required. In fact, in matters of Dhamma, being specific, trains ones mind to see the details in what one reads or sees. S: So as Sukin was suggesting, there are many mind-door processes long before there is any idea of naming or thinking in words when the sense object is just marked and the details attended to. eznir: I reproduce here the relevant potion of the dialogue in question by Sukin to James in post# , "In my own case, by the time there is even any awareness of an experience, be it through the sense or mind door, it is always already concept, long before any recognizing or naming." This is not what you say above. As I understand the proper sequence for the recognition of an object as say, an Apple, would be (1)*cognizing* the object, (2)naming the object, (3)and recognizing the object as a whole as, "this is an apple"(just a simplification!). This would explain why, sometimes, we do remember faces(or the thing) but not the name of the person(or the thing) or vice-versa. Which would mean that the naming and cognizing are two different aspects of the same object.(nama & rupa?) S: In a single mind-door process, the cittas, with the assistance of sa~n~na and other mental factors, will take the same concept as object. I'm not sure we can refer to concepts being `fabricated' by the javana cittas. Remember that only sankhara (i.e conditioned) dhammas are sankhata (formed up), not concepts. eznir: The computer in front of you is fabricated(in both sense of the word, as in assembled and sankharic formations(conditioned thing) or sankhata dhamma)? In fact, long before it came to be there it would have been a mere thought in the mind of the person who invented it, at which time it was a mere concept. Imagine the amount of javana cittas that would have been rolling in his mind then, sleepless nights thinking about it, till finally it materialized. In fact, everything that has been invented would just have been the same, a figment of the imagination of some genius(or idiot :-))! All things are mere sankharas in the mind. S: However, it is true that it is during these javana cittas that the object (in this case a concept) is attended to with various mental states such as attachment, aversion, wrong view or wholesome states. S: in an ultimate sense there is no one in the NAG to do or not do anything;-) eznir: Well said! But how do we realize this without concepts! S: Attaining stream-entry depends on the development of the eightfold path factors led by right understanding. These factors can never be developed by understanding of concepts, but only by understanding the conditioned dhammas, the namas and rupas appearing now as not-self. This is the same for all, regardless of any Group we may be categorized as being in;-). eznir: In the outset, before going further, please let me know what you mean or understand by "concepts" as against "namas and rupas" as given in your statement, "These factors can never be developed by understanding of *concepts*, but only by understanding the conditioned dhammas, the *namas and rupas* appearing now as not-self." "Attaining stream-entry depends on the development of the eightfold path factors led by right understanding." No. There is something even before that stage, ie., attaining stream-entry depends on *listening to the dhamma with **wise attention**.(Refer Anguttara Nikaya, unable to locate the sutta) "These factors can never be developed by understanding of concepts…" I say that there is *nothing*, that one can develop without conceptualizing! Unless one is aspiring to become a Buddha! In which case one is a "trail blazer"! Even then one's objectives are achieved by *trial & error*, and that too over a period of eons! And still the Buddha is only re-discovering what has been discovered before by those before him! The point is that unless one is aspiring to become a Buddha one has to learn through concepts. Coming back to the issue of learning through concepts. Recollect how we learnt our mother tongue.:-/. Perhaps, most of us can't, but we do have children and we do remember how they learnt the mother tongue. How? While saying it with words we *acted out* the meaning of it. Please don't take me literally, but this is the general nature of how we imparted the language to our children. Eventually, an observant healthy child, picks up fast and he becomes proficient in the language, *first-hand*! Hence the notion of the *second-language*! Because we learn the second-language through our mother-tongue(the first-language). Please note that what is significant here is that we are learning the second-language(concept) through a first-language(concept). But we also learnt the mother-tongue(concept) direct from our parents *who behaved in a conventional manner while imparting the language to us*!! Now, at this point, let me proceed in two directions. (1) Imagine Ven. Sariputta was our "mother" and Ven. Moggallana was our "father" (refer MN- )imparting the language of the Dhamma to us. Then, our approach to the Dhamma would, more or less, be the "non- active" way. Why? Because our *parents* "act out" the Dhamma(they are living examples of the dhamma), words are superfluous, we live amongst them. Opportunitites for sati-sampajjana(mindfulness and awareness) to arise are great. We watch and learn. But yet concepts are involved, since *our parents* can still only point the way, it's upto us to understand what is meant and tread on the path shown. (2) Unfortunately we are living in a so called "developed" world. And those like the Ven. Sariputta and Moggallana are few and far between! So we have to learn the Dhamma as a "second-language"! This brings me to the point of "listening to the dhamma with wise attention" raised earlier by me. Let me quote the Abhidhamma here: "By following the sound of speech through the process of auditory consciousness and then by means of *the concept conceived* by mind- door that subsequently arises, *are meanings understood*." Now I do not know how you would understand the *meaning* of this particular section on Concepts in Abhidhamma(Chapter 8 – Pannati) given above *without* using concepts! Now let's come to the issue at hand. You said "These factors(eight- fold path) can never be developed by understanding of concepts". I wonder how one *develops* the eight-fold path without first having understood what the meaning of the eight-fold-path is! And that too without using Concepts!*$# :-( I could go into a theoretical analyses, thought moment by thought moment, and prove that you are mistaken, but please spare me the effort, I am exhausted! Moreover it is impossible to go to the minutest detail over a post! Nevertheless, a non-active approach to the Dhamma is possible, subject to a suitable environment with the limitation given above and lots of *paramis* to your credit! But time is limited! S: On your other post to me about the essence of sankhara, I get your gist All references are to conditioned dhammas only, but we need to be clear on the context, I think. eznir: If you got the gist then you wouldn't conclude by saying "we need to be clear on the context, I think". Because that is the very point that I was addressing in that post! Metta eznir --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Eznir, Jack, Howard & All, > > Metta, > > Sarah > ===== > > > 32463 From: Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 0:51am Subject: Causes & Conditions Versus Rules & Rituals Hi, all - At times, folks here have spoken of silabatta-paramasa (attachment to rules and rituals), citing such a thing as formal meditation as an example of a rule or ritual. Now, there is such a thing as rules and rituals - it can be any activity that is carried out in ignorance of what it is that the activity actually serves as condition for. An activity that trains one for wrestling, would be pretty much a mere rule or ritual if carried out as preparation for a karate competion. An activity that calms the mind would be mere rule or ritual if carried out with the expectation of it alone producing liberation. But if the wrestling training is carried out for the purpose of being a better wrestler, and if samatha meditation is carried out for the purpose of calming and concentrating the mind, then one is not engaging in rule or ritual. Actions, together with cooperating conditions, have specific sorts of consequences, and it is misapplication of actions due to ignorance that constitutes adherence to rules and rituals. What leads me to think about this is the excellent sutta posted on another list that I copy at the end of this post, a sutta which I think nicely distinguishes reliance on rules and rituals from proper recognition of conditionality. (The sutta can be found on ATI at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn42-006.html) With metta, Howard ____________________________________ Samyutta Nikaya XLII.6 Paccha-bhumika Sutta [Brahmans] of the Western Land Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. For free distribution only. On one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Nalanda in the Pavarika Mango Grove. Then Asibandhakaputta the headman went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "The brahmans of the Western lands, lord -- those who carry water pots, wear garlands of water plants, purify with water, & worship fire -- can take [the spirit of] a dead person, lift it out, instruct it, & send it to heaven. But the Blessed One, worthy & rightly self-awakened, can arrange it so that all the world, at the break-up of the body, after death, reappears in a good destination, the heavenly world." "Very well, then, headman, I will question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: There is the case where a man is one who takes life, steals, indulges in illicit sex; is a liar, one who speaks divisive speech, harsh speech, & idle chatter; is greedy, bears thoughts of ill-will, & holds to wrong views. Then a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart [saying,] 'May this man, at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world!' What do you think: would that man -- because of the prayers, praise, & circumambulation of that great crowd of people -- at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world?" "No, lord." "Suppose a man were to throw a large boulder into a deep lake of water, and a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart [saying,] 'Rise up, O boulder! Come floating up, O boulder! Come float to the shore, O boulder!' What do you think: would that boulder -- because of the prayers, praise, & circumambulation of that great crowd of people -- rise up, come floating up, or come float to the shore?" "No, lord." "So it is with any man who takes life, steals, indulges in illicit sex; is a liar, one who speaks divisive speech, harsh speech, & idle chatter; is greedy, bears thoughts of ill-will, & holds to wrong views. Even though a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart -- [saying,] 'May this man, at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world!' -- still, at the break-up of the body, after death, he would reappear in destitution, a bad destination, the lower realms, hell. "Now what do you think: There is the case where a man is one who refrains from taking life, from stealing, & from indulging in illicit sex; he refrains from lying, from speaking divisive speech, from harsh speech, & from idle chatter; he is not greedy, bears no thoughts of ill-will, & holds to right view. Then a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart [saying,] 'May this man, at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in destitution, a bad destination, the lower realms, hell!' What do you think: would that man -- because of the prayers, praise, & circumambulation of that great crowd of people -- at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in destitution, a bad destination, the lower realms, hell?" "No, lord." "Suppose a man were to throw a jar of ghee or a jar of oil into a deep lake of water, where it would break. There the shards & jar-fragments would go down, while the ghee or oil would come up. Then a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart [saying,] 'Sink, O ghee/oil! Submerge, O ghee/oil! Go down, O ghee/oil!' What do you think: would that ghee/oil, because of the prayers, praise, & circumambulation of that great crowd of people sink, submerge, or go down?" "No, lord." "So it is with any man who refrains from taking life, from stealing, & from indulging in illicit sex; refrains from lying, from speaking divisive speech, from harsh speech, & from idle chatter; is not greedy, bears no thoughts of ill-will, & holds to right view. Even though a great crowd of people, gathering & congregating, would pray, praise, & circumambulate with their hands palm-to-palm over the heart -- [saying,] 'May this man, at the break-up of the body, after death, reappear in a destitution, a bad destination, the lower realms, hell!' -- still, at the break-up of the body, after death, he would reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world." When this was said, Asibandhakaputta the headman said to the Blessed One: "Magnificent, lord! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to point out the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has the Blessed One -- through many lines of reasoning -- made the Dhamma clear. I go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the Dhamma, & to the community of monks. May the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge from this day forward, for life." /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) 32464 From: Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'ocean of concepts' Hi, Nina - In a message dated 4/24/04 6:25:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > Howard, the fourth satipatthana will be your subject now. The five > khandhas, > the hindrances, factors of enlightenment etc. We read about them in the > satipatthanasutta, and again the purpose is to bring us back to reality now. > The five khandhas, nama and rupa, appear now. The hindrances such as lobha > and dosa, they all appear now in our daily life. They can be realized as > just dhammas, seeing dhamma in dhamma, not seeing the self in them. > Citta, cetasika and rupa, paramattha dhammas, they are in us and everywhere > in our surroundings, if we could only see that they appear in daily life at > this moment. If we could only let ourselves be reminded of them in whatever > circumstances we are. Then we can profit to the full of the Dhamma we > learnt. We do not have to be distracted by daily life, on the contrary! > Paramattha dhammas, that is Abhidhamma. Satipatthana is the application of > Abhidhamma. > Wishing you a fruitful retreat, > Nina. > ====================== Thanks very much, Nina. Much appreciated! 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) 32465 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 5:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati Sutta (was, satipatthanasutta) Jack I agree that it's a good idea to drop a thread when one feels it has gone as far as it usefully can. I won't respond any further at this stage. I've enjoyed talking to you on this. No doubt the subject will come up again later;-)) Jon --- Jackhat1@a... wrote: > Jon, > > I think I will bow out of this discussion. I have addressed most of your > points to the best of my ability in previous posts. This sutta to me is deep but > very straightforward. I think you are making something difficult out of > something straightforward. This sutta to me is describing a series of steps that one > can follow in one's practice to reach enlightenment. In other > teachings, the > Buddha described other methods emphasizing other aspects of > practice. If one > believes these two points as I do, your questions aren't relevant. > If one believes as you do, they are. ... 32466 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 5:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > > But what you said in your previous post was, > > "when direct looking is practiced along with clear comprehension of > > what one actually experiences", > > and there you clearly assign to 'direct looking' quite a > different > > role and function. Have you had a change of heart? ;-)). > > > > Jon > > > ======================== > I have no problem with replacing "looking" by "seeing". To look (in > the sense of "to attend"), of course, implies intention, and I'm aware that > makes you uneasy! ;-) > > With metta, > Howard Your concern for my ease of mind is much appreciated, Howard ;-)). However, even if 'looking' is replaced by 'seeing', I would still question the resulting statement, namely, "when direct seeing is practiced along with clear comprehension of what one actually experiences". To my understanding, 'clear comprehension of what is actually experienced' and 'direct seeing (of dhammas)' are one and the same thing, and either one could be used to summarize what the Buddha described in some detail in the Satipatthana Sutta. As to how this clear comprehension occurs, I would say not by 'practising direct seeing', since no matter what you call it such seeing cannot be other than a kind of looking, and there is a problem here in that without understanding in the first place the looking doesn’t know what to look at/for. Dhammas can be seen directly only when they are seen with clear comprehension. This is the conundrum of the 'practice', the developpment of the path. The key to this conundrum as stated by the Buddha on many occasions is association with the right person(s), (with this leading to) hearing the teachings expressed appropriately for us, (with this leading to) reflection on the teachings as they apply to the present moment. These are the catalysts for (initially weak) moments of clear comprehension of what is experienced. Jon PS All the best for your birthday tomorrow and for your day-long retreat. Perhaps you'll find yourself pondering on some of the issues we discuss here;-)). Or perhaps not. As Sukin says, conditions rule! 32467 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 6:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Nina and Lodewijk --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Jonothan, ... > N: He finds it very difficult > when A. Sujin answers with the example of seeing now or dhamma > now. Lodewijk, this is to be expected when we hear things that (a) are beyond our immediate ability to appreciate fully, and (b) don’t provide the kind of 'comfortable' explanation of things we'd like to hear. Actually, 'seeing now' and 'dhammas now' are just the kind of things the Buddha talked about, and for those ready to hear it it was a condition for enlightenment rather than frustration. If it's any comfort to you, most people who hear about seeing now and dhammas now react with dosa of some form or another, and that includes myself. As far as I can tell, very few people who hear this message are able to accept it without resistance. Those of us who are fortunate somehow know that its worth persevering with, and stick around. The majority go for a more comfortable option, i.e., something more in line with their existing view of things (although some of these find their way back again. As I think you know, one of the present regulars at the English discussion is a former colleague of mine from my Bangkok days who came along to a talk about 25 years ago but didn't appreciate what she heard at the time, and followed other practices for 20 years or so until finally realising the value in what she had heard all those years ago). ... > N: We need guidance of the suttas but also of the Abhidhamma. > Otherwise we > do not learn about the fine distinctions between different moments such as > kusala dhammas and akusala dhammas. And if we do not know anything about > processes of cittas (I do not mean all details) we have no idea how and when > there can be awareness of even akusala dhammas. How the > characteristic of > akusala can still appear to the sati and panna when it has just > fallen away. > Kusala cannot arise at the same time as akusala but, cittas succeed one > another so fast, and this makes it understandable that there can be > awareness of akusala. Through the Abhidhamma we learn more about conditions > (I do not mean we have to study all details), and this is of > immense benefit > for the understanding of anatta, no possessor, no self who can > manipulate anything. Nina, I agree with all this. There is much that is left unsaid in the suttas (for example, the teaching on dependent origination is very difficult to unravel), yet all the necessary material to fill the gaps can be found in the Abhidhamma and the commentaries to the suttas. We are doing ourselves no favour by relying on our own intuition or the views of others that are not based on the ancient texts. Of course, we don't need to study the Abhidhamma *as Abhidhamma*, we can just can use it as a source of reference for our study of the suttas. I have been most fortunate in learning so much about the Abhidhamma without realising at the time that I was doing so (thanks mostly to your writings and of course to the way A. Sujin explains things). Jon 32468 From: Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 2:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 4/24/04 8:43:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > PS All the best for your birthday tomorrow and for your day-long > retreat. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Thanks, Jon! ---------------------------------------- Perhaps you'll find yourself pondering on some of the> > issues we discuss here;-)). Or perhaps not. --------------------------------------- Howard: Very probably yes. ---------------------------------------- As Sukin says,> > conditions rule! > --------------------------------------- Howard: And I agree with this, provided one doesn't exclude intention from conditions. ==================== With metta, Howard P.S. I've taken up studying U Narada's "Guide to Conditional Relations" once again. Perversely, I have a far easier time with the material of the Patthana than the Dhammasangani! ;-) Perhaps this is influenced by my inclination towards impersonality (anattata) and insubstantiality (su~n~nata). One happy fact is that in the course of studying relations among phenomena one picks up along the way details of the related phenomena to some extent, and so, for me, the spoonful of conditional-relations sugar makes the analytic medicine go down! ;-)) /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) 32469 From: Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 2:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi again, Jon - In a message dated 4/24/04 9:19:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > All the best for your birthday tomorrow ====================== And to you, the day after! :-) 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) 32470 From: Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 2:40am Subject: Corrected Reply Hi again, Jon - In a message dated 4/24/04 9:19:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, YOU (not I) wrote: > All the best for your birthday tomorrow ====================== And to you, the day after! :-) 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) 32471 From: Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 4:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati Sutta (was, satipatthanasutta) In a message dated 4/24/04 5:30:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: I agree that it's a good idea to drop a thread when one feels it has gone as far as it usefully can. I won't respond any further at this stage. I've enjoyed talking to you on this. No doubt the subject will come up again later;-)) Jon, And I've enjoyed talking with you. Be well. Jack 32472 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 9:48am Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi Victor, > As far as I see, the "NAGs" fall into the first sectarian guild: > > "There are priests & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold > this view: 'Whatever a person experiences -- pleasant, painful, or > neither pleasant nor painful -- that is all caused by what was done > in the past.' > > For the "NAGs", there is no desire, no effort [at the > thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' Can we say first of all that there *is* `action' all the time regardless of whether or not we believe in deliberate effort and whether or not there is any understanding at the time? That being the case, then the important thing would be to determine if indeed the citta is kusala or akusala, with right understanding or with wrong understanding? Now if we are to some degree familiar with our own citta and have any estimation of the akusala tendencies, then we may know that the "should" that we identify with is from `not knowing', avijja. If there is any understanding at the moment about the conditioned nature of a reality, it is just that. If there is sati, there is sati, if akusala is seen, it is seen. If there is samvegha, this can be followed by any citta, with or without panna. If kusala chanda is conditioned, well and good, if not, then what should be done? Should we be propelled by an `idea'? Such identification with cetana may be with self-view, and this is blind to the present reality. The danger is that if this is not recognized, then akusala will be mistaken for kusala and wrong understanding for right. And this accumulates, and we have adopted a `wrong practice'. When there is any understanding, whether during satipatthana or wise reflection, this is already "right effort" of some level and a kusala kammapattha has already been performed. Is there any need to do more? Would panna seek more of anything if it sees in the moment that nothing can be caused to arise by will?( I know you don't agree with this.) And when there is panna, is there also not a hint of where one is at and the understanding that only through much practice will the goal be reached? Does this not imply that there is much work to be done? But this of course doesn't mean that one should follow one's projections and/or a practice which one believes will take one there. Lobha and avijja may be ruling here. One is seeking more of something and may think that the `intention to do' is consequent of understanding. But is it? On the other hand, not hindered by any ambition for `self', there may be a level of `right effort', which perhaps looks not so to someone who has wrongly identified this factor with `intending' and `doing' something, for e.g. formal practice. Would panna opt `doing' something instead of 'understanding' the present moment, even though that activity promises more understanding as a result? Or is this more likely to be consequent of wrong view? Victor, on the level of stories, while driving Azita back to her hotel today, she told me about how after meeting Phra Dhammadaro (who was a student of K. Sujin) more than 20 years ago, that she remained in Thailand for another year and during that time she went *every* evening to listen to him speak about dhamma. Now is that not some "effort" involved? Only I think in her case, she was not identifying what she was doing with `right practice', but there was some real kusala chanda I think, to seek more understanding. So surely, things are being done with the understanding of what is right and what is wrong. And this is with chanda, viriya and cetana along with the other cetasikas. Only what is perceived as wrong, particularly self-view and wrong effort, happens to be what you see as right effort and right practice. Regarding your quote above: "Whatever a person experiences -- pleasant, painful, or neither pleasant nor painful -- that is all caused by what was done in the past." One of the first distinctions any student of Abhidhamma makes is the difference between kamma and vipaka. And this I believe is more productive of `right efforts' than any `deliberate' practice which may or may not take into account this distinction. This has very deep implications I think. > They can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be > done. Is the association of the above with NAG based upon your understanding of what *should* be done? Because I don't think the Buddha would accuse us NAGs of such a thing. ;-) > The very view "The point is that the very idea of `doing it' is > contradictory to my understanding of the conditioned nature of > realities" reflects that. I hope what I wrote above has helped to clarify my position. Metta, Sukin. 32473 From: Larry Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'ocean of concepts' Hi Nina, I don't disagree with what you wrote in reply but I'm not sure of what your answer is to my question, "What is more meaningful for you, the thought 'feeling is impermanent' or simply attending to feeling." I wanted you to pick one or the other. Larry 32474 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:54am Subject: Christine: how about? Dear Christine, How is Achaan Jose? We often think of him. How was your dog on your return? I liked the description of his aversion when you went. Typical. What was your impression about the sessions in Bgk? I hope you found them useful. What impressed you most? Nina. 32475 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Dear Rob M, Thank you for your interesting analysis. I just like to add a few remarks. At the end you say: process (from eye-consciousness to feeling) evolved into an active > involvement of the observer (perception to mentally proliferates) and > now the mental proliferation takes control of the observer.> I would say: from the beginning to the end the processes are impersonal, they roll on because of conditions. Passive and active if you like, but we have to be careful lest misunderstandings arise. People may think of an observer before we know! As to sense-door and mind-door in between the mind-door processes there are sense-door processes as well. These fall into the stream. I also think that Ledi S. stresses too much: afterward this and then after that the object is defined. We cannot count, and again, there are sense-door processes again in between. He may define a rose, but again colour impinges, and again! You see, I do not think so much of a specific order. As I understood, during the stages of insight the sense-door processes and mind-door processes are not counted at all. Too fast and too many of them. There is no time. In Cambodia A. Sujin explained that there can also be satipatthana in a sense-door process. Because it is all so fast. Just some loose remarks. Nina. > The object is no longer the initial rupa nor the feeling that arose; > the object is now a concept with layer upon layer being added by > subsequent mind door processes as "thinking about" occurs. 32476 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Robber Guests Dear Connie, This is wonderful, thank you very much, also for the Pali. And the last one about lobha as teacher and as pupil: it never goes away. I was looking for this one for some time but could not find it. thanks very much, Nina. op 23-04-2004 21:06 schreef connie op nichicon@h...: > the Antevasika Sutta (quoted at Nm 362, 469): > Monks, this holy life is lived without students and without a teacher > (anantevasika. ida. bhikkhave brahmacariya. vussati anacariyaka.). A > monk who has students and a teacher dwells in suffering, not in comfort. > A monk who has no students and no teacher dwells happily, in comfort. 32477 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 0:49pm Subject: [dsg] Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > Hi Rob Ep > > What a long letter, its been a long time I have seen you in DSG. Good > to hear from you. Are you still doing Zen meditation? > > > > Ken O Hi Ken! Thanks for saying hello. Actually, to be honest, I haven't been doing a lot of meditation in this period of my life. I have found it difficult to put aside the time. I do try to practice some awareness of breath and the nature of the mind's formations in daily life, which I guess is a bit more in line with some of the practitioners here. Where I differ is that I think that meditation greatly deepens the ability to discern realities, and I look forward to adding it to my informal practice. I would like to read more Sutta as well. At the moment I have carved out a little discipline that relates more to the physical, as my doctor ordered me to get off fats and do 30 minutes exercise a day. So I have been very steady for some months about doing either a 'yoga workout' or a run through the local zoo every morning and I must say I feel physically much better. I also lost 18 pounds and feel a bit like my "old self" again, although that is of course nonexistent! ; ) When I do practice meditation, I have been practicing basic vipassana style meditation for the last decade or two most of the time; that is: following the breath as a central focus and then observing whatever mental or emotional content arises in the mind without either following or rejecting it. I have found it a very congenial, if basic, practice of mindfulness. It is a less exotic practice than some of the zen devices, but since I'm already a kind of exotic thinker, it's good for me to get very basic and just observe simple experiences. I am thinking that at some point I would like to add meditation to my daily routine [just like brushing one's teeth] and maybe work slowly towards the first jhana! I know this goal orientation is not universally approved of, but it sure worked for losing 18 pounds! My other practice is having a child! Having a young child is a powerful exercise in metta, and sometimes a challenge to the continued experience of metta, and it is a wonderful "spiritual" relationship. I hope you are well! Best, Robert Ep 32479 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 1:05pm Subject: Re: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? [benefit of conventional "right" effort] --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > Hi RobEp, > The "way"? Right view, right effort, etc. Could it be that the value > of sitting is not that it constitutes "right effort" but that it > provides great opportunities for recognizing all sorts of wrong > effort? Of course, there is plenty wrong effort that arises in the > course of a day even without sitting, but presumably, when sitting, > the task is to contemplate "right" and "wrong". At the beginning of > practice, sitting can bring the benefit of a time set aside for > contemplation. Gradually, the mind may learn to recognize the > occasional moment of right effort -- but perhaps only after it can > recognize the quasi-ubiquity of wrong effort. Sitting has the > potential to really help clarify moments of "wrong effort" because so > much effort is expended in trying to cause "right effort" to arise. > The beginning meditator (i.e., one who does not yet recognize the > overwhelming frequency of micchas relative to the sammas) may > eventually learn to recognize: "This is wrong effort; this also is > wrong effort; this is wrong effort too! And this, and this, and this, > and this..." As the avenues of wrong effort are seen with sufficient > facility, then the moments of right effort might just be recognized > as moments of right effort. But can this happen before a decade or > two of practice with serious sitting and then some substantial non- > sitting contemplation of the "sitting practice" and of the Dhamma in > general? > > Ooooo..... I didn't mean to spend this much time here. Starting > with: "Hmmm... Why don't I look into DSG? I'll only read a post or > two to see what's happening.... Interesting comments from RobEp; > maybe just a sentence or two in reply," I end up biting off more than > I should chew. > > Dan Hi Dan. Thanks for your view on this. I too meant to just "drop in" and say a word or two and instead I wrote an essay. But I'm happy to follow through with a few threads and hopefully not get overwhelmed. I do think that there is value in observing "wrong effort" or just "effort" in general, since right effort is probably in the category of "effortless effort" or allowing discernment to take place in some way. And I do think that the meditation situation can allow one to observe all of the tendencies the mind and egoic forces have towards "owning" the process and forcing mindfulness to happen. But no, I do not think that it would take a decade of confusion to sort this out and get a bit of "right effort" out of the process, because I feel that meditation - if there is *some* understanding of underlying principles - has a salutary effect in its own right. If one relaxes and observes various tendencies and efforts that arise, and continues to "let go" and just observe the nature of the mind, discernment of the nature of the mind will gradually come forth. That is my belief. I don't think that the nature of perception and practice in the human being is so complex and mysterious that one can practice in a congenial and straightforward way and get *all wrong results.* I just don't believe it works that way. I do think that if one forces and bothers themselves and sweats and builds up more negative confusion and emotion and does all the wrong things, that of course meditation, like discernment in general, can be subverted and turned into an obstacle rather than an aid. But the person who does all these weird things would in fact *not be meditating.* They would be doing some other destructive mental activity. I know there has been some dispute about this, but I think it's pretty clear that the monks in Buddha's ocmmunity were sitting around having lectures, sitting around practicing mindfulness and sitting around going into the jhanas when they were in longer periods of monastic life. There is no doubt in my mind that the four foundations of mindfulness and the mindfulness practices around the breath were designed for meditation but I know that can be disputed. Some will say that Buddha mentioned "sitting" here and there because the monks "happened to do sitting practice" as was their habit in that culture, and that Buddha never meant to prescribe meditation as a practice. But I personally think that's stretching it a lot. To go through the four foundations of mindfulness with the thoroughness that the Buddha proposes; to think "I am now having a long inhalation, and now having a long exhalation" etc. etc., while going through daily life, seems like a very tortured reading of what the Buddha says. But I'm sure the dispute will continue. It seems to me that the Buddha prescribed the practice of mindfulness in all activities of life, and also prescribed regular meditation in order to deepen the discernment of the kandhic formations. There is no reason to choose one and reject the other at all in my opinion. I also think the Buddha expressed justified confidence that the regular practice of all these skillful devices would lead to enlightenment if one followed through and continued on the long path set out in this way. There is no reason to think that if we sit and allow mindfulness and discernment to develop, that we will somehow go completely in the wrong direction. Certainly, the Buddha himself didn't warn of this, and I don't think it's a really great concern. The really great concern is that we will not practice, not discern, not become aware and not develop wisdom. So I think a good solid practice, whether it is suttas plus everyday observation, or suttas plus observation plus meditation, is much better than no practice at all. Best, Robert Ep. 32481 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 2:19pm Subject: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Rob Ep, > > Good to see you back. Long time no write. :-) > You have indeed given this topic much thought, and I wish I could > find more points to agree with than disagree, but??:-/ !! > Your post reminds me of the concept of `informal mediation' used > here some time back by some members, which I felt quite > uncomfortable with. To me `formal' or `informal' both are equally > wrong, both being with the idea of `doing'! Dear Sukin, I enjoyed your post! It's nice to be back in this debate. By the way, the "conditions" that led to me being here again can be easily discerned. It was Nina! She wrote me a lovely note, and reminded me of my dsg friends, and here I am! I must have been doing something right to get back here, so consider me to have a bit of right view and pay careful attention to what I say! : ) I guess what it comes down to is whether you believe that conditions that affect the kandhas affect the path. We would agree that right view, dropping the sense of doership and the doer, and the discernment of the reality of the moment as the only existing reality, would all be crucial, and must be developed to the point of wisdom. I would guess though, that you would also say that prescribed activities will lead to the development of satipatthana, and that these activities that help one to develop right understanding leading to satipatthana would include sutta and commentary study, the good companionship of the "spiritual friend" and discernment of realities in daily life. These are all "purposeful activities" that one does to "make progress" beyond the present moment. I think it would be silly to say that they are themselves the appropriate expression of sati and arise all by themselves and that the one who is involved in these activities has no thought that they will "help." Of course he does, and he consciously engages in sutta, lecture, discernment, etc., in order to advance towards enlightenement. Does he then have to drop the idea of doership and making progress in order to apply his understanding to the present moment without a separate doer being misconstrued? Yes, he does. But in what possible way is this different from the "sense of doing" involved in meditation? Simply, there is no difference on that level at all. If one is following the Buddha's proscribed path, or following Abhidhamma, or following Thai Forest Tradition, or following zen, one is doing so in order to attain liberation in nibbana, and that sense of "purpose" is going to be there. One would not engage in any of these things if one did not believe that they would lead to the goal, so the goal is there, and it is outside of the discernment of the moment. Looking at the moment, one might not see any of this. In the moment, "Buddha," "Path," "Abhidhamma," etc. are all concepts. Buddha is not now before us in the flesh, and that's that. Yet we follow his teachings and try to follow his example as we see it. So the inescapable conclusion is that there are "good" concepts and practices, and "bad" concepts and practices. Some lead to the goal and others don't, but the sense of doership will have to be dropped no matter what the practice is, and that will take as long as it takes according to arising conditions. So then the only question is whether meditation supplies an opportunity, or has something inherent about it, that will promote the path, or not. You are inherently saying that sutta study, com study, spending time with knowledgeable teachers who have right view, discernment of realities in life, etc. -- all prescribed by Abhidhamma -- are "good" practices that get you the right result and that meditation -- frowned upon in Abhidhamma because it is a "doing" that strives for a "result" -- is a bad practice that creates conceptual obstacles. I don't see any logical reason why meditation creates more conceptual obstacles or is more of a doing than purposely reading the Suttas to understand the Buddha's teaching. They are both activities, they are both done purposely, and they are both done to get a result in progressing on the path. So there is no difference in terms of approach and pitfalls. So does meditation cause something correct to happen on the path, as sutta study should do [if not totally misconstrued or misunderstood of course] and should it thus be included as a "good" practice or not? Again, the issue comes down to what effect meditation has on these kandhas which much become conditioned in a way that leads to the arising of wisdom. I think it does. I think the Buddha also thought that it does, and that it is obvious why it does. Sitting with an open and relaxed mind and looking at realities as they arise with relatively little distraction, one sorts through the contents of consciousness and begins to see the status of concepts, thoughts, emotions, perceptions and the other kandhas which make up this reality. One can do this with a sense of doership and try to "own" the process, which creates an obstacle but does not totally block the result of meditation, or one can relax the sense of doership and simply observe, just like in daily life, but with less distraction. The idea that this is a contrived situation and thus is ruined as a skillful activity makes no sense to me, any more than sitting down and studying the components of a piano piece somehow should interfere with the eventual playing of the song. Yes, some piano students will get an overly technical consciousness and will never really understand music. But others will learn the skills of music and then set them free to function when the proper time comes. And that is what the meditator must do, as must the Sutta student, and everyone else who seeks liberation. Can one reach enlightenment without meditating under the right conditions? I think so. Certainly if kammic influences are such, seeing the light change from green to red can set off the whole noble eightfold path and cause sudden liberation. But is meditation a great and thus indispensable practice, prescribed by the Buddha as an important part of the path? I think the answer is absolutely yes. Best, Robert Ep. 32483 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 3:00pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Illusion of Control --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Ken - > > In a message dated 4/14/04 3:24:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > kenhowardau@y... writes: > > > > > Hi Howard, > > > > ---------------------- > > H: >Yes, it all can be understood in such a manner. But there is > > understanding, and there is understanding. An intellectual > > translation of the Buddha's suttic teachings into "ultimate form" is > > not the sort of understanding that is liberative, though it can > > certainly be useful. > > ---------------------- > > > > Mere intellectual understanding is liberating in its way. To > > understand that there is no self, only nama and rupa, is to have a > > weight lifted from your shoulders. Don't you get this from your > > own, phenomenalist viewpoint? > > > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Correct intellectual understanding - and we can't be too sure when our > understanding *is* correct - is helpful. It is an important factor. In > itself, however, it is only liberating, as you say, "in its way". > ------------------------------------------------ Hi Howard. Maybe you could say that it liberates the mind to the extent that it clarifies thoughts one might have about the nature of "self" and replaces those thoughts to some extent with thoughts that are geared towards the liberative process. If one sees that there are only arising cittas and not a "self" at the center, and sees this only intellectually, then perhaps they will point their awareness towards the process and away from the false concept? This would only be a partial measure though, as you say, without some practice that is liberative, and not only correcting of the conceptual tendency on a conceptual level. More below. > > ---------------------- > > > > Howard: >Yes, all true. However - there are complex relations that > > hold among the momentary actualities, and a concept such as that of > > a process of meditation is a way of (indirectly) grasping not only > > the actualities involved, but also the multi-layered pattern of > > relations among them. > > --------------------- > > > > I agree that we have to know how concepts are created. I am not > > convinced, however, that the concept of a process of meditation > > bears any relation to actual, momentary, meditation. > > > ------------------------------------------------- > > ---------------------------- > > H: >But substituting belief in a intellectual theory of ultimate > > reality is an ineffective alternative to engaging in the > > conventional practices taught by the Buddha that lead to > > purification of mind and to liberation. > > -------------------- > > > > But is that so? Did the Buddha specify conventional practices? > > > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, indeed. > --------------------------------------------------- > Here > > > at dsg, we are shown a wealth of evidence to the contrary. > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > And in the 45 years of the Buddha's teaching as recorded in the Sutta > Pitaka, we are shown exactly what I claim. If I need to choose between the > two, you can be assured that there is little doubt as to my decision. > -------------------------------------------------- > Why side > > > against it? > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Because I am a *Buddhist* (!), not a DSG-er or even an Abhidhammika. > ----------------------------------------------- > > > Why not stay true to your phenomenalist leanings? > > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I most assuredly do. To be a thoroughgoing phenomenalist doesn't > require not communicating. It only requires understanding the difference between > what is merely manner of speaking and what is actuality. Just quoted this to agree with you Howard. There is a still a conceptual chaos around the issue of meditation as a means to understand realities. How do you personally reconcile Abhidhamma principles with your meditation practice? I think an understanding of how they go together would be very helpful. Best, Robert Robert 32487 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 3:05pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Illusion of Control --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I see much in Abhidhamma (but far from all) that fits in perfectly > both with meditation practice and with a phenomenalist "take" on matters. This > coming Sunday I'll be attending a study/meditation workshop on the 4th > foundation of mindfulness taught by a meditator-Abhidhammika. I'll "report back" > afterwards. ;-) Dear Howard, I'll will definitely look forward to that. I'm sure it will be a fruitful and interesting experience. Good to be talking to you too! Best, Rob Ep 32489 From: Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 4:19pm Subject: Vism.XIV 76 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 76. Again, it is of four kinds as seen, etc., as concrete matter, etc., and as the physical basis tetrads, and so on. Herein, the visible-data base is 'seen' because it is the objective field of seeing. The sound base is 'heard' because it is the objective field of hearing. The three, that is to say, odours, flavours, and tangible data, are 'sensed' (lit. contacted) because they are the objective fields of faculties that take contiguous [objective fields]. The rest are 'cognized' because they are the objective field of consciousness (cognition) only. So firstly it is of four kinds according to the seen, etc., tetrad. (32) -------------------- note 32. ' "Sensed (muta)" means apprehendable by sensing (mutvaa), by reaching; hence he said "because they are the objective fields of faculties that take contiguous [objective fields]" (cf. par. 46). But what is it that is called a tangible datum? It is the three elements, earth, heat, and air. But why is the water element not included here? Is not cold apprehended by touching; and that is the water element? Certainly it is apprehended but it is not the water element. What is it then? It is just the fire element. For there is the sensation (buddhi) of cold when heat is sluggish. There is no quality that is called cold; there is only the assumption (abhimaana) of coldness due to the sluggishness of the state of heat. How is it to be known? Because of the unreliability of the sensation of cold, like "beyond and not beyond". For in hot weather, while those who stand in the sun and go into the shade have the sensation of cold, yet those who go to the same place from an underground cave have the sensation of heat. And if coldness were the water element it would be found in a single group (kalaapa) along with heat; but it is not so found. That is why it may be known that coldness is not the water element. And that is conclusive (uttara) for those who agree to the inseparable existence of the primary elements; and it is conclusive too even for those who do not agree because it is disproved by associate existence through seeing the functions of the four primaries in a single group. It is conclusive too for those who say that coldness is the characteristic of the air element; for if coldness were the air element, coldness would be found in a single group along with heat, and it is not so found. That is why it may be known that coldness is not the air element either. But those who hold the opinion that fluidity (dravataa) is the water element and that that is apprehended by touching should be told: "That fluidity is touched is merely the venerable ones' assumption as is the case with shape". For this is said by the Ancients: "Three elements coexisting with fluidity together form what constitutes a tangible; that 'I succeed in touching this fluidity' is a common misconception in the world. And as a man who touches elements, and apprehends a shape then with his mind, fancies 'I really have been touching shape', so too fluidity is recognized" ' (Pm. 459). 32490 From: connie Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 8:10pm Subject: Re: Robber Guests Dear Nina, I'm delighted. Thanks for letting me know. I gave away my Virago motorbike several years ago and was happy about that and also believing I didn't want to ride anymore, but now my mother has given me another called a Rebel and it is the new great love of my life. So fickle - every bike I've had has been my great love! I can't help laughing at myself over the names and not so "latent" tendencies. Nothing subtle there. This new bike even has 'flames' on the tank in case I forget. peace, connie >Dear Connie, This is wonderful, thank you very much, also for the Pali. And the last one about lobha as teacher and as pupil: it never goes away. I was looking for this one for some time but could not find it. thanks very much, Nina. 32491 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 8:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi Rob M and Ken O, I am three days behind in my dsg reading and looking forward to reading more on this thread (and all the others, of course). Rob M wrote, ---------------- > This is interesting. I have the opposite viewpoint. I believe that the kammic impact of sense door processes are very weak. > --------------- I have no strong opinions on the impact of sense-door processes compared with mind-door processes, but it seems plausible that the main action could go on at the paramattha level (as opposed to the conceptual level). Isn't it possible that citta could have intense dosa with rupa (eg visible object) as object? The thinking mind might then translate the intense paramattha reality into a weak, ineffectual, conceptual reality (of a self who has hatred for another self). I don't see why the reverse has to be true but I am ready to be convinced. ----------------------- RM: > How excited can one get over a dot of light - a visible object, as compared to the objects of the mind door - dots of light constructed and recognized as people, flowers, etc.? > ---------------------- Rob, it worries me that you persistently maintain, despite all the protests from dsg, that visible object is a dot of light. A dot of light is a concept. Visible object is a reality. It is the reality that appears at the eye-door. Kind regards, Ken H 32492 From: gazita2002 Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 11:29pm Subject: Re: "Tiika Vis. 75 reposted" --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > "Tiika Vis. 75 reposted" > (all English of Tiika, see below) Dear Nina, You wrote: > ***** > English: > As to kamma-born these are here the eight faculties which are solely > originated by kamma, > and with the heart(base) they are thus nine kinds of materiality, > and besides, among the nine kinds of materiality originated by the four > causes, there are nine kinds originated by kamma **, and what is kamma-born > materiality is thus also eighteen kinds, since they have arisen because of > kamma. I do not understand how it becomes 18 when at first it is stated that it is nine. Could you explain this to me please, patience, courage and good cheer, Azita 32493 From: robmoult Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 11:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > I am three days behind in my dsg reading and looking forward to > reading more on this thread (and all the others, of course). > > Rob M wrote, > ---------------- > > This is interesting. I have the opposite viewpoint. I believe that > the kammic impact of sense door processes are very weak. > > --------------- > > I have no strong opinions on the impact of sense-door processes > compared with mind-door processes, but it seems plausible that the > main action could go on at the paramattha level (as opposed to the > conceptual level). Isn't it possible that citta could have intense > dosa with rupa (eg visible object) as object? The thinking mind > might then translate the intense paramattha reality into a weak, > ineffectual, conceptual reality (of a self who has hatred for > another self). I don't see why the reverse has to be true but I am > ready to be convinced. ===== Let us switch for a minute to the ear door. The rupa that appears at the ear door is sound. Considering the speed of the citta process, a sound rupa that lasts only 17 citta moments cannot have much information in it. Perhaps a note or even a fraction of one note. It seems to me that the reaction of a sound rupa must be very weak as comared to the reaction to the aggregate of many sound rupas (a spoken word, a song, etc.). The aggregate of many sound rupas is a concept and can only be experienced through the mind door. Again, this is why I consider that the serious kamma is created by the mind door process rather than the sense door process. ===== > > ----------------------- > RM: > How excited can one get over a dot of light - a visible > object, as compared to the objects of the mind door - dots of light > constructed and recognized as people, flowers, etc.? > > ---------------------- > > Rob, it worries me that you persistently maintain, despite all the > protests from dsg, that visible object is a dot of light. A dot of > light is a concept. Visible object is a reality. It is the reality > that appears at the eye-door. ===== The simile of the dot of light is based on the ancient simile of the circle of fire caused by a moving point to show the persistency of an image. Ledi Sayadaw used this simile to explain the building up of an image from multiple visible objects. As I recall, I have only once used this simile on DSG and only one person (Rob K as I recall) said that his idea was of a photograph coming into increasing focus as more visible objects are added. At the time, we agreed that the issue was not central to the discussion at hand. As I have mentioned above, the rupa appearing at the ear door (sound) could be described as a "faction of a note". Of course, "fraction of a note" is a concept used to describe the reality, it is not the reality itself. It makes sense to me that the corresponding visible object would be a "fraction of an image" which I have called a "dot of light". Of course "fraction of an image" and "dot of light" are also concepts, but these concepts are used to convey an impression. I would be interested in better understanding your definition of visible object. Clearly the simile of "dot of light" doesn't appeal to you. Are you in the "photograph coming into focus" camp or do you have another simile that makes more sense to you. Metta, Rob M :-) 32494 From: robmoult Date: Sat Apr 24, 2004 11:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Rob M, > Thank you for your interesting analysis. I just like to add a few remarks. > At the end you say: > process (from eye-consciousness to feeling) evolved into an active > > involvement of the observer (perception to mentally proliferates) and > > now the mental proliferation takes control of the observer.> > I would say: from the beginning to the end the processes are impersonal, > they roll on because of conditions. Passive and active if you like, but we > have to be careful lest misunderstandings arise. People may think of an > observer before we know! ===== I was struggling with this as I wrote. How to express the ideas without implying a self. I struck upon the idea of considering the underlying conditions at work. I place special importance on pakatupanissaya as this is where accumulations come into play. Perhaps I place too much importance on pakatupanissaya, though when I asked K. Sujin if pakatupanissaya was extremely important, she agreed (I then wondered aloud, "if it is so important, why does it get place 9c among 24 conditions?"). By the way, I also see hetu condition as very important so I understand why it is number one in the list. I noticed that conditions at work for namarupa-paccaya salayatanam and the conditions at work for salayatana-paccaya phasso and most of the conditions at work for phassa-paccaya vedana were the "boring old conditions" of conascence, mutuality, support, nutriment, faculty, etc. and that my "favourite conditon" (pakatupanissaya) only really started to come into play after that point. I understand your concern about trying to introduce an observer in disguse. Earlier today, I was reading the Kathavatthu and I noticed how many ways people had tried to introduce an observer into Buddhism. > As to sense-door and mind-door in between the mind-door processes there are > sense-door processes as well. These fall into the stream. I also think that > Ledi S. stresses too much: afterward this and then after that the object is > defined. We cannot count, and again, there are sense-door processes again in > between. He may define a rose, but again colour impinges, and again! You > see, I do not think so much of a specific order. > As I understood, during the stages of insight the sense-door processes and > mind-door processes are not counted at all. Too fast and too many of them. > There is no time. In Cambodia A. Sujin explained that there can also be > satipatthana in a sense-door process. Because it is all so fast. Nina, I think that Ledi Sayadaw would have made an excellent engineer! :-) :-) I greatly appreciate his analytical approach but I also appreciate that it is not everybody's cup of tea. Metta, Rob M :-) 32495 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 0:07am Subject: Destruction of the Taints Dear Friends, I have a question for this distinguished panel of dhamma experts. I am having some difficulty understanding this passage in MN 77 "The Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin": 36. "Again, Udayin, I have proclaimed to my disciples the way whereby by realizing for themselves with direct knowledge, they here and now enter upon and abide in the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the taints. Just as if there were a lake in a mountain recess, clear, limpid, and undisturbed, so that a man with good sight standing on the bank could see shells, gravel, and pebble, and also shoals of fish swimming about and resting. He might think: `There is this lake, clear, limpid, and undisturbed, and there are these shells, gravel, and pebbles, and also these shoals of fish swimming about and resting.' So too, I have proclaimed to my disciples the way whereby by realizing for themselves with direct knowledge, they here and now enter upon and abide in the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the taints. And thereby many disciples of mine abide having reached the consummation and perfection of direct knowledge." James: I am predominately having difficulty wrapping my mind around the metaphor in this passage. Destruction of the taints is like seeing shells, gravel, pebbles, and fish in a clear, mountain lake??? My first impression is that the lake is supposed to represent the mind (stilled by meditation); the shells, gravel, and pebbles are supposed to represent the three taints (desire, ill- will, and delusion); and the fish swimming about and resting are supposed to represent the derivatives of the three taints. Where I am getting stuck is how simply seeing these things is supposed to `destroy' them. This metaphor, when carried to its logical conclusion, implies that nothing is really `destroyed'; these things would still remain but would then be seen for what they are. After all, simply viewing a mountain lake filled with fish isn't going to make it go away. I have difficulty reconciling this metaphor with other metaphors the Buddha uses which compares destruction of the taints to be like cutting down palm trees. In that case, what was once there isn't there anymore. I feel that I can understand that type of metaphor and yet not this one. However, I do feel that this metaphor has deeper meaning and it is important to more understand. Anyone have any insights into this passage that I am missing? Thanks. Metta, James 32496 From: robmoult Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 0:25am Subject: Re: Causes & Conditions Versus Rules & Rituals Hi Howard and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, all - > > At times, folks here have spoken of silabatta-paramasa (attachment to > rules and rituals), citing such a thing as formal meditation as an example of > a rule or ritual. Now, there is such a thing as rules and rituals - it can be > any activity that is carried out in ignorance of what it is that the activity > actually serves as condition for. An activity that trains one for wrestling, > would be pretty much a mere rule or ritual if carried out as preparation for a > karate competion. An activity that calms the mind would be mere rule or ritual > if carried out with the expectation of it alone producing liberation. But if > the wrestling training is carried out for the purpose of being a better > wrestler, and if samatha meditation is carried out for the purpose of calming and > concentrating the mind, then one is not engaging in rule or ritual. Actions, > together with cooperating conditions, have specific sorts of consequences, and it > is misapplication of actions due to ignorance that constitutes adherence to > rules and rituals. Here is what Bhikkhu Bodhi has to say about silabbatupadana (from his translation of Samyutta Nikaya Vol I, page 726 note 1): The expression silabbatupadana is often translated "clinging to rites and rituals", but neither the canon nor commentaries supports this. I render sila as rules and vata as vows, though the intention is actual modes of behaviour prescribed by rules and vows. The laconic definition at Dhs 1222 reads "Clinging to rules and vows is the view of ascetics and brahmins outside of here (i.e. outside the Buddhist fold) that purification is achieved by rules, by vows, by rules and vows (condensed). The reference is evidently to the various types of austerities that the Buddha's contemporaries adopted in the belief that they led to heaven or to ultimate purification. An example is the "dog rule, dog vow" at MN I. From the Bhumija Sutta (MN 126), it is clear that right practice is the method to achieve results. And now for the $64,000 questions: Does "formal meditation" fit into: - Category A (practice of ascetics and brahmins outside of the Buddhist fold) - Category B (practice in accordance with the noble eightfold path) My vote is for "B", though some members of DSG - NAG may disagree :-) Let us now consider degree of understanding. Meditation is always undertaken with a degree of faith (does that makes it a rite or ritual?). Even when the Ascetic Gotama sat under the Bodhi tree, he did so because of faith that this practice would help to reveal the true path. If a practice is good enough for the Buddha, it is good enough for me :-) Metta, Rob M :-) 32497 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 0:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mundane jhana and Supramundane jhana? Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi all, > > I have some questions regarding jhana: > > What is mundane jhana? > What is supramundane jhana? > > I have not come across any reference regarding mundane jhana and > supramundane in the discourses. > > Metta, > Victor 'Supramundane jhana' is a term that is used to refer to samma-samadhi of the Noble Eightfold Path, that is, the mental factor of samadhi that accompanies the moment of path consciousness/magga-citta/enlightenment. It is 'supramundane' because the magga citta, and so all the accompanying mental factors, are supramundane (lokuttara). It is 'jhana' because the mental factor of samadhi that accompanies the magga citta is said to be have the intensity of one or other of the levels of jhana (see the often-quoted sutta description of samma-samadhi). Supramundane jhana is the outcome of the development of insight (vipassana bhavana) at its highest level of attainment. 'Mundane jhana' is a term that is used to refer to any other form of jhana, in other words, to the more commonly understood meaning of jhana as the outcome of the development of serenity/concentration (samatha bhavana) at its highest level of attainment. Thus both expressions refer to things mentioned frequently in the suttas, although I'm not sure whether the expressions themselves are found in the suttas. Jon 32498 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 1:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana James --- buddhatrue wrote: > Friend Jon, ... > James: But Jon, there isn't any understanding of a presently > arising > dhamma. You don't have ANY real understanding of ANY presently > arising dhammas. Your mind is suffering from the taint of > delusion, > just as mine is, so you don't have any real understanding. > Understanding presently arising dhammas isn't development of the > path- it is completion of the path. The only way to have > understanding of presently arising dhammas is to be enlightened > already. The qualities that when fully developed result in enlightenment must be potentially capable of arising now in some form or other no matter how weak, otherwise there wouldn't be any prospect of developing the path. No doubt they have been accumulated to a certain degree in previous lives, otherwise we wouldn't have any interest in the teachings. To my reading of the suttas, including for example the Satipatthana Sutta and the suttas in the Salayatana vagga of SN, the Buddha encouraged everyone to develop awareness of the presently arising dhammas at whatever level they presently find themselves. The fact that we are at the weak end of the scale, and that it is thus incredibly difficult to grasp what that entails, should not deter us from setting about the task. > James: The object of insight cannot be akusala (unwholesome) unless > it is recognizing unwholesomeness in someone else (like what a > Buddha recognizes). The akusala states in your own mine cannot be > the object of insight because they are the antithesis of insight. > Insight can only arise when the mind is pure and wholesome. As a starting point, we need to acknowledge that kusala and akusala can arise interspersed with each other. As Howard said in his post to you on this thread, 'mindstates go by quickly, and many kusala and akusala states can be rapidly alternating in what seem to us to be but a moment'. I think we can all confirm from personal experience that this is so, that there are instances where there is some akusala among the mainly kusala or vice versa. For example, getting irritated and blaming the other person while at the same time knowing it is just our own irritation; being considerate to another and at the same time having conceit regarding that. Awareness of the presently arising akusala is just another instance of this phenomenon. Indeed, it is specifically mentioned in the suttas, for example in the Satipatthana Sutta, section on Contemplation on Mental Objects, The Five Hindrances (Soma Thera transl): "How, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating mental objects in the mental objects of the five hindrances? "Here, O bhikkhus, when sensuality is present, a bhikkhu knows with understanding: 'I have sensuality,' ... When anger ... sloth and torpor ... agitation and worry ... doubt is present, he knows with understanding: 'I have anger [... sloth and torpor ... agitation and worry ... doubt]' ..." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The whole idea of the presently arising akusala being capable of being the object of insight is a very important one (and a good instance of the usefulness of a correct intellectual understanding of the development of insight). Having the idea that akusala must be totally absent before the awareness of dhammas can begin to be developed tends to lead to all sorts of ideas about you-know-what;-)) ... > James: Well, I agree with you that one cannot `force' or `choose' to > have insight, but one can take actions to cultivate wholesome > states > of mind so that insight can naturally arise. The most important condition for the natural arising of insight, given that all of us here have the necessary motivation already, is more considering and reflecting on the teachings as a description of awareness of and insight into the true nature of the presently arising dhammas. This is where association with the wise/good friend -- anyone who has a better understanding of this general area than we ourselves do -- is so important. Jon 32499 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 1:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > No problem. Given the sutta reference, it should be clear now that > in-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. > > Metta, > Victor Well those are the words of the sutta, but given my reading of the sutta pitaka in general and the rest of the tipitaka (such as it is) I think I'd like to see the commentary on this passage before agreeing or disagreeing with you ;-)) Jon 32500 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 1:17am Subject: Mindfulness of breathing -- Meaning of Victor Thanks for setting out your thoughts. There's a lot to discuss here. I'd like to start by considering the definition you give at the end of your post. Victor: As I see it, anapanasati is being mindful of and with in-&-out breathing. Jon: Well this is a very pithy statement in typical Victor style;-)). I'm not saying I disagree, but I'd like to clarify whether we see it the same way. To my reading, the term 'mindfulness of breathing' as used in the suttas encompasses both of the following: (a) the development of serenity (concentration), the kusala that may lead to the attainment of jhana (also called samatha bhavana), and (b) the development of insight, the kusala that may lead to the attainment of enlightenment (also called satipatthana/vipassana bhavana), However, since these are different types of kusala development, each needs to be understood in its own terms. As regards (a), mindfulness of breathing refers to the development of samatha with breath/in and out breathing as the focus of attention. As regards (b), mindfulness of breathing refers to insight into the true nature of dhammas in one who is developing samatha with breath as object. So going back to your definition, 'being mindful of and with in-&-out breathing', I would agree with that if by it you mean the following: 'being mindful *of* in-&-out breathing' as describing samatha bhavana with breath as object; 'being mindful *with* in-&-out breathing' as describing insight into the true nature of dhammas in one who is developing samatha bhavana with breath as object. Are we on the same page here? Jon --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > Commentaries, ancient or modern, on anapanasati may be helpful to > one who develops anapanasati(being mindful with breath). > ... > As I see it, anapanasati is being mindful of and with in-&-out > breathing. > > Metta, > Victor 32501 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 1:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > ============================ > I don't claim that the subject need be the breath. I used that as an > example. But as to why it is a good subject, I suppose you'd have to ask the > Buddha (were he around), because it was he who taught the > Anapanasati Sutta, not me. ;-) > > With metta, > Howard I wonder why no-one asked him at the time ;-)) No, my point was that if breath was such a 'hot' subject for insight development, you think there'd be some mention of the reason for this in the suttas or commentaries. The fact that there isn't should perhaps lead us to question our reading of the suttas. As discussed in my thread with Jack recently, the commentary to the 4th tetrad of the Anapanasati Sutta indicates that this tetrad describes the development of insight with any of the five aggregates (thus, not breath) as object. If on the other hand it is, as you say above, the concentration that is crucial and not concentration with breath as object in particular, why the many special references to mindfulness of breath/breathing? Jon 32502 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 2:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'ocean of concepts' Hi Larry, No, I want to be careful here. Not wishing to run into a pitfall! op 24-04-2004 19:20 schreef Larry op LBIDD@w...: > I don't disagree with what you wrote in reply but I'm not sure of > what your answer is to my question, "What is more meaningful for you, > the thought 'feeling is impermanent' or simply attending to feeling." > I wanted you to pick one or the other. N: What kind of attending? If this is a beginning awareness of the feeling right now, good. You heard about it, considered it, and you realize: yes, a characteristic of feeling appears. But... so long as the difference between nama and rupa has not been realized, the mind-door is not known, and feeling (this appears through the mind-door, being nama) cannot yet be realized as just pure nama, different from rupa. It is still . Though you know in theory that there is not my feeling there is an underlying idea of self, all the time. You know what? The thought, feeling is impermanent, can remind us of feeling now. So, it should all amount to the same. We should not forget that there is feeling arising and falling away while we read in the sutta: feeling is impermanent, otherwise we do not get the message of the sutta. I am also neglectful, and then, as Dan said, I do not respect the Buddha, forgetting his teachings. We need Abhidhamma and satipatthana, awareness right now, to understand the sutta. What is the use of just reading sutta after sutta if there is no development of the understanding of the present reality? Thus, the thought, feeling is impermanent, could lead to attending with right awareness and understanding to feeling now. But there is no one who can select any reality, they are elements arising because of their own conditions. So, I do not prefer one of the two options above to the other one. Same, same! I would not even select feeling, because who can direct the dhamma appearing now? It may be sound or thinking. Nina. 32503 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 2:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] dialogue on satipatthana Dear Jon, I printed this out again for Lodewijk, thank you very much. I think he is getting there. He only thinks that when a newcomer asks what satipatthana is there should be a more clearcut definition. He understands that dhamma now is very important. But he thinks that it may unnecessarily rebuke people. He would like to tell A. Sujin this. This morning we discussed mindfulness of death. I had heard on MP 3 that Kh. Sukol (he lost his brother the late Abbot and his sister) asked Kh Sujin for advice about recollection of death, saying that he had aversion about death. Kh Sujin said that the cause of aversion and sadness is clinging to people and self, and that only panna can support us. We have to listen and consider, and develop panna. Without panna we are nowhere. Only panna can condition non-clinging, that is the task of panna. So, we were discussing why Kh Sujin starts the conversation immediately with the development of understanding of this very moment. Lodewijk understands now why. It also happened when Achan Jose visited her, that she begun with understanding now, is there any understanding, she asked. Life is so short, and we do not know whether someone has an opportunity to listen again. We can get theoretical answers elsewhere, but what about now? It can hit hard, because panna develops so slowly, and meanwhile we are here with our problems of disease and death. No wonder some people become impatient (in Thai:cai ron). But Lodewijk agreed that even a beginning panna is beneficial: we see the cause of our aversion, the clinging to self and persons. Seeing aversion as only a conditioned nama, even seeing this only in theory helps. It arises again and again, and it is only a dhamma, that is all. I remember Kh Sujin's words that we have to be very courageous to develop panna at this moment. I understand that she always speaks about seeing now, hearing now. Lodewijk understands this better now. These arise all the time, and there may be a tendency to select aversion, since it is so troubling. Then again it is , wrong practice (clinging to rites and rituals) around the corner. As Kh Sujin says, panna has to go through all dhammas, all such moments have to be known. Moreover, before aversion is seen as nama, no rupa blended in, the difference between nama and rupa has to be clearly seen. The first stage of insight has to come first. This again takes time. It will be appreciated if you can add something again, and also Sukin. Nina. op 24-04-2004 15:01 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jonoabb@y...: > ... >> N: He finds it very difficult >> when A. Sujin answers with the example of seeing now or dhamma >> now. 32504 From: Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 0:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi, Ken and Rob - In a message dated 4/24/04 11:12:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Hi Rob M and Ken O, > > I am three days behind in my dsg reading and looking forward to > reading more on this thread (and all the others, of course). > > Rob M wrote, > ---------------- > >This is interesting. I have the opposite viewpoint. I believe that > the kammic impact of sense door processes are very weak. > > --------------- > > I have no strong opinions on the impact of sense-door processes > compared with mind-door processes, but it seems plausible that the > main action could go on at the paramattha level (as opposed to the > conceptual level). Isn't it possible that citta could have intense > dosa with rupa (eg visible object) as object? The thinking mind > might then translate the intense paramattha reality into a weak, > ineffectual, conceptual reality (of a self who has hatred for > another self). I don't see why the reverse has to be true but I am > ready to be convinced. > > ----------------------- > RM: >How excited can one get over a dot of light - a visible > object, as compared to the objects of the mind door - dots of light > constructed and recognized as people, flowers, etc.? > > ---------------------- > > Rob, it worries me that you persistently maintain, despite all the > protests from dsg, that visible object is a dot of light. A dot of > light is a concept. Visible object is a reality. It is the reality > that appears at the eye-door. > > Kind regards, > Ken H > =========================== Concepts - whatever they are, whether individual paramatthic thoughts, or whole sequences and collections of mental paramattha dhamma (as I think) - are not the only kind of mind objects. But aside from that, it seems to me that paramattha dhammas are all that exist, and hence all that we (ultimately) react to (though we identify groupings of these and *think* that we are reacting to them). Actually, what we react to are feelings, which, after the fact, we associate with particular conventional objects. Until feeling occurs, there isn't even recognition of a dhamma. The Buddha stated the process as follows (with eye-door as example): > > > "Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of > the three is contact. With contact as condition there is feeling. What one > feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one thinks about. What one > thinks about, that one mentally proliferates. With what one has mentally > proliferated as the source, perceptions and notions tinged by mental proliferation > beset a person with respect to past, future, and present forms cognizable > through the eye." It does seem, and here I agree with you, Rob, that it is only after this subsequent mental proliferation that percepts and concepts (mental groupings) elicit the strongest reactive emotions. But I think these stronger reactive emotions amount to magnifications of earlier emotions due to papa~nca, and all these reative emotions grow out of feeling. 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) 32505 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 5:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Howard I've just read my earlier answer to this post of yours and found it rather jumbled. Sorry about that, let me try again. The question I'm trying to pose for consideration is this: In the Anapanasati Sutta, what is the particular significance of breath/breathing as regards the development of insight and the attaining enlightenment, given that: -- the mindfulness described in the sutta refers, as explained in the commentary, to mindfulness of any of the five aggregates, and not of breath per se or of the dhammas that are taken as being breath; breath per se plays no apparent role here; -- as regards concentration/jhana, it would be the level of concentration/jhana that mattered and not the fact of breath as object in particular; and breath is just one of many suitable objects for the person developing jhana. So apart from the fact that the person described in the sutta is a person in whom samatha with breath as object is already highly developed, what other significance does breath play in the sutta? Hoping this makes more sense than my previous attempt. Interested to hear any thoughts you or others may have on this question. Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > ============================ > I don't claim that the subject need be the breath. Iused > that as an > example. But as to why it is a good subject, I suppose you'd have to ask the > Buddha (were he around), because it was he who taught the > Anapanasati Sutta, not me. ;-) > > With metta, > Howard Previous reply: I wonder why no-one asked him at the time ;-)) No, my point was that if breath was such a 'hot' subject for insight development, you think there'd be some mention of the reason for this in the suttas or commentaries. The fact that there isn't should perhaps lead us to question our reading of the suttas. As discussed in my thread with Jack recently, the commentary to the 4th tetrad of the Anapanasati Sutta indicates that this tetrad describes the development of insight with any of the five aggregates (thus, not breath) as object. If on the other hand it is, as you say above, the concentration that is crucial and not concentration with breath as object in particular, why the many special references to mindfulness of breath/breathing? Jon 32506 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 5:59am Subject: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi Jon, What is your reading of the sutta pitaka regarding whether in-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications or not? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > > > No problem. Given the sutta reference, it should be clear now that > > in-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications. > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > Well those are the words of the sutta, but given my reading of the > sutta pitaka in general and the rest of the tipitaka (such as it is) > I think I'd like to see the commentary on this passage before > agreeing or disagreeing with you ;-)) > > Jon 32507 From: Htoo Naing Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 8:04am Subject: Seeing and seeing of seeing ( 03 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, There are dukkha and we have been facing with dukkha on a daily basis. These dukkha are not without any cause but these is a cause. That cause is craving. When that craving arises and where that craving arises need to be considered. Craving arises when there is a sense like colour. If it was abandoned there, there would not have been any suffering. When there a sound, there arises craving and there also arise craving in cases of smell, taste, touch, and thoughts. If craving was abandoned early enough there or if we did not pick up craving from these 6 objects, we would not have suffered any thing. Craving arises where there is a sense base like eye. If craving was abandoned at eye, we would not have suffered. Craving also arises at ear, nose, tongue,body and mind and if craving was abandoned we would not have suffered. Craving arises when eye-consciousness arises. If craving was abandoned, we would not have suffered. Craving also arises when ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness arise. If craving was abandoned, we would not have suffered. Craving arises when eye-contact arises. It also arises when ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-contact arises. If craving was abandoned early we would not have suffered. Craving arises when feeling born of eye-contact arises. Craving also arises when feeling born of ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, mind-contact arises. If craving was abandoned early, we would not have suffered and we would be released. Craving arises when perception of eye-consciousness arises and it also arises when other five consciousness are perceived. If craving was abandoned we would not have suffered and we would be released and unbound to craving. Craving arises when volitional actions that arises with eye-consciousness arises and it also arises when volitional actions with other 5 consciousness arise. If craving was abandoned we would not have suffered and we would be released and unbound to craving. Craving arises when initial thought arises in connection with eye-consciousness and it also arises when initial thoughts in connection with other 5 consciousness arise. If craving was abandoned we would not have suffered and we would be released and unbound to craving. Craving arises when sustained thought in connection with eye-consciousness or other 5 consciousness arise. If craving was abandoned we would not have suffered and we would be released and unbound to craving. This craving is the source of suffering and abandoning of it is cessation of suffering. The meditator sees these clearly and he also knows that he knows and understands these as rupa dhamma and nama dhamma are ongoing while he is in mahasatipatthana. May you all see craving the source for all sufferings and abandon it when and where it arises. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htootintnaing@y... 32508 From: Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 5:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Destruction of the Taints In a message dated 4/25/04 12:08:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: My first impression is that the lake is supposed to represent the mind (stilled by meditation); the shells, gravel, and pebbles are supposed to represent the three taints (desire, ill- will, and delusion); and the fish swimming about and resting are supposed to represent the derivatives of the three taints. James, I read it differently than you did. I thought that fish, shells, gravel and pebbles are all objects of attention and not the taints. When our vision is clear (without taints) we see them as they are. But, if our vision is cloudy and distorted by the taints, we can not see them as they are. The Buddha is not suggesting that we destroy the objects of attention, just the taints. jack 32509 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 10:10am Subject: Re: Mindfulness of breathing -- Meaning of Hi Jon, I think what I wanted to say is that in developing & pursuing anapanasati, in-&-out breathing is more than something just being mindful of. It is like pulling-&-pushing the bow in playing violin. One is surely to develop both tranquillity and insight in anapanasati. Nevertheless, being mindful of in-&-out breathing and being mindful with in-&-out breathing do not necessarily correspond to developing tranquillity and developing insight in an one-to-one fashion. For example, "There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out." First, in seclusion, withdrawn from sensuality and the unskillful, sitting down with legs crosswise and back erect in a stable and still posture, he set out to be aware and is aware of the in-&-out breathing. "[1] Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. [2] Or breathing in short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short. Being mindful of in-&-out breathing, he also discerns whether in-&- out breathing is long or short. "Then, remaining mindful in this way, he examines, analyzes, & comes to a comprehension of that quality with discernment." In this case, that quality is the quality of the in-&-out breathing: This is the investigation of state/quality, in directed thought & evaluation. Now, "In one who examines, analyzes, & comes to a comprehension of that quality with discernment, unflagging persistence is aroused." It is with persistence, he "trains himself breathing in ..." and "train himself breathing out ..." in developing & pursuing anapanasati. So first, [3] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the entire body, and to breathe out sensitive to the entire body. [4] He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication (the breath), and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication. In doing so, he enters the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Or, "With the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation -- internal assurance." With rapture and pleasure in the first or second jhana: "[5] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to rapture, and to breathe out sensitive to rapture. [6] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to pleasure, and to breathe out sensitive to pleasure. I think that in developing & pursuing anapanasati, in-&-out breathing is more than action to be mindful of, but fabrications to work on and work with in developing skillful qualities of tranquillity and insight. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > Thanks for setting out your thoughts. There's a lot to discuss here. > I'd like to start by considering the definition you give at the end > of your post. > > Victor: > As I see it, anapanasati is being mindful of and with in-&-out > breathing. > > Jon: > Well this is a very pithy statement in typical Victor style;-)). I'm > not saying I disagree, but I'd like to clarify whether we see it the > same way. > > To my reading, the term 'mindfulness of breathing' as used in the > suttas encompasses both of the following: > (a) the development of serenity (concentration), the kusala that may > lead to the attainment of jhana (also called samatha bhavana), and > (b) the development of insight, the kusala that may lead to the > attainment of enlightenment (also called satipatthana/vipassana > bhavana), > > However, since these are different types of kusala development, each > needs to be understood in its own terms. > > As regards (a), mindfulness of breathing refers to the development of > samatha with breath/in and out breathing as the focus of attention. > > As regards (b), mindfulness of breathing refers to insight into the > true nature of dhammas in one who is developing samatha with breath > as object. > > So going back to your definition, 'being mindful of and with in-&- out > breathing', I would agree with that if by it you mean the following: > 'being mindful *of* in-&-out breathing' as describing samatha bhavana > with breath as object; > 'being mindful *with* in-&-out breathing' as describing insight into > the true nature of dhammas in one who is developing samatha bhavana > with breath as object. > > Are we on the same page here? > > Jon 32510 From: Larry Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:29am Subject: Re: Destruction of the Taints Hi James, First, some background info. The taints are desire for pleasure, survival instinct, and ignorance. Sometimes "views" is included as a fourth. Here is an interesting note by B. Bodhi on destruction of the taints (in another sutta): note 83. MA: In this passage "mind" and "wisdom" signify, respectively, the concentration and wisdom associated with the fruit of arahantship. Concentration is called "deliverance of mind" (cetovimutti) because it is liberated from lust; wisdom is called "deliverance by wisdom" (pa~n~naavimutti) because it is liberated from ignorance. The former is normally the result of serenity, the latter the result of insight. But when they are coupled and described as taintless (anaasava), they jointly result from the destruction of the taints by the supramundane path of arahantship. L: I was thinking the lake, shells, gravel, and pebbles represented namarupa: lake=body, shells=feeling, gravel=perception, pebbles='responsiveness'; and the shoals of fishes, swimming and resting, represent discursive thoughts. Granted it is a bit of a stretch to think of the body as a clear body of water, but it's kind of interesting. If this analogy holds up, then there are two main differences between an ordinary person and an arahant: First, "responsiveness" is different. By "responsiveness" I mean javana cittas. For an ordinary person these consciousnesses are rooted in greed, hatred, delusion, non-greed, non-hatred, or non-delusion. For an arahant they are rootless "great functionals". They are rootless because they are not rooted in subjectivity (imo); functional because they are not wholesome or unwholesome but nevertheless perform a function; and great because they are superior to "wholesome" (imo). Second, the arahant is completely dis-identified with this process. He is out of the soup, not in it. We can experience this a little by way of mundane satipatthana but we are usually not completely dis-identified with the object; and even if occasionally we are, it is only a glimpse. Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Dear Friends, > > I have a question for this distinguished panel of dhamma experts. I > am having some difficulty understanding this passage in MN 77 "The > Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin": > > 36. "Again, Udayin, I have proclaimed to my disciples the way > whereby by realizing for themselves with direct knowledge, they here > and now enter upon and abide in the deliverance of mind and > deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the > taints. Just as if there were a lake in a mountain recess, clear, > limpid, and undisturbed, so that a man with good sight standing on > the bank could see shells, gravel, and pebble, and also shoals of > fish swimming about and resting. He might think: `There is this > lake, clear, limpid, and undisturbed, and there are these shells, > gravel, and pebbles, and also these shoals of fish swimming about > and resting.' So too, I have proclaimed to my disciples the way > whereby by realizing for themselves with direct knowledge, they here > and now enter upon and abide in the deliverance of mind and > deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the > taints. And thereby many disciples of mine abide having reached the > consummation and perfection of direct knowledge." > > James: I am predominately having difficulty wrapping my mind around > the metaphor in this passage. Destruction of the taints is like > seeing shells, gravel, pebbles, and fish in a clear, mountain > lake??? My first impression is that the lake is supposed to > represent the mind (stilled by meditation); the shells, gravel, and > pebbles are supposed to represent the three taints (desire, ill- > will, and delusion); and the fish swimming about and resting are > supposed to represent the derivatives of the three taints. Where I > am getting stuck is how simply seeing these things is supposed > to `destroy' them. This metaphor, when carried to its logical > conclusion, implies that nothing is really `destroyed'; these things > would still remain but would then be seen for what they are. After > all, simply viewing a mountain lake filled with fish isn't going to > make it go away. I have difficulty reconciling this metaphor with > other metaphors the Buddha uses which compares destruction of the > taints to be like cutting down palm trees. In that case, what was > once there isn't there anymore. I feel that I can understand that > type of metaphor and yet not this one. However, I do feel that this > metaphor has deeper meaning and it is important to more understand. > Anyone have any insights into this passage that I am missing? > Thanks. > > Metta, James 32511 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 0:15pm Subject: good wishes Dear Jonothan, We wish you a happy birthday. Lodewijk joins me in expressing our deep gratitude and respect for everything you do to promote the Dhamma, with our warmest regards, Nina and Lodewijk. 32512 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 0:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "Tiika Vis. 75 reposted" Dear Azita, op 25-04-2004 08:29 schreef gazita2002 op gazita2002@y...: >> ***** >> As to kamma-born these are here the eight faculties which are solely >> originated by kamma, >> and with the heart(base) they are thus nine kinds of materiality, >> and besides, among the nine kinds of materiality originated by the four >> causes, there are nine kinds originated by kamma **, and what is > kamma-born >> materiality is thus also eighteen kinds, since they have arisen because > of >> kamma. > A: I do not understand how it becomes 18 when at first it is stated that > it is nine. N: I had put it in the footnote. The first nine are originated solely by kamma. Then nine more: these are rupas that are sometimes originated by kamma, sometimes by one of the three other causes, by citta, temperature (utu) and nutrition. These rupas are: the eight inseparable rupas and space. Also kamma originates the eight inseparable rupas, the four great Elements and colour, odour, flavour and nutrition. However, when originated by kamma they do not arise as pure octads, but in groups that include life-faculty. This last one is never lacking in a group originated by kamma. Thus, they arise in a group of at least nine rupas. As to space: this delimits the groups of rupas originated by the four causes, arising and falling away together with them. Thus, space is reckoned as originated by the four causes and this includes kamma. Therefore, we have 9+9 and that makes 18 rupas originated by kamma. What may be confusing is that the first nine are solely originated by kamma. I hope this makes sense. Another question: I just heard that you have been listening for a year each evening to the late Phra Dhammadaro. Could you make your sa~n~naa work and dig up some things you learnt? Did you make notes? And what did you learn now in Bgk? Nina. 32513 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 0:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? Dear Rob Ep, op 24-04-2004 21:52 schreef Robert Epstein op epsteinrob@Y...: > > At the moment I have carved out a little discipline that relates more > to the physical, as my doctor ordered .... > My other practice is having a child! Having a young child is a > powerful exercise in metta, and sometimes a challenge to the continued > experience of metta, and it is a wonderful "spiritual" relationship. N: This is wonderful. Would you share with us more about your spiritual relationship with Emily? Some children, or most of them, are so wise. Does she have wise remarks? Thanks to the Buddha we can have more understanding of the difference between metta and selfish love, and would you speak about the powerful exercise in metta? Kh Sujin always says: follow the stream of life. You would like more time for quiet reflection and meditation, but conditions are not always as we would like them to operate. It shows anattaness. Moments of happiness and sorrow alternate in our life, but we can follow them with more understanding. With understanding of seeing and hearing, and also of the moments of attachment and aversion, or the kusala that follow sense impressions we make the most of life. Then we see that daily life is not distracting. Vipassana can be incorporated in daily life. Also when running through the Zoo. As you write:<... We would agree that right view, dropping the sense of doership and the doer, and the discernment of the reality of the moment as the only existing reality, would all be crucial, and must be developed to the point of wisdom.> This is true, but dropping the sense of a doer takes a long time, does it not? Best wishes from Nina. 32514 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 2:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Destruction of the Taints Friend Jack, Yea, I think this is a better reading. I'm still not sure what all of the different objects are supposed to represent though. I guess I will give it more thought.;-) Metta, James --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jackhat1@a... wrote: > In a message dated 4/25/04 12:08:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > buddhatrue@y... writes: > My first impression is that the lake is supposed to > represent the mind (stilled by meditation); the shells, gravel, and > pebbles are supposed to represent the three taints (desire, ill- > will, and delusion); and the fish swimming about and resting are > supposed to represent the derivatives of the three taints. > James, I read it differently than you did. I thought that fish, shells, > gravel and pebbles are all objects of attention and not the taints. When our vision > is clear (without taints) we see them as they are. But, if our vision is > cloudy and distorted by the taints, we can not see them as they are. The Buddha is > not suggesting that we destroy the objects of attention, just the taints. > > jack > > > 32515 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 2:29pm Subject: Re: Destruction of the Taints Friend Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: > Hi James, > > First, some background info. The taints are desire for pleasure, > survival instinct, and ignorance. Sometimes "views" is included as a > fourth. Here is an interesting note by B. Bodhi on destruction of the > taints (in another sutta): James: Oops, yea, you are right. The three main taints are craving for pleasure, craving for being, and ignorance. I don't know why I keep forgetting the 'craving for being' one and substituting 'ill- will' instead? Hmmm...Freudian?? ;-)) > > note 83. MA: In this passage "mind" and "wisdom" signify, > respectively, the concentration and wisdom associated with the fruit > of arahantship. Concentration is called "deliverance of mind" > (cetovimutti) because it is liberated from lust; wisdom is > called "deliverance by wisdom" (pa~n~naavimutti) because it is > liberated from ignorance. The former is normally the result of > serenity, the latter the result of insight. But when they are coupled > and described as taintless (anaasava), they jointly result from the > destruction of the taints by the supramundane path of arahantship. > > L: I was thinking the lake, shells, gravel, and pebbles represented > namarupa: lake=body, shells=feeling, gravel=perception, > pebbles='responsiveness'; and the shoals of fishes, swimming and > resting, represent discursive thoughts. Granted it is a bit of a > stretch to think of the body as a clear body of water, but it's kind > of interesting. James: Hmmm...this interpretation is really different for me. I will have to ponder it more. > > If this analogy holds up, then there are two main differences between > an ordinary person and an arahant: First, "responsiveness" is > different. By "responsiveness" I mean javana cittas. For an ordinary > person these consciousnesses are rooted in greed, hatred, delusion, > non-greed, non-hatred, or non-delusion. For an arahant they are > rootless "great functionals". They are rootless because they are not > rooted in subjectivity (imo); functional because they are not > wholesome or unwholesome but nevertheless perform a function; and > great because they are superior to "wholesome" (imo). Second, the > arahant is completely dis-identified with this process. He is out of > the soup, not in it. We can experience this a little by way of > mundane satipatthana but we are usually not completely dis- identified > with the object; and even if occasionally we are, it is only a > glimpse. James: Thanks for this input. I don't follow most of this Abhidhamma terminology but I think I get what you are saying. Could be. ;-) > > Larry Metta, James 32516 From: Philip Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 3:00pm Subject: Re: Destruction of the Taints Hi James, and all > Just as if there were a lake in a mountain recess, clear, > limpid, and undisturbed, so that a man *with good sigh*t standing on > the bank could see shells, gravel, and pebble, and also shoals of > fish swimming about and resting. He might think: `There is this > lake, clear, limpid, and undisturbed, and there are these shells, > gravel, and pebbles, and also these shoals of fish swimming about > and resting.' For what it's worth, this passage immeditely reminded me of the satipatthana sutta's metaphor for how the monk remains focussed on the body in and of itself: "just as if a sack with openings at both ends were full of various kinds of grain (snip) -- and a man *with good eyesight*, pouring it out, were to reflect "This is wheat. This is rice.. " etc. I would take the passage you quoted as a useful metaphor for the next stage of the satipatthana sutta, when the monk remains focussed on the mind in & of itself. "when the mind is restricted, he discerns that the mind is restricted...when the mind is scattered he discerns that the mind is scattered" etc. The resting fish, or fish rushing about could represent various states of mind in this sense. The body as a sack of various kinds of grain. The mind as - hopefully - a clear mountain pool. Couldn't satipatthana be seen as a supreme method of removing taints by seeing them clearly with *good eyesight*? That's a beginner's take on it. I hear the Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary in that MN anthology is great. For those of us who don't have it, would you please share some of his commentary on this sutta, if there is any? Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Dear Friends, > > I have a question for this distinguished panel of dhamma experts. I > am having some difficulty understanding this passage in MN 77 "The > Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin": > > 36. "Again, Udayin, I have proclaimed to my disciples the way > whereby by realizing for themselves with direct knowledge, they here > and now enter upon and abide in the deliverance of mind and > deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the > taints. And thereby many disciples of mine abide having reached the > consummation and perfection of direct knowledge." > > James: I am predominately having difficulty wrapping my mind around > the metaphor in this passage. Destruction of the taints is like > seeing shells, gravel, pebbles, and fish in a clear, mountain > lake??? My first impression is that the lake is supposed to > represent the mind (stilled by meditation); the shells, gravel, and > pebbles are supposed to represent the three taints (desire, ill- > will, and delusion); and the fish swimming about and resting are > supposed to represent the derivatives of the three taints. Where I > am getting stuck is how simply seeing these things is supposed > to `destroy' them. This metaphor, when carried to its logical > conclusion, implies that nothing is really `destroyed'; these things > would still remain but would then be seen for what they are. After > all, simply viewing a mountain lake filled with fish isn't going to > make it go away. I have difficulty reconciling this metaphor with > other metaphors the Buddha uses which compares destruction of the > taints to be like cutting down palm trees. In that case, what was > once there isn't there anymore. I feel that I can understand that > type of metaphor and yet not this one. However, I do feel that this > metaphor has deeper meaning and it is important to more understand. > Anyone have any insights into this passage that I am missing? > Thanks. > > Metta, James 32517 From: Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 4/25/04 4:40:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > If on the other hand it is, as you say above, the concentration that > is crucial and not concentration with breath as object in particular, > why the many special references to mindfulness of breath/breathing? > ======================= Well, I suppose some benefits of the breath are the following: 1) It's always available. (On hopes! ;-) 2) It's not a mind-created image or internized sound, but a sequene of rupas which can come to be directly observed as attention and other factors heighten. 3) The breath is closely interacting with mental states - its calmness or the opposite affects and is affected by the calmness or opposite of the mind. Emotions are reflected in the breath. So it is a kind of process that links nama with rupa. 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) 32518 From: Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 4:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 'ocean of concepts' Re: "Which is more meaningful to you, the thought, 'feeling is impermanent' or simply attending to feeling?" Hi Nina, Thanks for your reply. I agree with most of what you said but I have one complaint. You didn't take the question personally, basing your answer on your own experience now. Instead you gave your understanding of what hypothetical people might experience. I wanted to know what is meaningful to you, Nina, in your experience now. My original idea was that simply attending to feeling wasn't particularly meaningful even though it is a reality. However, as I practiced this I became less sure. In the end I came to the same conclusion as you that I couldn't choose between the two alternatives. Larry 32519 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 6:54pm Subject: Re: good wishes Dear Jon, Mum's computer died and in desperation she has come to read dsg on my laptop. Just wanted to add our best wishes for your birthday - I'm about to leave with Mum, family and a dear friend for a Yum Cha birthday lunch. No doubt about people who have birthdays at this time - a special breed, wouldn't you say? :-) Enjoy the Day!! regards, Sarah F --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Jonothan, > > We wish you a happy birthday. Lodewijk joins me in expressing our deep > gratitude and respect for everything you do to promote the Dhamma, > with our warmest regards, > Nina and Lodewijk. 32520 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 10:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] good wishes Nina and Lodewijk, Howard (in another thread) Thanks for your good wishes, and for sharing the Dhamma with me and others. The value of this sharing is inestimable. Jon --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Jonothan, > > We wish you a happy birthday. Lodewijk joins me in expressing our > deep > gratitude and respect for everything you do to promote the Dhamma, > with our warmest regards, > Nina and Lodewijk. 32521 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 10:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: good wishes Sarah F (and Chris and Rob) Thanks for telling us about your Mum's computer woes. We were wondering where she'd disappeared to! Missing her usual humourous report on the trip. My Sarah and I just had a lunch too. Hope you enjoy yours as much as we enjoyed ours. Take care, and have a great day! Jon --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Jon, > > Mum's computer died and in desperation she has come to read dsg on > my > laptop. Just wanted to add our best wishes for your birthday - I'm > about to leave with Mum, family and a dear friend for a Yum Cha > birthday lunch. No doubt about people who have birthdays at this > time - a special breed, wouldn't you say? :-) > > Enjoy the Day!! > > regards, > Sarah F > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom > > wrote: > > Dear Jonothan, > > > > We wish you a happy birthday. Lodewijk joins me in expressing our > > deep > > gratitude and respect for everything you do to promote the > Dhamma, > > with our warmest regards, > > Nina and Lodewijk. > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > 32522 From: Sarah Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:42pm Subject: Visuddhimagga -Pali Dear Nina, Larry & All, Jim has kindly put a copy of the entire Visuddhimagga in Pali if the files section for reference in the Velthius scheme: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/zVisuddhimagga/ As you know, the numbering is different from in ~Naanamoli’s translation, so ch 14 has been renumbered for easy reference and he’ll do the same for ch 15 when we get to it. Many thanks for this assistance, Jim. Metta, Sarah ====== 32523 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:53pm Subject: Re: Video Games? Dear Eznir, > eznir: > Don't you think it necessary that the Teachings will first have to be > read and understood properly (in a conventional manner!) so as to > gain a reflective acceptance of the Teachings before taking any > approach to The Dhamma? Even the word "approach" in the preceding > sentence implies action, let alone the whole of the Tripitaka which > is full of words of this nature! Suk: Pariyatti is essential and there is no limit as to how much it can be a condition for more understanding of the Buddha's teachings. Even an ariyan can gain from hearing the correct words at the correct time. So for us, with so many tendencies to wrong view, it is imperative that we get the facts right, and as you say, "understood properly (in a conventional manner!) so as to gain a reflective acceptance of the Teachings". However, as with everything else, even this is anatta and beyond control. And a `self' can't draw a line, not only because it will be a result of projection, hence leading on to further being caught in more and more projections, but also that conditions are so complex, that drawing a line itself denies this fact. In the same way, though the whole of the Tipitaka is about `actions' as in "when this is, that comes to be", it is not about an `actor'. "There is a path, but no one who walks it". > Sukin: > , because as far as I am concerned, if the perception and > mindfulness is not of a paramattha dhamma, then whatever else is > perceived is `not real'. > > eznir: > How often do you think that you will get to know when you have the > perception and mindfulness of a paramattha dhamma? For example, let's > say that there are a billion thought moments that occur for a second > at the end of which one comes to know that what one has sighted, say, > is an Apple. > > According to the Abhidhamma, when processing an object from one of > the sense doors, the Javana thought moments start from the 9th to the > 15th thought moment. Therefore the kind of "perception and > mindfulness" of a paramattha dhamma that you refer(since you don't > deal with concepts) occurs for only upto the 8th billionth of a > second, in this case. Because in the 9th billionth of a second the > Javana thought process starts. And this is supposed to happen > repeatedly till you come to know what the object is. It is in this > javana thought process that you will be processing what your sense- > door received. These `ideas' are not my concepts, it is in the > Abhidhamma(except the assumption of the thought rate per second as a > billion). > > Now I leave the rest of the analysis upto you. Mind you, the Javana > thought process is already karmically effective. So whether you > understood your approach or not, non-active or otherwise, you are > on "active" mode! The javana thought process is functional only in > Arahats. Suk: There is no choice whether to deal with concepts or not, in fact almost all the time the concepts are reacted to as if they were reality. However, they are *not*. But dhammas *are* arising and falling all the time, and one is not particularly concerned about differentiating rupa and concept. Thinking, feeling, perception, aversion, greed and so on can also be known. But even this is not the point, because even if they are not known, and kamma is being conditioned on and on, the idea of "non-action" is related to `View'. Rt. View is productive of kamma and so is Wrong View; however the former is what leads to any lessening of akusala tendencies, while the latter in the long run will lead to more and more of samsara. So even if we see the danger of akusala in the present, if the `action' undertaken to reduce these is with `wrong view', then we have wasted this opportunity of having come in contact with the Dhamma, I think. > Sukin: > I classify this as concept, this may be a wrong term, but I am not > sure. > > eznir: > "I classify this as concept, this may be a wrong term, but I am not > sure". Don't you think you are groping in the dark, like the blind, > when there is the Lord Buddha's Teachings for guidance? The > Abhidhamma is a Teaching of Ultimate Truth and only the commentaries > in it can be discussed. But the Sutta provides an avenue to > understand "Abhidhamma", the higher Dhamma, which is profound and so > difficult to see! Suk: :-) Yes, I was commenting to Ivan and Azita in the car this Saturday, about how the tendency to `assert' is so great and the world in general keeps spilling out non-sense in the name of `wisdom'. And yes, I also realize how much ignorance there is. However, all being anatta (no control ;-)), that `not' thinking or verbalizing and any decision to withhold and seek first to get the facts right, may well involve the same basic akusala which one seeks to avoid. And if we are not careful, "self-view" is at work and any consequent approach to Dhamma will most likely be with wrong view'. Quite a trap isn't it? ;-) > Sukin: > Also if there is any sense experience, by the time I realize it, it > is a `thought' about what has just been experienced. > > eznir: > Exactly! This cannot be avoided. And if we are to see the difference > between "sense experience" and "`thought' about what has just been > experienced" we cannot operate on a "normal" level. We have > to "crossover" to a different domain altogether, one that is not > subjected to time & space. This is where formal meditational practice > becomes useful. Unless of course, if one has lots of paramis to one's > credit. We come across in the suttas where just by listening to the > Dhamma, Bhikkus attain Noble states! Suk: "We have to "crossover" to a different domain altogether, one that is not subjected to time & space". Is this kind of thinking helpful? Is the ariyans perception of `visible object' for example, any different from our own? Is not the deciding factor the "panna" which understands that this and all other conditioned realities including the `thinking' are just elements, conditioned dhammas? But even this is not the main point, the problem is our `wanting to catch realities' and the possible consequence of `illusion of result'? We are in fact inhibiting panna with such ideas, not allowing any limited positive accumulations to do their work as per the appropriate level. The `self' that knows hardness, seeing, taste and so on during normal everyday life and is the basis from which one's `construing' of the world arises, should this same kind of `self' be deliberately encouraged in the name of Dhamma. Aren't we making it more difficult for understanding to arise? > Sukin: > So I am dealing with only shadows, even though there may not be any > labeling and that other experiences occur before there is any > recognition. > > eznir: > Whatever it is that you deal with is karmically effective. Therefore > Javana thought moments are involved. Hence you must know whether it > is akusala or kusala. If akusala it(shadows) must be abandoned. If > kusala you must know what the "shadows" are, for there is no kusala > citta with not-knowing! If you are not sure of what the shadow is but > think it is some positive sign of progress, then you must repeatedly > deal with this "shadow" and get to know its characteristics. Now all > that is said here involves concepts, and if you are fighting shy of > concepts………………:-/ Suk: Concepts are never a problem, but wrong view which seeks to do something positive or negative about it is. The fact that concepts are not real and do not exhibit the characteristic of anicca and dukkha means that they can't be objects of insight, however "thinking" is real and this can be known. But when you say, "If you are not sure of what the shadow is but think it is some positive sign of progress, then you must repeatedly deal with this "shadow" and get to know its characteristics" isn't the `wanting' to `deal with akusala' placing oneself to be further deluded? Thinking, `measuring one's progress' can be known for what it is, but why fall into the trap of the delusion that dhammas can be controlled, which is wrong view? > eznir: > Consciousness(citta) is never without an object(arammana). So your > statememt "cittas dart amongst not only realities, but alternately, > the signs and details, *BEFORE* any apparent `thing' becomes > arammana" is a mis-statement. Suk: What I meant by `thing' is `conceptual objects', as in a `thing' standing against a background and/or other `things'. The process that takes place irrespective of `naming', the kind that perhaps a newly born perceives the world. I am leaving out the remaining part of your post partly because I don't understand your `funnel' analogy :-(, but mainly because I think the above is enough to give you a better idea of my position. I hope I haven't misunderstood any other points of yours though, if so please correct me. Metta, Sukin. > Perhaps an illustration would help here.(This is just to give a > perspective view of things.) Say there is a funnel, one end is wide > and the other narrow(obviously :-)). > > A worldling (puthujjana) sees this funnel from the narrow end. Hence > what he sees is the *outside* of the funnel. His views are > diversified as his eyes travel towards the wide end of the funnel. He > conceives "self" in four different ways with each of the 5- > aggregates, ie 20 in all, hence the diversification. > > A trainee(sekha) sees this funnel from the wide end towards the > narrow end. Hence what he sees is the *inside* of the funnel. > Therefore the Trainee "funnels" down, so to speak, sees all his > experience, converging into the 5-aggregates, as stemming from this 5- > aggregates. > > An Arahat(asekha) has no need of this "funnel", he has got rid of the > stem altogether. He "has" Nibbana, the *only* Ultimate Truth. > > "……and most likely informed by akusala cittas. What do you think?" If > you understood what is given above you wouldn't worry about akusala > cittas. Because, you see akusala cittas as akusala cittas (refer Bala- > pandita Sutta SN XII.19). (Note also in the Satipatthana Sutta even > the akusala cittas(hindrances) are taken into account. In fact the > whole gamut of experience is included.) Being mindful in this way, > you are no more *subjected* to akusala cittas. Then by applying the 4- > fold effort one develops the other path factors(easier said than > done, though! :-)). > > Metta > eznir 32524 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi Jack, Thank you for elaborating further. I find all your explanations very well-considered. --- Jackhat1@a... wrote: > Here is what I mean by deconstructing. I'm sitting in the dentist's > office. I > see I am in discomfort. I think (use concepts) to decide to put my > attention > on my physical body sense door. Once my attention is there, I just > observe > with no thought or direction. At times, my training in 4 material > elements > (ultimates) meditation kicks in and my attention goes to the physical > body elements > without the first step of using concepts to decide to do it. It all > happens > with "my" doing anything. ..... S: There is nothing wrong (as I see it) with this kind of practice and I think there are many benefits. My question is how this practice or a Goenka-style practice differs in application and benefit from a similar ‘unblocking of chi’ in say Qi Gong, Tai chi or yoga relaxation when there is also a concentration on the physical sensations, but without necessarily having heard the Buddha’s teachings at all? Even if one has heard about the elements and about namas and rupas, I don’t think that attending to the ‘body elements’ should be taken for awareness which has to be accompanied by detachment and without any selection of object. While these practices have many benefits, if one mistakes such focussing (with or without any idea of ‘my’ doing) for the development of satipatthana, I think it’s incorrect. As for the concepts, the sense and mind door processes follow each other so quickly all the time and so there are bound to be many,many mind door processes in between the many sense door processes at these times with concepts unknowingly as objects. .... J: > Thinking, deciding and using concepts in this situation to me is only > useful > in that it points me toward a state of not thinking, deciding or using > concepts. .... S: We may even cling to a state or idea of not thinking about concepts, but wouldn’t this indicate more attachment? Are you sure there are no mind-door processes with thinking about concepts (not necessarily in words at all)flitting in between the sense doors all the time? A sense door process is so very brief and is always followed unknowingly by one or more mind door processes, usually with concepts as objects without any words of formulations being necessary. .... J:>My meditation practice has benefits to me such as reducing > stress .... S: I think your dentist chair practice may well be very practical and you might be surprised to hear how similar some of my healing practices are, given that I’ve been given a NAG label;-) .... J: >but its > ultimate use to to practice "directly understanding dhammas with > detachment > and without any idea of self." as you say below. "Understanding" in this > sense > means direct, non-conceptual wisdom not book learning. .... S: This is where our ‘methods’ part ways. As I consider "directly understanding dhammas with detachment and without any idea of self", it matters not what the attention is drawn to or not drawn to in the dentist’s chair or whether one is sitting quietly or fidgeting, because any reality can be known at that or any other time. Indeed what is experienced, whether it be for example, restlessness, fear, hardness/softness, sound or thinking, can be known.If there is the idea that another object or some special focus is more suitable for awareness, unknowingly an idea of self starts to creep in as I see it. .... J: > By the way, I am worried that I am coming off as claiming advanced > powers. > Most people who have been meditating for a few years and been on some > vipassana > retreats would probably say the same. I am still very much a beginner. ... S: Not at all. I think all your comments are very modest and reveal a very deep reflection and love of the teachings. I wouldn’t be able to have this conversation with most ‘vipassana meditators’,I know. I’m also only sharing a beginner’s reflections. .... J: >This concentration on the sense doors (guarding the sense doors the > Visud. > calls it) can refer to different steps in the process as taught by the > Buddha. > As its simplest level, it is still part of the process as taught by the > Buddha. > At its highest level it is "directly understanding dhammas with > detachment > and without any idea of self." ..... S: I understand the ‘guading of the sense doors’ to always be referring to awareness and understanding of the objects experienced through them (visible objects, sounds and so on) and to the namas which experience these objects (seeing, hearing and so on)as they arise during the day. This is not by concentrating or selecting objects which have inevitably passed already. Such concentrating or selecting would be more indicative of attachment to ‘guarding’ than actual awareness and understanding which ‘guard’ naturally. The Vism gives these verses in 1,101 which Jon quoted before: ‘Among the visible objects, sounds, and smells, ‘And tastes, and tangibles, guard the faculties; ‘For when these doors are open and unguarded, ‘Then thieves will come and raid as ‘twere a village’ ‘And just as with an ill-roofed house ‘The rain comes leaking in, so too ‘Will lust come leaking in for sure ‘upon an undeveloped mind’ (Dh.13) ..... J:>But, I am thinking and learning about my practice and your views from this dialogue. .... S:Likewise. I find I consider a lot when responding to you, Jack. Metta, Sarah ====== 32525 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana - "Rebirth with genetic Info." Hi Eddie (& Erik), --- Eddie Lou wrote: > Hi, Sarah, > > Thanks. I think the scientific community can do more > research on such kind of phenomena. I believe they did > but never quite heard about real conclusive > hypotheses, whatsoever. > > So I am resorting to our Buddhist community, to find > some kind of an explanation in my jig-saw puzzle. I > had once asked a learned Buddhist, who has no answer > to it. .... S: Only a Buddha could understand all the complexities of kamma which would bring about such particular results at such a time. The more we read about past lives in the teachings, the more we can see how extraordinary was the omniscience of the Buddha. With our scientific knowledge and knowledge of the teachings, we can just give small indications only. Metta, Sarah p.s Erik, good to know you're around;-) ===== 32526 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Recognizing_the_Dhamma_-_7._Persistence_(§_7.2,_§_7.3) Hi Victor, Thank you for being so polite about my verses on solitude. I’ve been meaning to follow up on this next quality: --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > 7. Persistence > § 7.1. > "'This Dhamma is for one whose persistence is aroused, not for one > who is lazy.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? > There is the case where a monk keeps his persistence aroused for > abandoning unskillful mental qualities and taking on skillful mental > qualities. He is steadfast, solid in his effort, not shirking his > duties with regard to skillful mental qualities. 'This Dhamma is for > one whose persistence is aroused, not for one who is lazy.' Thus was > it said. And with reference to this was it said. > > [AN VIII.30] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recognizing.html#persistence ... S: I notice from the original 8 principles that persistence is a translation for viriya or (right) effort. How are unskilful states abandoned and skilful ones developed if not by understanding these states and other dhammas when they arise as elements or dhammas, not belonging to a self. Whilst looking for Dan’s post on Right Effort, I came across his ‘10 great Dhamma quotes’. This was his note and first quote: .... Dan:(1) Realizing the difference between kusala and akusala is crucial: "There are, bhikkhus, wholesome and unwholesome states, blameable and blameless states, inferior and superior states, dark and bright states with their counterparts: frequently giving careful attention to them is the nutriment for the arising of the unarisen enlightenment factor of discrimination of states and for the fulfillment by development of the arisen enlightenment factor of discrimination of states." (Samyutta Nikaya V, 46:51 --Bojjhangasamyutta [PTS 104]) .... S: So when we consider the meaning of ‘right effort’ it always has to be that quality of viriya cetasika (effort mental factor) accompanying right understanding. Viriya itself arises with almost all cittas and is only wholesome when accompanying wholesome cittas. This is the quote of Dan’s I was looking for from the following post(which is also relevant to other discussions on ‘rules and rituals and right effort): http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m9166.html Dan: >As an example, consider effort/energy/endeavour which is one of the components of each: the right exertions, the bases of power, the five faculties, the five strengths, the seven factors for Awakening, the noble eightfold path. We read from the Dhammasangani (376): Katamam tasmim samaye viriyindriyam hoti? "What at that time is the faculty of effort/energy/endeavor?" "That which is mental endeavor (viriyarhambo), riddance of lethargy, exerting harder and harder, endeavoring higher and higher, striving, painstaking zeal, utmost exertion, steadfastness, resoluteness, unfaltering endeavor, having sustained desire (chanda) to strive, not relinquishing the task, discharging the task well, effort (viriya) as the faculty of effort, power of effort, wrong effort -- this at that time is the faculty of endeavor." >Wrong effort?! Everything sounded pretty good up to that point! This is a description of the viriya cetasika arising with lobha-mula-cittani. It is interesting to read how it differs from the viriya cetasika arising with the sense-sphere kusala cittas: [Dhs. 13] "What at that time is the faculty of effort/energy/endeavor? That which is mental endeavor (viriyarhambo), riddance of lethargy, exerting harder and harder, endeavoring higher and higher, striving, painstaking zeal, utmost exertion, steadfastness, resoluteness, unfaltering endeavor, having sustained desire (chanda) to strive, not relinquishing the task, discharging the task well, effort (viriya) as the faculty of effort, power of effort, right effort -- this at that time is the faculty of endeavor." >The only difference is the word "right" in the second paragraph contrasting with the "wrong" of the first. It's fine and dandy to toss around lists of the five this's and the four that's, but it is critical to be able to discern clearly when they are "right" or "wrong" as they arise. This hinges on development of discernment and understanding. Is this done via ritual? I don't think so. ***** S: Victor, I found the other quotes you gave on this thread to be really excellent reminders, so I’ll repeat them as you gave them some time ago: V: § 7.2. As if struck by a sword, as if his head were on fire, a monk should live the wandering life -- mindful -- for the abandoning of sensual passion. [Thag I.39] § 7.3. "Furthermore, the monk finds pleasure & delight in developing [skillful mental qualities], finds pleasure & delight in abandoning [unskillful mental qualities]. He does not, on account of his pleasure & delight in developing & abandoning, exalt himself or disparage others. In this he is diligent, deft, alert, & mindful. This is said to be a monk standing firm in the ancient, original traditions of the noble ones." [AN IV.28] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recognizing.html#persistence ***** S: Look forward to your next installments or further comments. Metta, Sarah ====== 32527 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 2:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi Victor (& Howard), --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > The idea > > "all there is (leaving aside nibbana) is eye and visual object, ear > and audible object, nose and olfactory object, tongue and gustatory > object, body and bodily object, and mind and mind object. Everything > there is partakes of only one of these domains." > > is the senior cosmology 'Everything exists' that the Buddha spoke of > in Samyutta Nikaya XII.48, Lokayatika Sutta. > > And that idea has nothing to do with the teaching of dependent > origination. > > Comments are welcome. .... My main comment is to suggest that our limited understanding and particular views lead us astray all the time when reading the suttas, especially if don’t have the assistance of the commentaries and Abhidhamma;-) The ‘All’ in the Sabba sutta (and repeated throughout the Tipitaka) which are to be known at this very moment, refer to the namas and rupas which (apart from Nibbana) are conditioned and have the characterisitcs of anicca, dukkha and anatta. These are the dhammas which temporarily ‘exist’. In the Lokayatika sutta, the first view expressed by the cosmologist was indicating an eternalist belief based on the idea of a permanent self (see the Brahmajala sutta for details on all wrong views about self). I wrote the following before about the Lokayatika Sutta, referring to B.Bodhi’s commentary notes: >The notes give details about lokaayata (the science of debate).The commentary indicates that the first and third views are forms ofeternalist view (sassatadi.t.thi)and the second and fourth views are forms of annihilationist view (ucchedad.t.thi). The first view was the one about whether all exists and the third one to whether there was unity (ekatta.m). According to the comy, he’s asking whether it has a permanent nature (niccasabhaava). Clearly this is not the same as suggesting paramattha dhammas have anicca sabhaava without any suggestion of permanence.< I hope this clarifies, Metta, Sarah ====== 32528 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 3:20am Subject: Re: Video Games? Friend Sarah, Sarah: My question is how this practice or a Goenka-style practice differs in application and benefit from a similar `unblocking of chi' in say Qi Gong, Tai chi or yoga relaxation when there is also a concentration on the physical sensations, but without necessarily having heard the Buddha's teachings at all? James: I have practiced Tai Chi, Qi Gong, and Yoga and I know that they they are different than Buddhist meditation (which I have also practiced). However, I'm not sure that your question is a genuine question of inquiry, or if it is a leading question which implies that they are not different. Do you genuinely not know the differences? I will write a post explaining the differences between these practices, from a personal and scholarly perspective, but only if you have an open mind and want to genuinely learn rather than thinking you know the answer already. Is this a genuine, open question, free of preconceptions? I don't want to spend the effort otherwise. Sarah: without any selection of object. James: Where did the Buddha teach that satipatthana could not involve any selection of object? Metta, James 32529 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 3:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi Rob Ep (Howard, Christine & All), Your asked for my comments on your measured masterpiece or massive missive on meditation. Many of your reflections remind me of comments Howard made recently in a post on ‘rites and rituals’ and good questions Christine raised before her trip and whilst in Bangkok along similar lines, I think. You articulated the general sentiment very well . Here’s a brief extract: Robert Epstein wrote: > >The question > is, does formal sitting meditation cause the kind of expectation that > prevents rather than promotes the development of sati, and on the > other hand, is there a process taking place in formal meditation that > promotes rather than prevents the development of sati? And if both > are present, does one outweigh the other in the affect they have on > understanding? A corollary question then is: does sati in fact > develop through ?natural observation? in conjunction with study of > suttas and commentaries, and is there any expectation in *that* > process that would prevent rather than promote the development of > genuine awareness? .... S: I think the answers to these questions very much come down to the present moment. Right view or wrong view, right practice or wrong practice (or adherence to rites and rituals) can arise at anytime, regardless of the activity. Just as it would be meaningless to say that whenever we’re sitting cross-legged with eyes closed there must be right or wrong view, it would be equally meaningless to say the same when we have a sutta (or even an Abhidhamma text!) open in front of us. When we’re talking about ‘formal meditation’ or ‘reading texts’, in fact there are only countless namas and rupas arising and passing away and these are all conditioned. With regard to the development of satipatthana, any moments of wise considering or reflecting on the teachings (not to be measured again by the appearance or amount of book study) are likely to lead to more wise considering, reflecting and thereby to direct understanding of presently arising namas and rupas. Any moments of concentrating on particular objects or conventional awareness with a selection of what should be known are likely to be with attachment, not detachment and will thus likely lead to more attachment or wrong concentration. In the same way, whilst reading that Abhidhamma text, moments with attachment to finding out the answers or any ideas that the memorising of the details or studying of the original text will inevitably bring more awareness are also likely to lead to more attachment, wrong view and conceit as well. So I don’t think we need to set any rules at all about our actions, but can learn to understand the various realities. I like the following quote from the Ganaka-Mogallana sutta, MN107 which Jeff gave recently, transl by I.B. Horner: >When this had been said, the brahman Ganaka-Moggallana spoke thus to the Lord: 15. "Good Gotama, as for those persons who, in want of a way of living, having gone forth from home into homelessness without faith, who are crafty, fraudulent, deceitful, who are unbalanced and puffed up, who are shifty, scurrilous and of loose talk, the doors of whose sense-organs are not guarded, who do not know moderation in eating, who are not intent on vigilance, indifferent to recluseship, not of keen respect for the training, who are ones for abundance, lax, taking the lead in backsliding, shirking the burden of seclusion, who are indolent, of feeble energy, of confused mindfulness, not clearly conscious, not concentrated but of wandering minds, who are weak in wisdom, drivellers -- the good Gotama is not in communion with them. But as for those young men of respectable families who have gone forth from home into homelessness from faith, who are not crafty, fraudulent or deceitful, who are not unbalanced or puffed up, who are not shifty, scurrilous or of loose talk, the doors of whose sense-organs are guarded, who know moderation in eating, who are intent on vigilance, longing for recluseship, of keen respect for the training, who are not ones for abundance, not lax, shirking, backsliding, taking the lead in seclusion, who are of stirred up energy, self-resolute, with mindfulness aroused, clearly conscious, concentrated, their minds one-pointed, who have wisdom, are not drivellers -- the good Gotama is in communion with them. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn107.html **** <...> >To deny the natural benefit for > concentration, insofar as that goes, of sitting still and paying > attention, is to deny common sense. This is true not just of > observing the mind, but of any activity. There is nothing that is not > benefited with increased awareness when it is focused on and paid > attention to. ..... S: Like with the quote I gave from Dan’s post on effort, concentration and paying attention or awareness in this sense can be either kusala or akusala. Most of the time they are akusala. .... <...> > It is like observing a rat in the wild and how it behaves, as opposed > to observing a lab rat under controlled conditions and seeing how it > behaves in a cage with a maze and a food box at the end of the maze. .... S: I loved your analogies, Rob and agreed with much of what you wrote. ... <...> > So let us see if we can break open this impasse between cultures. > Those who are in favor of practicing meditation will say ?this is the > way.? Those who are in favor of naturally arising sati in everyday > life promoted by study and understanding of sutta and commentary will > say ?this is the way.? They will criticize the others? view, although > Buddha would probably say that to do this would harden the mind and > make it more difficult to approach the openness and promote the > letting go of partial views that actually promotes mindfulness and > understanding. .... S: Whilst we continue to think in terms of ‘situations’ or to understand satipatthana to depend on time, place and particular activities (whether that be cushion or commentary time), there is bound to be a continued misunderstanding of what the development entails. This development of satipatthana always comes back to the present moment and the understanding of paramattha dhammas conditioned already. Reflecting on these dhammas right now as we’re doing as we read and write can be a condition for more wise reflection. ..... <....> We don?t > have to be confined to the understandings of one culture or another, > but can be open to all the skillful devices available for the path. .... S: What you write sounds very alluring and tolerant, but I think that when we have an idea of ‘devices’, it indicates an idea of some short-cut techniques or ‘things-to-do’ rather than an understanding of conditioned dhammas. An idea of self is ready to sneak in all the time. .... > Is it *impossible* that formal meditation will enhance the experience > of the development of mindfulness for an Abidhammist? Is it even > *impossible* that some physical culture which opens the body and > nervous system such as yoga, may have some affect on the mind that > allows a greater development of awareness? To say that these things > are impossible closes the door to all of the aspects of the body and > mind that may possibly promote greater development of awareness and > feed the path. I don?t think we should have our cultural doors > limited or closed. The body and the mind are what we carry with us in > this life, the only equipment we?ve been given for the path, and so we > should be open to making the best use of all of this equipment, not > restrict ourselves to one modality. .... S: So who is is going to ‘make the best use of all of this equipment’ and which ‘self’ is it that should be or should not be restricted to ‘one modality’? As you know, I do a lot of yoga myself and I’m glad to hear you’re getting fit again yourself. Awareness and understanding can most certainly arise during our activities, but when we have the idea that the activity itself - certain mental or physical systems or cultures - will of themselves lead to the development of satipatthana and the decrease in self-view or increase in detachment, then I think it’s very wrong and contrary to the Buddha’s teachings. ..... >We may have a main modality that > we think is best, but we should be open, not closed, to other > modalities, just as Abidhamma enjoins us to be open to all the moments > that occur in life, whatever activity we are doing. There are yoga > practices that say, don?t worry about the physical culture so much, > but what happens to your mind in this or that position. Be aware of > the activity of consciousness at all times, and the yoga thus tests > the ability to maintain awareness under shifting conditions. .... S: But there isn’t any understanding of paramattha dhammas, of namas and rupas, the objects of awareness as anatta. If the development of satipatthana were so simple, it wouldn’t need a Buddha to teach us. .... <...> > So there is > really no separation between Abidhamma and meditation, nor between > meditation and Abidhamma. ... S: No, depending on how one understands ‘Abhidhamma’ and ‘meditation’. ... >There is only life and its various events > and practices to be observed and understood at all times. .... S: Sorry, but ‘events’ and ‘practices’ are not realities and cannot be understood. .... >Practices > should not be rejected, but should be included, even if this flies in > the face of ?traditional understandings.? We should use common sense > and skillful practices of all sorts, not fall into prejudices about > what is ?right and wrong.? .... S: What is important as I see it is the understanding of dhammas right now, as anatta. As soon as there is an idea of ‘doing’ or ‘practice’ other than such understanding which can only arise by the appropriate conditions, then it’s wrong practice. .... <....> What is most important is that I keep > my mind open to observe the process of thought, consciousness, > perception, so that I may awaken, and I will engage in the practices I > choose to engage in. Buddha?s principles must apply no matter what I > am doing. Any tradition that substitutes belief for an open mind, > shuts down the development of sati. .... S: When there is an idea of self engaging or following any practice or being open to anything, there is no understanding. .... <...> > And it would be silly of me to say ?Sorry, I?m only open to sitting > meditation? when invited to observe the mind process in everyday life. > I should say ?Wow, let?s see what that is about? and do it, as I do > try to do. A person who only pays attention when meditating and does > not have an interest in the budding apple tree out the window and what > mind process allows the blossoms to look pink, is not much of a > meditator. .... S: So again who is trying to do something? doesn’t this suggest attachment and an idea of self at such times? ... > Anyway, that is all for now. There is more to say but I will perhaps > return to this after hearing any responses. I hope this may generate > a few thoughts or perceptions that are out of the ordinary mold or > predisposition of our given cultures, as it has for me. And thanks > for having me over! : ) .... S: It’s a real treat to have you over. I just hope we don’t spoil the fun too soon;-) Just talk to Nina about Emily if you prefer. On the other hand, I’ll be very glad to hear your further comments or any from Chris and Howard too. Metta, Sarah p.s Chris, hope you get your computer problems solved soon - bad timing as I think you said you're still on holiday. Still, glad that it's nothing more serious. Happy Birthday Sarah F!! (Jon's choice was noodles;-)). ===== 32530 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 3:32am Subject: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana Friend Jon (and Howard at end), Jon: … must be potentially capable of arising now in some form or other no matter how weak,… James: How much about dhammas does a person know with weak insight? You had written that one doesn't need any kind of special practice, concentration practice, because understanding dhammas as they arise are the practice. Now you are saying that this understanding is weak. Which is it? Jon: As a starting point, we need to acknowledge that kusala and akusala can arise interspersed with each other. James: As a starting point for what? What is this knowledge going to change? Jon: Having the idea that akusala must be totally absent before the awareness of dhammas can begin to be developed tends to lead to all sorts of ideas about you-know-what;-)) James: No, I don't know what. Do you mean…eeeekkkkkk… MEDITATION??!! Maybe even JHANA!!??? Say it isn't so!! ;-)) Metta, James Ps. Happy Birthday, whenever it was. To you also, Howard! 32531 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 3:36am Subject: Re: Destruction of the Taints Friend Philip, Philip: The body as a sack of various kinds of grain. The mind as - hopefully - a clear mountain pool. Couldn't satipatthana be seen as a supreme method of removing taints by seeing them clearly with *good eyesight*? That's a beginner's take on it. James: Not so beginner, I think. Good insight. Thanks for the input. Philip: 32532 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 4:38am Subject: Re: Pannatti (Concept) Friend Jon, Jon: I don't think this is a description of just sitting down and doing it in the hope that somehow it will all become clear in time. James: I think so. What else is it a description for? Jon: The advice the Buddha himself gave to others was to listen more, consider more, reflect more on the presently arising dhammas. James: The words `consider' and `reflect' are rather vague, could you be more specific? Also, are you stating that the Buddha didn't teach the practices of Jhana and Bhrama-Viharas? As to my understanding, these practices don't involve any listening (maybe they involve considering and reflecting if you will be more specific?? Not sure what you mean). Jon: In my view the most authentic and reliable of all such sources would be the commentaries. James: I don't have any problems with the commentaries to that sutta. They explain more how one is to use mindfulness of the breath to gain insight. You obviously have a problem with this sutta because it calls for focusing on one object for an extended period and this practice contradicts with your view of Buddhism. Rather than trying to wrangle some contradictory meaning from the commentaries, I think you should just give up and face the reality of what the sutta calls for. Jon: But I don't find in the sutta any mention of a specific causal connection between mindfulness of breathing and seeing the impermanence of all dhammas. James: The Buddha said that the practitioner will breathe in and out contemplating impermanence. How can you say that you don't see impermanence in that sutta when it clearly says `impermanence'? It doesn't matter if the sutta doesn't say anything about the `casual connection', that is why you must practice it to know the connection and the meaning. See my above comments. Jon: I think if you read the sutta carefully you'll see that mindfulness of dhammas, not of breathing per se, is the key. James: I think that if you read the sutta carefully you will see that it says mindfulness of breathing, hence the title "Mindfulness of Breathing". LOL! Metta, James 32533 From: Ken O Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] mind-door process Hi RobM and Nina and others :-) > Since there is no associated pleasant feeling, there will not be lobha. Since there is no unpleasant feeling, there will be no dosa. The javana cittas of this citta-vithi will be kirya (in the case of an Arahant), maha-kusala (if one sees things as they > truly are) or moha-mula (if one does not see things as they truly > are). Moha-mula cittas create very weak kamma. This is why I say > that the sense door process creates very weak kamma. k: After the determining citta, it does not mean that javana process is moha in the sense process. It can also be akusala and kusala. If the sense process is indifference, then there is a high likelihood that the resulting mind process will also be indifference. However since we are affected by the different vedana, that is why the resultant mind process is also of different vedana. In the patticamuppada, vedana is after the the sense citta but that does not mean this is after the sense process. It can also be in the present sense process where javana is involved. I dont think feeling is an object of a mind-door process. It can be a arise together with a sense door process because vedana is universal citta. Similarly, when one feel, one perceive, can still be in the sense process as perception is sanna and there are universal cittas so they do rise in the javana process. And again, clear aware of the feeling, does not mean it also out of sense process, it can also part of the sense process. > "What one perceives, that one thinks about." (yam sanjanati tam > vitakketi) k: I can say this part can be the mental process, but it also mean that the thinking process already being conditioned prior by the sense door process. As the preception and feeling are already conditioned previously in the sense door process. > My comments: > We can see how pananca feeds upon itself. Papanca (conceptual > proliferation) is clearly the manifestation of many mind-door > processes (only mind-door processes can take concepts as objects). > One can see how the kamma created at this stage can be quite strong > compared to the kamma created at the previous stages of perception. > The sutta now changes direction again. What started as a mechanical > process (from eye-consciousness to feeling) evolved into an active > involvement of the observer (perception to mentally proliferates) > and > now the mental proliferation takes control of the observer. k: The mechanical process is till determining citta, then the javana process is the gist between kusala or akusala in the sense or mind door process. The whole proces is about both door and not just mind door. Concepts do conditioned almost all our mind door process presently and also resulting kamma reactions to the conceptual object. But concepts cannot display the three characteristics, that is why they cannot be objects of satipatthana. Furthermore, if we wish to know paramathas to break the world of concept (esp concepts of self), we cannot use concepts to realise it, we must used a parmattha dhammas. k: Others could help with commentary inputs. What I am doing now are basically logical and intuitive reasoning - that may not be accurate. Glad to be corrected. Ken O 32534 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi Sarah, The idea "Nama and rupa exist" is the first cosmology "All exists." And that idea is a recurring theme in dsg. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor (& Howard), > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > > The idea > > > > "all there is (leaving aside nibbana) is eye and visual object, ear > > and audible object, nose and olfactory object, tongue and gustatory > > object, body and bodily object, and mind and mind object. Everything > > there is partakes of only one of these domains." > > > > is the senior cosmology 'Everything exists' that the Buddha spoke of > > in Samyutta Nikaya XII.48, Lokayatika Sutta. > > > > And that idea has nothing to do with the teaching of dependent > > origination. > > > > Comments are welcome. > .... > My main comment is to suggest that our limited understanding and > particular views lead us astray all the time when reading the suttas, > especially if don't have the assistance of the commentaries and > Abhidhamma;-) > > The `All' in the Sabba sutta (and repeated throughout the Tipitaka) which > are to be known at this very moment, refer to the namas and rupas which > (apart from Nibbana) are conditioned and have the characterisitcs of > anicca, dukkha and anatta. These are the dhammas which temporarily > `exist'. > > In the Lokayatika sutta, the first view expressed by the > cosmologist was indicating an eternalist belief based on the idea of a > permanent self (see the Brahmajala sutta for details on all wrong views > about self). > > I wrote the following before about the Lokayatika Sutta, referring to > B.Bodhi's commentary notes: > > >The notes give details about lokaayata (the science of debate).The > commentary indicates that the first and third views are forms ofeternalist > view (sassatadi.t.thi)and the second and fourth views are forms of > annihilationist view (ucchedad.t.thi). > > The first view was the one about whether all exists and the third one to > whether there was unity (ekatta.m). According to the comy, he's asking > whether it has a permanent nature (niccasabhaava). Clearly this is not the > same as suggesting paramattha dhammas have anicca sabhaava without any > suggestion of permanence.< > > I hope this clarifies, > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== 32535 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:39am Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi Sukin, Could you summarize your position? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Victor, [snip] > > Can we say first of all that there *is* `action' all the time > regardless of whether or not we believe in deliberate effort and > whether or not there is any understanding at the time? That being > the case, then the important thing would be to determine if indeed > the citta is kusala or akusala, with right understanding or with > wrong understanding? Now if we are to some degree familiar with our > own citta and have any estimation of the akusala tendencies, then we > may know that the "should" that we identify with is from `not > knowing', avijja. If there is any understanding at the moment about > the conditioned nature of a reality, it is just that. If there is > sati, there is sati, if akusala is seen, it is seen. If there is > samvegha, this can be followed by any citta, with or without panna. > If kusala chanda is conditioned, well and good, if not, then what > should be done? Should we be propelled by an `idea'? Such > identification with cetana may be with self-view, and this is blind > to the present reality. The danger is that if this is not > recognized, then akusala will be mistaken for kusala and wrong > understanding for right. And this accumulates, and we have adopted > a `wrong practice'. > > When there is any understanding, whether during satipatthana or wise > reflection, this is already "right effort" of some level and a > kusala kammapattha has already been performed. Is there any need to > do more? Would panna seek more of anything if it sees in the moment > that nothing can be caused to arise by will?( I know you don't agree > with this.) And when there is panna, is there also not a hint of > where one is at and the understanding that only through much > practice will the goal be reached? Does this not imply that there is > much work to be done? But this of course doesn't mean that one > should follow one's projections and/or a practice which one believes > will take one there. Lobha and avijja may be ruling here. One is > seeking more of something and may think that the `intention to do' > is consequent of understanding. But is it? > > On the other hand, not hindered by any ambition for `self', there > may be a level of `right effort', which perhaps looks not so to > someone who has wrongly identified this factor with `intending' > and `doing' something, for e.g. formal practice. Would panna > opt `doing' something instead of 'understanding' the present moment, > even though that activity promises more understanding as a result? > Or is this more likely to be consequent of wrong view? > > Victor, on the level of stories, while driving Azita back to her > hotel today, she told me about how after meeting Phra Dhammadaro > (who was a student of K. Sujin) more than 20 years ago, that she > remained in Thailand for another year and during that time she went > *every* evening to listen to him speak about dhamma. Now is that not > some "effort" involved? Only I think in her case, she was not > identifying what she was doing with `right practice', but there was > some real kusala chanda I think, to seek more understanding. > > So surely, things are being done with the understanding of what is > right and what is wrong. And this is with chanda, viriya and cetana > along with the other cetasikas. Only what is perceived as wrong, > particularly self-view and wrong effort, happens to be what you see > as right effort and right practice. > > Regarding your quote above: > "Whatever a person experiences -- pleasant, painful, or neither > pleasant nor painful -- that is all caused by what was done in the > past." > > One of the first distinctions any student of Abhidhamma makes is the > difference between kamma and vipaka. And this I believe is more > productive of `right efforts' than any `deliberate' practice which > may or may not take into account this distinction. This has very > deep implications I think. > > > They can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't > be > > done. > > Is the association of the above with NAG based upon your > understanding of what *should* be done? Because I don't think the > Buddha would accuse us NAGs of such a thing. ;-) > > > > The very view "The point is that the very idea of `doing it' is > > contradictory to my understanding of the conditioned nature of > > realities" reflects that. > > I hope what I wrote above has helped to clarify my position. > > Metta, > Sukin. 32536 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:45am Subject: Re: Recognizing_the_Dhamma_-_7._Persistence_(§_7.2,_§_7.3) Hi Sarah, Thank you for this message. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Thank you for being so polite about my verses on solitude. I've been > meaning to follow up on this next quality: > [snip] > S: I notice from the original 8 principles that persistence is a > translation for viriya or (right) effort. How are unskilful states > abandoned and skilful ones developed if not by understanding these states > and other dhammas when they arise as elements or dhammas, not belonging to > a self. Yes, one would need to know what is skillful and what is not skillful. [snip] > S: So when we consider the meaning of `right effort' it always has to be > that quality of viriya cetasika (effort mental factor) accompanying right > understanding. Viriya itself arises with almost all cittas and is only > wholesome when accompanying wholesome cittas. > This is how I understand it regarding 'right effort': "And what, monks, is right effort? [i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. [ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen. [iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen. [iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort." -- SN XLV.8 [snip] > S: Victor, I found the other quotes you gave on this thread to be really > excellent reminders, so I'll repeat them as you gave them some time ago: > > V: § 7.2. > As if struck by a sword, > as if his head were on fire, > a monk should live the wandering life > -- mindful -- > for the abandoning of sensual passion. > > [Thag I.39] > > > § 7.3. > "Furthermore, the monk finds pleasure & delight in developing > [skillful mental qualities], finds pleasure & delight in abandoning > [unskillful mental qualities]. He does not, on account of his > pleasure & delight in developing & abandoning, exalt himself or > disparage others. In this he is diligent, deft, alert, & mindful. > This is said to be a monk standing firm in the ancient, original > traditions of the noble ones." > > [AN IV.28] > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recognizing.html#persistence > ***** > S: Look forward to your next installments or further comments. > > Metta, > > Sarah I appreciate that you took time to respond to this thread. Metta, Victor 32537 From: Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 3:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi, Victor (and Sarah) - In a message dated 4/26/04 9:24:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Sarah, > > The idea "Nama and rupa exist" is the first cosmology "All exists." > And that idea is a recurring theme in dsg. > > Metta, > Victor > ========================= I think that 'exist' is a "dangerous" word - misleading at best. I prefer to say that namas and rupas "arise" or "appear". From my perspective, they are conditioned, dependent (not self-existent), fleeting, and perhaps only momentary *events*. This is the perspective I have come to see throughout the suttas, and I don't think Abhidhamma contradicts that, though some Abhidhammikas and others may tend more towards a static, separate-existence perspective similar to the ancient Sarvastivadin position. BTW, the translation of whatever Pali word it is into "cosmology" is confusing to me. I suppose the idea is "world view" or "weltanshauung". 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) 32538 From: Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 3:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? -- Jackhat1@a... wrote: > Here is what I mean by deconstructing. I'm sitting in the dentist's > office. I > see I am in discomfort. I think (use concepts) to decide to put my > attention > on my physical body sense door. Once my attention is there, I just > observe > with no thought or direction. At times, my training in 4 material > elements > (ultimates) meditation kicks in and my attention goes to the physical > body elements > without the first step of using concepts to decide to do it. It all > happens > with "my" doing anything. ..... S: There is nothing wrong (as I see it) with this kind of practice and I think there are many benefits. My question is how this practice or a Goenka-style practice differs in application and benefit from a similar ‘unblocking of chi’ in say Qi Gong, Tai chi or yoga relaxation when there is also a concentration on the physical sensations, but without necessarily having heard the Buddha’s teachings at all? Even if one has heard about the elements and about namas and rupas, I don’t think that attending to the ‘body elements’ should be taken for awareness which has to be accompanied by detachment and without any selection of object. While these practices have many benefits, if one mistakes such focussing (with or without any idea of ‘my’ doing) for the development of satipatthana, I think it’s incorrect. As for the concepts, the sense and mind door processes follow each other so quickly all the time and so there are bound to be many,many mind door processes in between the many sense door processes at these times with concepts unknowingly as objects. Sarah, Below is an excerpt from DN 22, the Mahasatipatthana Sutta. This is what I model my 4-Element Meditation on and which I applied during my visit to the dentist. You seem to be arguing against the Buddha's words. If you are not arguing with the Buddha's teachings, how am I misapplying his instructions as stated below? "...The Blessed One said this: "This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Unbinding -- in other words, the four frames of reference. What four? "There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. [snip] [5] "Furthermore...just as a skilled butcher or his apprentice, having killed a cow, would sit at a crossroads cutting it up into pieces, the monk contemplates this very body -- however it stands, however it is disposed -- in terms of properties: 'In this body there is the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property.' .... J: > Thinking, deciding and using concepts in this situation to me is only > useful > in that it points me toward a state of not thinking, deciding or using > concepts. .... S: We may even cling to a state or idea of not thinking about concepts, but wouldn’t this indicate more attachment? Are you sure there are no mind-door processes with thinking about concepts (not necessarily in words at all)flitting in between the sense doors all the time? A sense door process is so very brief and is always followed unknowingly by one or more mind door processes, usually with concepts as objects without any words of formulations being necessary. Yes, you are right. Clinging to anything indicates attachment.(?) As I said above, I'm just trying to follow the Buddha's teachings. His instructions in the sutta above and in many other suttas didn't seem hung up on what you seem to be hung up on. ( I don't mean "hung up on" as negative. I think you are wrong but I "think" with a smile toward you.) .... J:>My meditation practice has benefits to me such as reducing > stress .... S: I think your dentist chair practice may well be very practical and you might be surprised to hear how similar some of my healing practices are, given that I’ve been given a NAG label;-) .... J: >but its > ultimate use to to practice "directly understanding dhammas with > detachment > and without any idea of self." as you say below. "Understanding" in this > sense > means direct, non-conceptual wisdom not book learning. .... S: This is where our ‘methods’ part ways. As I consider "directly understanding dhammas with detachment and without any idea of self", it matters not what the attention is drawn to or not drawn to in the dentist’s chair or whether one is sitting quietly or fidgeting, because any reality can be known at that or any other time. Indeed what is experienced, whether it be for example, restlessness, fear, hardness/softness, sound or thinking, can be known.If there is the idea that another object or some special focus is more suitable for awareness, unknowingly an idea of self starts to creep in as I see it. jack: I understand that we differ here. I believe I am in line with the Buddha's teachings. I think he was a teacher realizing that his students did not have perfect vision or perfect attention. Some times, he would suggest learning by paying attention to the breath. At other times, he would suggest learning by paying attention to body sensations. Etc. ....[snip] J: >This concentration on the sense doors (guarding the sense doors the > Visud. > calls it) can refer to different steps in the process as taught by the > Buddha. > As its simplest level, it is still part of the process as taught by the > Buddha. > At its highest level it is "directly understanding dhammas with > detachment > and without any idea of self." ..... S: I understand the ‘guading of the sense doors’ to always be referring to awareness and understanding of the objects experienced through them (visible objects, sounds and so on) and to the namas which experience these objects (seeing, hearing and so on)as they arise during the day. This is not by concentrating or selecting objects which have inevitably passed already. Such concentrating or selecting would be more indicative of attachment to ‘guarding’ than actual awareness and understanding which ‘guard’ naturally. jack: As I said above, the Buddha didn't just present examples of perfect understanding and practice. He gave practical instructions on many levels of difficulty on how to learn the dhamma as we go through our day. This meant selecting and concentrating at times. jack 32539 From: robmoult Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 8:16am Subject: Re: mind-door process Hi Ken O, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > > Since there is no associated pleasant feeling, there will not be > lobha. Since there is no unpleasant feeling, there will be no dosa. > The javana cittas of this citta-vithi will be kirya (in the case of > an Arahant), maha-kusala (if one sees things as they > > truly are) or moha-mula (if one does not see things as they truly > > are). Moha-mula cittas create very weak kamma. This is why I say > > that the sense door process creates very weak kamma. > > k: After the determining citta, it does not mean that javana process > is moha in the sense process. It can also be akusala and kusala. > If the sense process is indifference, then there is a high likelihood > that the resulting mind process will also be indifference. However > since we are affected by the different vedana, that is why the > resultant mind process is also of different vedana. ===== It is important to note that every citta in a citta process has exactly the same object. In other words, if the ear-consciousness citta has a certain sound as its object then the subsequent receiving citta, the subsequent investigating citta, the subsequent determining citta and all seven subsequent javana cittas will also have the same sound as their object. Let us consider the example of when you hear somebody call your name. During the one second that it took for them to say "Ken", there were billions of ear-door processes at work. Each ear-door process had the function of "taking into the mind" one miniscule part of the overall sound of "Ken". My point is that the amount of lobha or dosa that you may have on the hearing of one miniscule part of the overall sound of "Ken" is incredibly weak. True, there may be attachment to sensual pleasure (you like to listen), but this attachment is quite weak (only at the stage of Anagami is this attachment overcome). Each ear-door process only recognizes a miniscule part of the overall sound of "Ken". It is the subsequent mind-door processes that glue these miniscule parts into a word. It is the mind-door processes that recognize the word as your name. It is the mind-door processes that respond to the calling of your name. My point is that the kamma created by the mind door processes grows increasingly strong as the concept grows from a miniscule part of the overall sound of "Ken" (remember that the first mind-door process after an ear-door process takes the rupa as object), to a word (percieving), to recognizing that word (thinking about), to responding to the meaning of that word (mental proliferation - papanca). As it says in the Sutta, it is the papanca that creates the real problems. ===== > In the > patticamuppada, vedana is after the the sense citta but that does not > mean this is after the sense process. It can also be in the present > sense process where javana is involved. ===== Vedana arises in every citta. It does not come before or after; it arises at the same time. ===== > I dont think feeling is an object of a mind-door process. ===== When we are aware of "feeling" (pleasant, unpleasant or neutral), then it is always the object of a mind-door process. ===== > It can be > a arise together with a sense door process because vedana is > universal citta. Similarly, when one feel, one perceive, can still > be in the sense process as perception is sanna and there are > universal cittas so they do rise in the javana process. And again, > clear aware of the feeling, does not mean it also out of sense > process, it can also part of the sense process. ===== Again, each citta in a sense-door process takes exactly the same object. Feeling will arise with every citta but awareness of a feeling is a separate mind-door process. ===== > > "What one perceives, that one thinks about." (yam sanjanati tam > > vitakketi) > > k: I can say this part can be the mental process, but it also mean > that the thinking process already being conditioned prior by the > sense door process. As the preception and feeling are already > conditioned previously in the sense door process. > > > > My comments: > > We can see how pananca feeds upon itself. Papanca (conceptual > > proliferation) is clearly the manifestation of many mind-door > > processes (only mind-door processes can take concepts as objects). > > One can see how the kamma created at this stage can be quite strong > > compared to the kamma created at the previous stages of perception. > > The sutta now changes direction again. What started as a mechanical > > process (from eye-consciousness to feeling) evolved into an active > > involvement of the observer (perception to mentally proliferates) > > and > now the mental proliferation takes control of the observer. > > k: The mechanical process is till determining citta, then the javana > process is the gist between kusala or akusala in the sense or mind > door process. The whole proces is about both door and not just mind > door. ===== For a long time, I was fascinated by the determining citta. I thought that it was the key part of the citta process because it was functional and it was the point at which the cittas turned from passive (vipaka) to active (javana). The name "determining" implied that a decision was made at this point of the citta process (are we going to go the path of lobha, the path of dosa, the path of moha or the path of kusala?). A comment in Narada's "Manual of Abhidhamma" regarding the determining citta convinced me that this was the key part of the citta process. On p32-33, Narada said, "After this comes that stage of representative cognition termed the determining consciousness (Votthapana). Discrimination is exercised at this stage. Freewill plays its part here." For months, I wrestled with the question, "how can there be free will when there is no self?". Ken, if you are wrestling with a similar question, let me know and let's look at it together (it may be digressing from the point of this exchange or it could be at the heart of this exchange, I am not sure). ===== > Concepts do conditioned almost all our mind door process > presently and also resulting kamma reactions to the conceptual > object. But concepts cannot display the three characteristics, that > is why they cannot be objects of satipatthana. Furthermore, if we > wish to know paramathas to break the world of concept (esp concepts > of self), we cannot use concepts to realise it, we must used a > parmattha dhammas. ===== I agree with all of these sentences, but I am having a problem linking them back to our discussion of the kamma created by sense- door process vs. the kamma created by mind-door process. Interested in your feedback. Metta, Rob M :-) 32540 From: Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:35am Subject: Very Brief Report on Fourth Foundation of Mindfulness Workshop Hi, all - I promised to report back, so I will say a little. The workshop was conducted by Andrew Olendzky, who has a Ph.D. in Buddhist Studies. He is the former executive directory of IMS (International Meditation Society) and is currectly director of BCBS (Barre Center for Buddhist Studies, in Barre, Massachusetts). Programs at BCBS include the Bhavana Program, combining morning pariyatti with rest-of-day meditation), the Buddhist Psychology Program, which includes, in part, Abhidhamma studies, a special interest of Dr. Olendzky, and the Independent Study Program, which affords participants unlimited access to the extensive library at BCBS and secluded accomodations for meditating. BCBS also runs a Dhamma Dana Program for free distribution of Dhamma books. The workshop dealt 95% with the 4th foundation of mindfulness, and Andrew Olendzky did an amazingly thorough presentation in the five hours available. It was a more detailed presentation than I have seen before, and Dr. Olendzky's interest in and knowledge of Abhidhamma was a great support for that. It also happens that he is a *superb* expositor - a wonderful teacher. I was also delighted to see that he and I share much of the same perspective towards the Dhamma. There was a little meditation involved, but very little. It was 90% pariyatti. What I gained mainly from the day was a detailed immersion in the 4th foundation part of the Satipatthana Sutta, resulting in my coming away with an "insight" into the richness of the sutta that I didn't previously grasp, an insight that makes it clear to me that this sutta cannot be studied too much! There also were a couple specific pieces of information I obtained that were new to me - that is, I actually learned some new specifics! Though I have read the sutta many times, still some straightforward aspects of it had not registered. One of these, which I picked up at the workshop, is that 50% of the 3rd foundation of mindfulness is the matter of noting the *roots* of mindstates - of being aware of whether the current state is rooted in ignorance, craving, and aversion or their opposite numbers! Another of these is a better understanding of the part of the 4th foundation which involves minfulness of the six bases. This includes being aware of eye and forms, ear and sounds, etc (as well as awareness of "the fetter arising dependent on both," and also the arising of the currently unarisen fetter, the abandoning of the already arisen fetter, and the future non-arising of it). What I wondered about in regard to this is what it really *means* to be aware of eye or ear etc. (It is easy to see what it means to be aware of sights and sounds etc) Before I even got to ask about that, Dr Olendzky asked the participants to 1) close their eyes, then open them, and then 2) close their eyes, and turn attention to sounds. By switching attention from sights to sounds, not only did we notice the change of object, but also the *mode of experience*. By making the switch, one actually and experientially becomes aware of switching from eye door to ear door, of changing the *mode* of experience. I found that the mix of theory and practice was wonderful! Sometime I hope to take an extended Abhidhamma course with Andrew Olendzky. One sort that I would particularly like is a 5-day Bhavana course that he teaches together with a "meditation teacher," with Dr.olendzky concentrating on the presentation of Abhidhamma theory, and the other leader directing the "experiential aspects" of the retreat. I hope this gives somewhat of an inkling of what this workshop was like. 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) 32541 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 9:42am Subject: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi Rob Ep, > I enjoyed your post! It's nice to be back in this debate. By the > way, the "conditions" that led to me being here again can be easily > discerned. It was Nina! She wrote me a lovely note, and reminded me > of my dsg friends, and here I am! I must have been doing something > right to get back here, so consider me to have a bit of right view and > pay careful attention to what I say! : ) :-) I too have such thoughts that those who stick around dsg must have some degree of `right view'. Though I believe there are others who leave the group thinking that most of us have the opposite. I will try to pay extra attention to you. ;-) > I guess what it comes down to is whether you believe that conditions > that affect the kandhas affect the path. We would agree that right > view, dropping the sense of doership and the doer, and the discernment > of the reality of the moment as the only existing reality, would all > be crucial, and must be developed to the point of wisdom. But we all start from where we are, and hopefully that is with the understanding about the importance of pariyatti, intellectual right view. And everything must proceed as it should, very slowly and gradually and with as little `ambition' as possible to hinder the development. ;-) > I would guess though, that you would also say that prescribed > activities will lead to the development of satipatthana, and that > these activities that help one to develop right understanding leading > to satipatthana would include sutta and commentary study, the good > companionship of the "spiritual friend" and discernment of realities > in daily life. These are all "purposeful activities" that one does > to "make progress" beyond the present moment. We could be engaging in all these activities and still make little or no progress, especially if there is any wrong understanding about what pariyatti means. And since we can't *choose* a wise friend, because we will be attracted more or less to the person who agrees with our views, it is useless to claim so. So in the end, it all depends on our own accumulated panna and any good kamma that we may have performed. In the same way, any `discernment of realities in daily life', depends on accumulated panna and not on `purposefulness'. The mental factor chanda accompanying some level of panna may lead us to seek more understanding and this may be followed by and mixed with any number of akusala motives. However in the end there is no sutta or commentaries, just meaningful words made so in part by one's own accumulated understanding. Though we do live in the conventional world, and when going to the library we do make a choice to pick up the Tipitaka instead of a book on `flower arrangement' ;-). > I think it would be > silly to say that they are themselves the appropriate expression of > sati and arise all by themselves and that the one who is involved in > these activities has no thought that they will "help." Sure there are such thoughts, but there are also thoughts `that ultimately nothing is in anyone's control'. ;-) > Of course he does, and he consciously engages in sutta, lecture, discernment, etc., > in order to advance towards enlightenement. Panna recognizes its limitations and seeks to understand more *of theory*, this is living in the conventional world. But in the end whether there is going to be any understanding or not, it is at least not hindered by any wrong view that mistakes `knowledge' for `understanding'. > Does he then have to drop the idea of doership and making progress in order to > apply his understanding to the present moment without a separate doer being > misconstrued? Yes, he does. No he doesn't. Ultimately there is no `doer' anywhere. There may be a sense of a `doer' at anytime, but there is no `assuming' it and hence then deciding to drop it. The involvement in conventional activities does not automatically imply a doer. > But in what possible way is this > different from the "sense of doing" involved in meditation? Simply, > there is no difference on that level at all. There is a difference. I am having difficulty to find the right words and the following may seem like trying to justify my position, hope you do not see it as such though. Conventionally on the one hand, one is seeking `intellectual understanding' which may or may not happen and whatever is gained is still acknowledged as just `intellectual understanding'. FM on the other hand, presupposes in the practice, the arising of dhammas which to the `theorist' happens by conditions other that what the meditator thinks. On one level it seems like arrogance on the part of the meditator who thinks that with `intention' he can make sati arise, whereas the person who seeks to listen or read, it seems he is coming from a position of not-knowing and is receptive to what is being heard, this is not to say that there wont be akusala cittas. The former may admit that the `practice' requires time to bear fruit and may believe that the attention to a neutral object such as breath allows for mindfulness to be developed. This may be on the level of `belief', namely the Buddha taught it. But wouldn't it still come to each person's ability to discernment? Or is there a belief somewhat in the magical power of having breath as object no matter how each individual may understand it? How can wrong understanding lead to right understanding? The Zen people have even gone to the extreme of saying that one is already like a Buddha, when sitting in the lotus posture. Others imply that when they are able note their body and mental activity, that this is "sati". Lobha associated with wrong view is not only around the corner, but it leads and follows us everywhere. And this is what seems like `sati' to most people. > If one is following the > Buddha's proscribed path, or following Abhidhamma, or following Thai > Forest Tradition, or following zen, one is doing so in order to attain > liberation in nibbana, and that sense of "purpose" is going to be > there. One would not engage in any of these things if one did not > believe that they would lead to the goal, so the goal is there, and it > is outside of the discernment of the moment. Looking at the moment, > one might not see any of this. In the moment, "Buddha," "Path," > "Abhidhamma," etc. are all concepts. Buddha is not now before us in > the flesh, and that's that. Yet we follow his teachings and try to > follow his example as we see it. > So the inescapable conclusion is that there are "good" concepts and > practices, and "bad" concepts and practices. Some lead to the goal > and others don't, but the sense of doership will have to be dropped no > matter what the practice is, and that will take as long as it takes > according to arising conditions. Right, but do you really believe that more than one practice will lead to the goal? Is it a question only of `dropping the sense of doership'? What about the right causes leading to the right result and the wrong cause to the wrong result? And when it is wrong, there are not the correct conditions for any `doer' to be dropped, namely there is no panna to even discern `self' at work? On the other hand, if indeed there is panna, it is accompanied by detachment. So this may be a sign, no? ;-) If one must consciously decide to `let go' then it must not be panna, whereas if panna arose, then letting go has already happened. > So then the only question is whether meditation supplies an > opportunity, or has something inherent about it, that will promote the > path, or not. Now you are coming to the point. ;-) > You are inherently saying that sutta study, com study, > spending time with knowledgeable teachers who have right view, > discernment of realities in life, etc. -- all prescribed by Abhidhamma > -- are "good" practices that get you the right result and that > meditation -- frowned upon in Abhidhamma because it is a "doing" that > strives for a "result" -- is a bad practice that creates conceptual > obstacles. I don't see any logical reason why meditation creates more > conceptual obstacles or is more of a doing than purposely reading the > Suttas to understand the Buddha's teaching. They are both activities, > they are both done purposely, and they are both done to get a result > in progressing on the path. So there is no difference in terms of > approach and pitfalls. Refer to my comments at the beginning. First of all it was the Buddha who talked about `association with the wise and so on' as being the conditions for enlightenment. Second, to approach any of these with a `self' directing and making choices would surely be counter productive. Third, all these conditions in the end refer to ultimate realities which reside not in the conventional activity, but are conditions conditioning each other whether or not the person who walks it is aware. > So does meditation cause something correct to happen on the path, as > sutta study should do [if not totally misconstrued or misunderstood of > course] and should it thus be included as a "good" practice or not? Whatever one does and whatever views one has with regard to them, if it does not point to knowing the presently arisen dhamma, it is not the right practice. If it is looking forward to a better time, place or position, then the present will never be, for the wanting has already dictated the illusion of result. If there does arise any genuine satipatthana, it would be in spite of the practice and one would know that. So the practice may then be dropped ;-). > Again, the issue comes down to what effect meditation has on these > kandhas which much become conditioned in a way that leads to the > arising of wisdom. I think it does. I think the Buddha also thought > that it does, and that it is obvious why it does. Sitting with an > open and relaxed mind and looking at realities as they arise with > relatively little distraction, one sorts through the contents of > consciousness and begins to see the status of concepts, thoughts, > emotions, perceptions and the other kandhas which make up this > reality. One can do this with a sense of doership and try to "own" > the process, which creates an obstacle but does not totally block the > result of meditation, or one can relax the sense of doership and > simply observe, just like in daily life, but with less distraction. "They arise with relatively little distraction". Perhaps this statement can give some hint regarding the difference of understanding that comes from real satipatthana and the imagined one (lobha accompanied by wrong view). The former makes absolutely no judgment with regard to time and place, in which case what one normally labels `distraction' is just another dhamma *known*. This is not an idealist view, but a statement of fact. It shows that when one perceives a so called reality with a judgment about any other state as being a distraction or being favorable, then it is comparison at work, therefore very much in the world of conventional reality, and obviously, with a "self". > The idea that this is a contrived situation and thus is ruined as a > skillful activity makes no sense to me, any more than sitting down and > studying the components of a piano piece somehow should interfere with > the eventual playing of the song. Yes, some piano students will get > an overly technical consciousness and will never really understand > music. But others will learn the skills of music and then set them > free to function when the proper time comes. And that is what the > meditator must do, as must the Sutta student, and everyone else who > seeks liberation. The problem is not about contriving but about wrong understanding. Only with avijja and wrong view can there be an idea of a better time and place. Like I said earlier, panna doesn't mind anything. And development does not happen by a prescribed path of practice; the skill that may be developed instead, is that of performing some rite or ritual. I wish it were so easy as your piano example, sati and panna must arise with kusala cittas, whereas a pianist can basically have any kind of wrong view and identified with any religion. > Can one reach enlightenment without meditating under the right > conditions? I think so. Certainly if kammic influences are such, > seeing the light change from green to red can set off the whole noble > eightfold path and cause sudden liberation. But is meditation a great > and thus indispensable practice, prescribed by the Buddha as an > important part of the path? I think the answer is absolutely yes. You have made up your mind about FM being necessary for liberation, and so you speak about exceptions to the rule. I would like to say that the N8FP can be reached only by the practice of satipatthana, so it has no limitation with regard to time, place or activity. However, without intellectual Right View, there can never be the right practice. So sitting down to watch the breath or not, if there is no Rt. View, there is no hope. :-( Metta, Sukin 32542 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 9:52am Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi Victor, > Could you summarize your position? The Four Noble Truths. :-)(this is not part of the answer). Metta, Sukin 32543 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 10:18am Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi Sukin, Given what you wrote in the previous message to me, I did not know that you were talking about the Four Noble Truths. Could you relate what you wrote to the Four Noble Truths? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > > > Could you summarize your position? > > The Four Noble Truths. > > :-)(this is not part of the answer). > > Metta, > Sukin 32544 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 10:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'ocean of concepts' Hi Larry and Howard, Larry, you asked me so kindly about my own story, what is meaningful to me as to feeling, and now I shall try to answer. My story also shows that we never have to go far to find dhamma in daily life. op 26-04-2004 01:32 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: .... In the end I came to the same > conclusion as you that I couldn't choose between the two alternatives. > Re: "Which is more meaningful to you, the thought, 'feeling is > impermanent' or simply attending to feeling?" >I agree with most of what you said but I have one > complaint. You didn't take the question personally, basing your answer > on your own experience now. Instead you gave your understanding of what > hypothetical people might experience. I wanted to know what is > meaningful to you, Nina, in your experience now. N: I realize more and more that I know so little about feelings, only that they change so quickly. One moment I cry, the next moment I laugh. Feelings do not obey me, and their changing shows me that they do not last and are beyond control. Thus they remind me of what the Buddha said that feelings are impermanent and non-self. But I only know this from inference, from reasoning. I realize that I take nama and rupa together as a whole. Feelings condition rupa, nama and rupa are together. How unpleasant is that throbbing sensation, and I take also that as a whole of impressions, not just tangible object one at a time, and again aversion about it which is nama. Just a whole mass of impressions. When I hear the word feeling or emotion, I think of this "whole". But we need insight to really understand feeling, to understand it as nama different from rupa. To understand rupa as rupa. Otherwise we become more and more confused. Not by reasoning, observing or focussing, only through the development of insight will panna know precisely nama and rupa. Feeling has an object, it makes sense to me that feeling accompanies citta and shares the same object as the citta. The object may be a very unpleasant story, but actually they are just some words doctor spoke to Lodewijk. In our mind we create the worst scenario. Sa~n~naa remembers the story over and over again, and it is made bigger and bigger, triggering off the most unhappy feelings, they are so overwhelming. Then also the very unhappy feeling arising on account of the objectwhich is a concept is again an object of unhappy feeling. One thing triggers of the next thing and thus life becomes more and more difficult. Here we are in the ocean of concepts, almost drowning. Then A. Sujin says, it is just thinking, and you have clinging to pleasant feeling and to persons. As Sarah quoted: It seems like a cold shower at first, but later on we see the benefit. That is why it is so important that A. Sujin speaks about seeing, visible object, hearing, sound all these daily realities. The Buddha spoke about all these realities. Why? The proliferations, papanca, are not just in mind-door processes, but they are bound to arise also in sense-door processes, after seeing, hearing, etc. We have to get at the root of them. The papa~nca: three ways of clinging to the self: with just attachment without wrong view, with wrong view, and with conceit. There is conceit when we think of my important seeing, or my important feeling. We also find our stories we think of so very important. Thus, instead of crying in a corner I also know what are the right conditions for not being overwhelmed by akusala. The association with good friends and listening that occurred in my life because of conditions, all such moments do operate in my life. As you, Larry, wrote at the end of your post of the dialogue on satipatthana: I can appreciate these words all the more now. This does not mean that I conquer unhappy feelings, I am not an anagami, non-returner. But I see the benefit of listening again and again, considering more, writing on Dhamma, which is for me also clarifying things for myself, having Dhamma talks with Lodewijk. I say to him: better have a Dhamma talk, life is too short. We know each other already almost 59 years and are married almost 52 years, but it all went like a flash. Howard would say: you can do something about it, and that is how it works in concreto. We know that conditions work, and that it is possible to develop the right conditions. I appreciate what Howard writes here, but I like to add something: H: < But I think these stronger reactive emotions amount to magnifications of earlier emotions due to papa~nca, and all these reative emotions grow out of feeling.> I think that the cause of the problems are ignorance and wrong view. We are back at D.O. Nina. 32545 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 10:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Question About Sa~n~na/Nina Hi Howard, op 20-04-2004 18:29 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > In "Cetasikas" I have read the following: > > The proximate cause of sanna is an object, in whatever way that appears. The > object can be a paramattha dhamma, i-e nama or rupa, or a concept (pannatti). > ------------------------------------- > Howard: > One question I have here is exactly what, according to Abhidhamma, is > meant by 'pannatti'/'concept'. N:It is made known (attha pannatti) or it makes known. The latter is a term, nama pannatti. See Manual of Abhidhamma, on pannatti. All such different things (mountain, land) though they do not exist in the ultimate sense, become objects of thought in the form of shadows of (ultimate) things. A term can represent what is real or what is not real. The terms nama and rupa represent what is real. See Co Exposition of the topics of Abh (p. 319) which elaborates. See Ledi Sayadaw, Pictorial Ideas and concept of continuity. This makes people believe in atta. There are many details and differentiations. H: It seems to me that most of the concepts that > arise in the mind are not single mental events, but sequences of mental > events, > and thus their experiencing must also involve a series of mindstates, each > with its own sa~n~na, and possibly a "capping" recognition at the end. (You > seem > to imply something along these lines a little further on.) N: Concepts only seem to arise in the citta, but in fact they do not arise, being not ultimates. The thinking of them arises and falls away. Thinking experiences an object, thus also a concept in a mind-door process. Sanna plays its part, because of sanna we remember different impressions and form them into a whole, a continuity. Pictorial ideas or continuity concepts are formed up. Quote: >When we recognize > someone's voice, this is actually the result of different processes of cittas > which experience objects through the sense-door and through the mind-door. > ------------------------------------- > Howard: > It is this last sentence that I was referring to in my previous > remark. N: Sound is marked by sanna when there is hearing, and then at the moment of receiving-consciousness, and at the moment of each following citta in that process, and also at the moments of citta in the succeeding mind-door process which still experience the sound (no concept yet) that has just fallen away. Afterwards, but we do not count the processes, details are remembered, a voice may be recognized, the voice of a friend who phones. It is all so fast, it seems we know immediately it is so and so's voice. Sanna does its task. The main thing is: we should know it is sanna that remembers, not me. This is more important than trying to find out how sanna works exactly in which process. That does not lead to liberation from the self idea. Nina. 32546 From: Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 8:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Question About Sa~n~na/Nina Hi, Nina - In a message dated 4/26/04 1:38:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > Concepts only seem to arise in the citta, but in fact they do not arise, > being not ultimates. The thinking of them arises and falls away. Thinking > experiences an object, thus also a concept in a mind-door process. ======================== I'm not clear on this, Nina. What does it mean for a concept, whatever that is, to not arise and yet be experienced by thinking? How can a concept be an object of consciousness when no concept ever arises? It seems to me that a collection/sequence of mind objects, largely marks produced by sa~n~na arise, and then a sa~n~nic construction produces a "culminating" marking which, when accessed, calls up that entire collection or sequence, so that there is the seeming of a single mental event which can then be thought about further. If the facts are not *something* along such lines, then I find the entire concept of 'concept' to be incoherent. 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) 32547 From: Eddie Lou Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 1:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana - "Rebirth with genetic Info." Hi, Sarah, Thanks. Unless someone(s) happen to have a ready explanation, I think, I have voiced my interest in its explanation, I may have to leave it as now for the time being. Metta, Eddie Lou --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Eddie (& Erik), > S: Only a Buddha could understand all the > complexities of kamma which > would bring about such particular results at such a > time. The more we read > about past lives in the teachings, the more we can > see how extraordinary > was the omniscience of the Buddha. With our > scientific knowledge and > knowledge of the teachings, we can just give small > indications only. > > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s Erik, good to know you're around;-) > ===== 32548 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 2:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi Howard, The word 'exist' itself is neither dangerous nor misleading. The problem is not the word 'exist' but holding the cosmology "All exists" and mistaking that cosmology as what the Buddha taught. The Buddha abandoned both extremes of "All exists" and "All does not exist" and taught dependent co-arising: "And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering." Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor (and Sarah) - > [snip] > I think that 'exist' is a "dangerous" word - misleading at best. I > prefer to say that namas and rupas "arise" or "appear". From my perspective, they > are conditioned, dependent (not self-existent), fleeting, and perhaps only > momentary *events*. This is the perspective I have come to see throughout the > suttas, and I don't think Abhidhamma contradicts that, though some Abhidhammikas > and others may tend more towards a static, separate-existence perspective > similar to the ancient Sarvastivadin position. > BTW, the translation of whatever Pali word it is into "cosmology" is > confusing to me. I suppose the idea is "world view" or "weltanshauung". > > With metta, > Howard 32549 From: Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 3:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi, Victor - (Sigh) Okay, Victor. I *thought* we were rather in agreement on this one, but now I don't know where we are. I agree that the Buddha replaced "all exists" and "all does not exist" by the middle way of dependent origination. With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/26/2004 5:14:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > The word 'exist' itself is neither dangerous nor misleading. The > problem is not the word 'exist' but holding the cosmology "All > exists" and mistaking that cosmology as what the Buddha taught. > > The Buddha abandoned both extremes of "All exists" and "All does not > exist" and taught dependent co-arising: > > "And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite > condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite > condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite > condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite > condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a > requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite > condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes > craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes > clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite > condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition > comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & > death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into > play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & > suffering." > > Metta, > Victor > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Victor (and Sarah) - > > > [snip] > > I think that 'exist' is a "dangerous" word - misleading at > best. I > > prefer to say that namas and rupas "arise" or "appear". From my > perspective, they > > are conditioned, dependent (not self-existent), fleeting, and > perhaps only > > momentary *events*. This is the perspective I have come to see > throughout the > > suttas, and I don't think Abhidhamma contradicts that, though some > Abhidhammikas > > and others may tend more towards a static, > separate-existence > perspective > > similar to the ancient Sarvastivadin position. > > BTW, the translation of whatever Pali word it is > into "cosmology" is > > confusing to me. I suppose the idea is "world view" > or "weltanshauung". > > > > With metta, > > Howard 32550 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 4:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Hi Howard and all, Dependent origination as the Buddha taught will be a common ground. Also, thanks for sharing Report on Fourth Foundation of Mindfulness Workshop. Metta, Victor All, please take some time to check out http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhamma_discussion_group/ And you are cordially invited to join. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > (Sigh) Okay, Victor. I *thought* we were rather in agreement on this one, but now I don't know where we are. I agree that the Buddha replaced "all exists" and "all does not exist" by the middle way of dependent origination. > > With metta, > Howard 32551 From: Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 4:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Question Still Remains Thanks, Victor! :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/26/2004 7:10:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard and all, > > Dependent origination as the Buddha taught will be a common ground. > > Also, thanks for sharing Report on Fourth Foundation of > Mindfulness > Workshop. > > Metta, > Victor 32552 From: Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 'ocean of concepts' Hi Nina, Thanks for a very moving and personal reply. One thought that occurred: you said feeling has an object. This is what we are taught but the feeling we experience _is_ an object (of consciousness). Every dhamma we experience is only an object of consciousness. Does an object _really_ have an object, or do we just associate an object with it by inference? Also, while I have your ear I may as well ask another question I've been mulling over. Is dukkha a concept or a reality? "Unsatisfactory" doesn't sound like a reality, but if dukkha is a concept how can it have a cause? If dukkha is a reality surely it can only be unpleasant feeling. If it is feeling then it is in the wrong place in Dependent Arising. There feeling conditions desire instead of the other way around. Something is amiss here. Larry 32553 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:47pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Question Still Remains/Cooran Hi Sarah, ---------------- S: We'll be looking forward to hearing about the secrets of your success;-) Remember, no halting, no straining and no standing still when you meet any contrary currents;-) ---------------------- :-) I might regret boasting about the Cooranites' meritorious three- day epic. Won't we look silly if none of us attains? ---------------------- S: KenH, I think we all know that it would be a major upset to the routine if you were to drop the surfboard and get organised;-) ------------ My thoughts exactly, why break the habits of a lifetime? When you mentioned this, I remembered that Andrew had set me a discussion topic: "Zen and the Art of Surfing." Thanks for the reminder, I had better get on with it. So far, all I have is an alternative title: "Metta, and Why I Hate Longboarders." ------------- S: > Talking of surf rage reminds me that we talked about how there may be conditions for a lot or a little of any particular kilesa (defilements) in this lifetime, but we really don't know our accumulations from the past at all and can only know that which is conditioned now. > --------------------- Thank you, that fits in well with the new title. If you have any more gems like that, please send them off-list, double-spaced and with my name at the top. :-) Kind regards, Ken H 32554 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 9:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Very Brief Report on Fourth Foundation of Mindfulness Workshop Hi Howard, Thank you very much for your report. op 26-04-2004 18:35 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: What I gained mainly from the day was a detailed immersion in the > 4th > foundation part of the Satipatthana Sutta, resulting in my coming away with > an "insight" into the richness of the sutta that I didn't previously grasp, an > insight that makes it clear to me that this sutta cannot be studied too much! N: I agree, we studied this with Larry, co and all, but now I have a feeling I would like to go over it again. I really need to. H: the 3rd > foundation of mindfulness is the matter of noting the *roots* of mindstates - > of being aware of whether the current state is rooted in ignorance, craving, > and aversion or their opposite numbers! N: Yes, if we would not know about roots through the Abhidhamma we would know nothing about kusala citta and akusala citta. However, it depends on the sati what dhamma it is aware of. And as I repeat often: we cannot have a precise knowledge of nama, such as a root, if we do not distinguish nama from rupa. But surely, we can begin to study characteristics of lobha and dosa. I am inclined to avoid the word noting. Sati and panna do more than that. H:Another of these is a better > understanding of the part of the 4th foundation which involves minfulness of > the six > bases. This includes being aware of eye and forms, ear and sounds, etc N: The ayatanas or sensefields. They mean: association of eye and visible object so that seeing arises. There is the meeting of these three. And this we get now in our Vis 76 study, be on the look out!! I like this subject very much. So daily. The inner ayatanas and the outer ayatanas. What else is there in our life? H: (as > well as > awareness of "the fetter arising dependent on both," and also the arising of > the currently unarisen fetter, the abandoning of the already arisen fetter, > and the future non-arising of it). N: So this is like the four right efforts. The suttas speak about this also in many different ways. Actually it all comes true through satipatthana. Then the four right efforts reach fulfillment. H: What I wondered about in regard to this is > what it really *means* to be aware of eye or ear etc. (It is easy to see what > it > means to be aware of sights and sounds etc) N: Though eyesense and earsense are coarse rupas, it is difficult to be aware of them. They are necessary conditions for the sense-cognitions, but it depends on the individual of what dhammas he can be aware of. Nobody can direct the objects of awareness. And we cannot say: this is impossible. H: Before I even got to ask about > that, Dr Olendzky asked the participants to 1) close their eyes, then open > them, > and then 2) close their eyes, and turn attention to sounds. By switching > attention from sights to sounds, not only did we notice the change of object, > but > also the *mode of experience*. By making the switch, one actually and > experientially becomes aware of switching from eye door to ear door, of > changing the > *mode* of experience. N: I remember that A. Sujin said: close your eyes, then open them, is there a difference? To let us know what seeing is. Or close your eyes, what appears? Sound may appear. Then no visible object appears. Only one object at a time appears. I really enjoyed reading this and it inspired me to many good thoughts. Thank you. Nina. 32555 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 26, 2004 9:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mind-door process Dear Rob M But it is only one moment and so fast, no time to do anything at all. Conditions rule what follows next: natural strong dependence condition, also contiguity condition and others. But if we are not neglectful now it will add to the good accumulated inclinations and influence javana cittas in the future. Not being neglectful now is also conditioned, by association with the right friends, listening, considering. Nina. op 26-04-2004 17:16 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > On p32-33, Narada said, "After this comes > that stage of representative cognition termed the determining > consciousness (Votthapana). Discrimination is exercised at this > stage. Freewill plays its part here." For months, I wrestled with the > question, "how can there be free will when there is no self?". 32556 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 0:43am Subject: Re: mind-door process Hi Rob M, Ken O, Howard and Nina, If I seem to have dropped out of this thread it is not because I am sulking. I am simply having trouble keeping up. Also, as soon as I put my thoughts into writing, I find reasons to disagree with them. Rob M has said that sense door javana cittas are weak in kamma. I think that is generally accepted. I think it has been explained that cetana, in the form of kamma-patha (courses of action), only occurs in mind-door javana processes and only when there is a concept as object. (Corrections welcome.) Rob M has also suggested that sense door cittas are weak in emotion. I think he goes so far as to say they are rooted in moha or amoha but not in dosa or lobha. This seems an extreme position to take. (Correct me if I've got you wrong, Rob.) Ken O, Howard and I have surmised the opposite: We think that strong emotions (mula) occur mainly at the paramattha level (in cittas with dhammas as object). Even IF, as Rob believes, visible object were a meaningless dot of light, strong dosa (for example) could arise to experience it. Dosa can be conditioned by any of a large number of past (and present) dhammas – I don't think it needs a "meaningful" object. (This gives rise to more questions, which I will skip for now.) As I understand Nina's comments to Rob, she would doubt the usefulness of all our surmising. Many, intermingled, citta processes follow closely upon each other: Sense-door impressions are followed by mind-door concepts but there are more sense impressions and concepts in between. How are we to know which citta has the strongest emotion or what degree of meaning it finds in it's object? I think Nina also said that papanca can occur in sense door processes. That implies that citta can get quite preoccupied with sense objects. And it makes it all the harder to believe that visible object is just a dot of light or that audible object is just a one-billionth part of the sound of a word. Why, for example, would ditthi mistake a dot of light for self? Sorry if I have confused the issues, please continue with your conversation. :-) Kind regards, Ken H 32557 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 1:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi Jack & James, Thank you both for your further comments and questions. --- Jackhat1@a... wrote: > -- Jackhat1@a... wrote: > Below is an excerpt from DN 22, the Mahasatipatthana Sutta. This is > what I > model my 4-Element Meditation on and which I applied during my visit to > the > dentist. You seem to be arguing against the Buddha's words. If you are > not > arguing with the Buddha's teachings, how am I misapplying his > instructions as stated > below? ..... S: I think James’s question is also relevant here. He wrote: > James: Where did the Buddha teach that satipatthana could not > involve any selection of object? ..... S: I read the Mahasatipatthana Sutta and all the teachings as emphasising that what we take for a self or a ‘thing’ are merely the various namas and rupas arising as a result of various conditions and not in anyone’s control. "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html “In this body, apart from the above mentioned collection, there is seen no body, man, woman or anything else. Beings engender wrong belief, in many ways, in the bare groups of things mentioned above. Therefore the men of old said: What he sees that is not (properly) seen; What is seen, that he does not (properly) see; Not seeing (properly) he is shackled clean; And he, the shackled fool, cannot get free.” ..... S: The sutta and commentary discuss in detail the development of satipatthana at all times -sitting, walking, putting on the cloak, eating and so on. What we take to be a selection of objects are shown to be a complex combination of conditioned mental and physical phenomena.. For example under ‘clear comprehension in wearing shoulder-cloak and so forth’ in the commentary, we read that ‘within there is nothing called a sould that robes itself.......Mere processes clothe a process-heap...’. So when it seems that we can select an object for the practice of satipatthana or read a sutta as suggesting that we should indeed do this, I believe it’s a misinterpretation. Whilst the various dhammas to be seen by wisdom are divided up in various ways in this and other suttas, this is for the purpose of explanation, not for giving an order for the objects to be known. By the time there is thinking and determining to concentrate or focus on a particular object, present namas and rupas have passed away already without any knowledge. In other words, such ideas of selection are based on the idea that another object would be more suitable than the presently arising one which is contrary to what we read about knowng ‘presently arisen dhammas’. ..... <...> > "There is the case where a monk remains focused on the body in & of > itself -- > ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with > reference to > the world. ..... S: Just to stress the point here, ‘focused on the body’ is being used as a translation for kaayaanupassi which refers to the clear comprehension (sampajaana) with wisdom accompanied by other five-fold or eight-fold path factors which know the various rupas (primary and derived materiality) for what they are when they arise (‘in all circumstances - everywhere in the state of becoming, in every sluggish and unbalanced state of mind, it is desirable’). ... > [snip] > [5] "Furthermore...just as a skilled butcher or his apprentice, having > killed > a cow, would sit at a crossroads cutting it up into pieces, the monk > contemplates this very body -- however it stands, however it is disposed > -- in terms > of properties: 'In this body there is the earth property, the liquid > property, > the fire property, & the wind property.' .... S: Thank you for the quote which I always appreciate. It reminds me of the one Philip gave about the bag full of different kinds of grain referring to the 32 parts of the body. Even conceptually, they are useful metaphors to reflect on in order to appreciate there is no being amongst the rupas making up the body. Gradually, by developing pa~n~na directly, with detachment and without selection, the various elements can be known. ..... > Yes, you are right. Clinging to anything indicates attachment.(?) As I > said > above, I'm just trying to follow the Buddha's teachings. His > instructions in > the sutta above and in many other suttas didn't seem hung up on what you > seem > to be hung up on. ( I don't mean "hung up on" as negative. I think you > are > wrong but I "think" with a smile toward you.) ..... S: ;-) No problem. I think we agree on the value of developing awareness of namas and rupas and the fact that there is no self involved, merely these elements. I see a particular selection for this purpose as indicative of attachment (which of course is so very common) whilst you see it as following the teachings. Even when there is the idea of ‘I am trying’, I believe it’s fair to ask ‘who is trying?’ and whether there is any understanding at that very moment. .... > jack: I understand that we differ here. I believe I am in line with the > Buddha's teachings. I think he was a teacher realizing that his students > did not > have perfect vision or perfect attention. Some times, he would suggest > learning > by paying attention to the breath. At other times, he would suggest > learning > by paying attention to body sensations. Etc. > ....[snip] ... S: I agree that we read different dhammas stressed in different circumstances, just as we do in our discussions here. But whatever we read should be understood in the light of anatta and conditioned dhammas and the fact that only the presently appearing dhamma can ever be known. ‘clearly comprehending - Discerning rightly, entirely and equally [sammaa samantato sama~nca pajaananto].’ I don’t take it to be referring to any particular selection of objects. .... ,> jack: As I said above, the Buddha didn't just present examples of > perfect > understanding and practice. He gave practical instructions on many > levels of > difficulty on how to learn the dhamma as we go through our day. This > meant > selecting and concentrating at times. .... S: Let me ask you whether at this moment it really is possible to select an object - say to experience hardness without thinking or seeing or hearing or attachment or doubt for example. And how would this be more beneficial to the development of satipatthana than the awareness of presently arising thinking or doubt or a wish to focus? James, this post is already longer than intended, so just a couple of quick further comments to your questions too: ..... --- buddhatrue wrote: > James: I have practiced Tai Chi, Qi Gong, and Yoga and I know that > they they are different than Buddhist meditation (which I have also > practiced). However, I'm not sure that your question is a genuine > question of inquiry, or if it is a leading question which implies > that they are not different. Do you genuinely not know the > differences? .... S: It was a genuine question expressed unclearly by me. I’m familiar with these practices and their differences. My question concerned how the selection of sensations or elements and focussing on these is any less concerned with an idea of self in the so-called Buddhist meditation practices. Other teachings can tell us about four elements, awareness of ‘postures’ and so on. .... > James: Where did the Buddha teach that satipatthana could not > involve any selection of object? .... S: I’d like to point you to the section under the 5 Aggregates of Clinging or the 6 Internal and the 6 External Sense-bases or the 4 Noble Truths. Clearly all dhammas are included to be known without any mention of special selection. How can an understanding of anatta and conditions include any idea about selection of an object? Metta, Sarah p.s. thank you James for raising the interesting point from the M.77. I agreed with Jack’s comments on this but also don’t have any commentary notes. Earlier in the sutta it also discusses briefly the Four Foundations of Mindfulness and development of satipatthana to arahantship, ‘having put away covetousness and grief for the world’. I understand the good sight which sees the objects clearly in the lake is a metaphor for the insight and development of satipatthana which clearly sees whatever is appearing at this moment which by its development leads to the ‘deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the taints.’ ===== 32558 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 2:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Dear Eznir, I’m appreciating the detailed consideration in your posts very much. --- Eznir wrote: > eznir: > False. There are a multitude of mind-door processes occurring *for > the purposes* of cognizing, and not *before* cognizing. *And then* > *for the purpose* of naming, and not *before* naming. By which time > there is *recognizing*. .... S: I’m not sure if I’m with you here. Let’s say now that there is the seeing of the visible object as we speak, followed by many more mind-door and eye-door (and other sense-door) processes. There is the experiencing (?cognizing) of the object, whether it be reality or concept at each instant. I’m not sure we can say that this experiencing is necessarily for any purpose of naming or recognizing. All these cittas which experience their objects just arise and cease by conditions, performing their various functions. While sa~n~na marks (or recognizes) its object at each instant, by conditions only some mind-door processes are involved with any naming or recognizing as we think of the term. All processes are preceded by other ones, whether they are involved with any naming or not. .... > eznir: > The computer in front of you is fabricated(in both sense of the word, > as in assembled and sankharic formations(conditioned thing) or > sankhata dhamma)? In fact, long before it came to be there it would > have been a mere thought in the mind of the person who invented it, > at which time it was a mere concept. ... S: The computer is only ever a concept. When we talk about the computer in front of us, it is visible object which is seen, hardness which is touched etc. Just like the body only consists of various rupas - elements, so too the computer. So while the elements are conditioned, the ‘computer’ is merely thought about in the mind. When the texts refer to sankharic formations in D.O., these refer to kusala and akusala kamma (see Nyantiloka dict under sankhara), not to computers or other ‘things’. Or when referrring to sankhara or sankhata dhammas, all conditioned dhammas are included, but again not concepts or computers that don’t arise and fall or have the characteristics of dukkha or anatta either. ...... > Imagine the amount of javana cittas that would have been rolling in > his mind then, sleepless nights thinking about it, till finally it > materialized. In fact, everything that has been invented would just > have been the same, a figment of the imagination of some genius(or > idiot :-))! All things are mere sankharas in the mind. .... S: In fact, even when it ‘materialized’, still only elements in various combinations. The computer remains a concept or figment of his imagination;-). Again, we can’t use ‘sankharas’ to refer to these concepts. I think it’s the translation of fabrications which may lead to confusions. .... > S: in an ultimate sense there is no one in the NAG to do or not do > anything;-) > > eznir: > Well said! But how do we realize this without concepts! .... S: No, there has to be conceptual knowledge in the first place. Clear intellectual understanding is very important as Sukin has been stressing -pariyatti. I agree with all your comments on the importance of listening, wise considering and so on. In fact we have a lot of good posts under the heading of ‘listening, considering.....’ in U.P. with plenty of sutta details. I also agreed with your comments on language. This morning I listened to a tape in which K.Sujin was stressing that just as we have no idea what language we used in our last life, we’ll have no idea what language or terms we used in this life. In other words, in the end, the language, the terms and labels are of no importance. They are mere conduits to help point out the truths to be known. So we need to use concepts, but insight is always of realities, not concepts. Please let me know if there is still any confusion here. I really enjoy your comments. .... > Nevertheless, a non-active approach to the Dhamma is possible, > subject to a suitable environment with the limitation given above and > lots of *paramis* to your credit! But time is limited! ..... S: I think that what is considered ‘active’ or ‘non-active’ approach to Dhamma at this moment is conditioned already. The ‘suitable environment’ or ‘gocara’ (resort) that is suitable for sati-sampaja~n~na (clear comprehension) is the presently appearing nama or rupa. As you say, ‘time is limited’ and any idea of waiting for other objects or conditions is wasting time. Even thinking there have to be lots of paramis first or finding any other limitations suggest an idea that the present object is unsuitable in some way. ... > eznir: > If you got the gist then you wouldn't conclude by saying "we need to > be clear on the context, I think". Because that is the very point > that I was addressing in that post! .... S: OK, let’s put it this way - I followed your gist but I think we understand sankhara in its various contexts differently as indicated in this post too. I look forward to your further comments and hope I haven’t exhausted you this time;-) Metta, Sarah ===== 32559 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 3:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] It's so easy ? Dear Lodewijk & Nina, --- nina van gorkom wrote: > As to satipatthana, Lodewijk did not agree that no terms are needed. > When > one explains the terms are necessary, he said. Of course, it depends on > the > person's level of understanding. .... S: As I just wrote to Eznir, we need to use words and terms to clarify our meaning, so I agree with you here. The point being stressed, however, was that it doesn’t matter what words we use if they help point to the understanding of dhammas. When we leave this life, all the words will be forgotten, but the understanding of these dhammas will continue to be ‘accumulated’. With regard to satipatthana, I think that the more understanding there is of the objects to be known (the namas and rupas as distinct from concepts), the more conditions there are for sati and pa~n~naa to develop without any concern about the terms. This is why I think the emphasis has to be on seeing, visible object, mental states and so on from the very beginning. If newcomers don’t hear this, they’ll continue to look at the development of say the paramis or brahma viharas with an idea of self or a subtle attachment to having more kusala states rather than detachment from whatever is conditioned. I agree with Nina that ‘the truth can be brought gently,and adapted to the level of understanding and inclinations of persons. If we don’t do this, many people will take the Abhidhamma amiss. They will not get the message.’ Of course this also depends on our skill and knowledge too. Jon mentioned that sometimes hearing the truth may be a condition for dosa initially, but on reflection the reminders may be very precious. In a sutta Jeff quoted, I found the following passage interesting in this regard: Jeff >Kinti Sutta, MN 103 <..> 4. "While you are training in concord, with mutual appreciation, without disputing, two bhikkhus might make different assertions about the higher dhamma. 5. "Now if you should think thus: 'These venerable ones differ about the meaning (or) the phrasing, then whichever bhikkhu you think is the more reasonable should be approached and addressed thus: 'The venerable ones differ about the meaning (or) the phrasing. The venerable ones should know that it is for this reason that there is a difference about the meaning or phrasing; let them not fall into a dispute'...So what has been wrongly grasped should be borne in mind as wrongly grasped...What is Dhamma and what is Discipline should be expounded. 10. "Now, bhikkhus, you should not hurry to reprove him; rather, the person should be examined thus: 'I shall not be troubled and the other person will not be hurt; for the other person is not given to anger and resentment, he is not firmly attached to his views and he relinquishes easily, and I can make that person emerge from unwholesomeness and establish him in wholesomeness.' If such occurs to you bhikkhus, it is proper to speak. 13. "Then it may occur to you, bhikkhus, 'I shall be troubled and the other person will be hurt; for the other person is given to anger and resentment, and he is firmly attached to his views and he relinquishes with difficulty, yet I can make that person emerge from the unwholesome and establish him in the wholesome. It is a mere trifle that I shall be troubles and the other person hurt, but it is a much greater thing that I can make that person emerge from the unwholesome and establish him in the wholesome.' If such occurs to you, bhikkhus, it is proper to speak. 14. "Then it may occur to you, bhikkhus: 'I shall be troubled and the other person will be hurt; for the other person is given to anger and resentment, and he is firmly attached to his view and he relinquishes with difficulty; and I cannot make that person emerge from the unwholesome and establish him in the wholesome.' One should not underrate equanimity towards such a person. (Majjhima Nikaya trans. Bhikkhus Nanamoli & Bodhi, Wisdom, 1995) ***** Metta, Sarah p.s Nina, unless I use quote marks when referring to discussions with K.Sujin, I’m merely relying on what I recollect (like on the disease comments) and adding my own comments. I have a few others like on the unclassifiable objects, planes, your other qus, but never enough time;-) ================ 32560 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 3:40am Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi Victor, > Given what you wrote in the previous message to me, I did not know > that you were talking about the Four Noble Truths. Could you relate > what you wrote to the Four Noble Truths? Immediately after sending off the post, I was hoping that you wouldn't ask me this question. ;-) Imagine, I could not even recall clearly at the time, the post of which you asked me to summarize the content! And yet, just so that I can match your own short statements, I made a very *big* statement which I now have to clarify. :-( I have a hard time as it is, understanding the theory of the 4NT, and now I have to relate it to what I said!!? Could I retract my statement and just follow you initial request, even though the reason I reacted the way I did was precisely because I didn't think it was fair to be asked to do such a thing. After all, I did expend some energy in writing that one. :-/ Of course, I do tend to go on and on, so I can't blame you if you can't follow. O.K. since I believe that whatever I state with regard to Dhamma, must in the end have some direct relevance to the 4NT, I will try to do both, but don't blame me if I am quite vague, I can't usually make any clear cut connection between different aspects of the Teachings. You said: > > As far as I see, the "NAGs" fall into the first sectarian guild: > > > > "There are priests & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold > > this view: 'Whatever a person experiences -- pleasant, painful, or > > neither pleasant nor painful -- that is all caused by what was done > > in the past.' > > > > For the "NAGs", there is no desire, no effort [at the > > thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' > > They can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done. My reply was to show you basically, that the NAGs were in the ultimate sense, very much engaged in practices which are motivated by the understanding of the danger in akusala and the benefit of kusala. These practices however did not in principle involve any `deliberate doing'. This is because intellectual understanding of the Buddha's teachings and from personal observation has shown that since all dhammas are conditioned in complex ways, one cannot rely on any apparent `intention' for sati to arise. The `wanting' itself clouds the perception and therefore cannot be said to provide any correct interpretation of experiences. And so when this is understood, then dhammas can be known little by little, without any personal `ambition to understand' coming in the way to distort things. Imagine Victor, can you understand your accumulations if always there is a movement away from this moment into an idealized environment? How can one's kilesas be known, if one is always seeking a `controlled setting'? You may argue that there are plenty of opportunities to observe one's own kilesas even in a controlled setting? Yes it can, as it does under *any* circumstance. But nasty is `self view', this being so much a part of our accumulations, that it is always popping its head and deluding us. When the `doing' is in the name of dhamma, then it is even harder to recognize. It is somewhat like `missionary' feeding on our sense of remorse and guilt. Only in this case, it is also telling us how good and right we are. In the end we may end up observing only so much of our experiences, as wrong view dictate. :-/ Does this sound like a deadlock and so may push certain people further away into their safe environment? Perhaps, but it does not have to be. If one saw that one's doing "now" is conditioned by avijja and tanha, then why would one want to take that path? And this is already `avoiding akusala' isn't it? ;-) So each time we can recognize the self at work and avoid falling prey to its akusala ways, then we are indeed accumulating lots of kusala, no? Now to the 4NT: To acknowledge the danger in akusala is to admit the 2nd Noble Truth, and this includes `wanting' in all its aspects. To recognize the importance of the practice of Satipatthana is to acknowledge that the Eightfold Path is the only way to liberation and this is the 4th Noble Truth. To admitting the limitation in all conditioned dhammas is to be seeing safety only in the unconditioned. So simultaneously one is both admitting to the 1st and the 3rd Truths. Is anything I said in that other post, contradicting this? Hope this is not too long. Metta, Sukin. 32561 From: Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 0:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mind-door process Hi, Ken (and Rob M, and Ken O, and Nina) - In a message dated 4/27/04 3:43:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Rob M has also suggested that sense door cittas are weak in > emotion. I think he goes so far as to say they are rooted in moha > or amoha but not in dosa or lobha. This seems an extreme position > to take. (Correct me if I've got you wrong, Rob.) > > Ken O, Howard and I have surmised the opposite: We think that strong > emotions (mula) occur mainly at the paramattha level (in cittas with > dhammas as object). > > ================================ I'm not certain that this is exactly what I implied. What I said was the following: _______________________ "... it seems to me that paramattha dhammas are all that exist, and hence all that we (ultimately) react to (though we identify groupings of these and *think* that we are reacting to them). Actually, what we react to are feelings, which, after the fact, we associate with particular conventional objects. Until feeling occurs, there isn't even recognition of a dhamma. The Buddha stated the process as follows (with eye-door as example): > "Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of > the three is contact. With contact as condition there is feeling. What one > feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one thinks about. What one > thinks about, that one mentally proliferates. With what one has mentally > proliferated as the source, perceptions and notions tinged by mental proliferation > beset a person with respect to past, future, and present forms cognizable > through the eye." It does seem, and here I agree with you, Rob, that it is only after this subsequent mental proliferation that percepts and concepts (mental groupings) elicit the strongest reactive emotions. But I think these stronger reactive emotions amount to magnifications of earlier emotions due to papa~nca, and all these reative emotions grow out of feeling. --------------------------------------------- So, my points were the following: 1) The only experiential events are paramattha dhammas. 2) Emotional reactions, reactions of desire or aversion, always arise in response to feelings following upon contact through a sense door - any sense door. The object of such contact is the only sort of actual object there can be, a paramattha dhamma, whether namic or rupic. Every reaction of tanha *always* follows from feeling, which in turn follows from contact with a paramatt hic object. 3) When it seems to us that craving or aversion is directed towards "a concept", what is actually happening is that craving or aversion is building along a sequence of mindstates, a sequence which consists of the repetition of a single subsequence of states (or several closely related subsequences each) capped by a culminating sa~n~nic marking which identifies the entire subsequence as a single mental event. But the only actual objects involved in individual mindstates are paramatthic. 4) I then *agreed* with Rob M that the most powerful cases of emotional reaction occur in "concept sequences" as discussed above in (3), and *especially* in such concept sequences as are involved with mental proliferation (involving mind-door cittas) as in: "What one perceives, that one *thinks about* [emphasis mine]. What one thinks about, that one mentally proliferates. With w hat one has mentally proliferated as the source, perceptions and notions tinged by mental proliferation beset a person with respect to past, future, and present forms cognizable through the eye [or other sense door]". With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 32562 From: Htoo Naing Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 8:23am Subject: Seeing and seeing of seeing ( 04 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, When suffering is realised, the source of suffering will be realised. As suffering exists, there does exist cessation of suffering. But there is a bridge between suffering and non-suffering. This bridge is the Path. It is Noble Eightfold Path ( NEP ). When suffering is realised, the source is also realised and cessation is also realised. And the Path leading to cessation is also realised. Understanding that there is suffering, there is cause of suffering, there is cessation of suffering, and there is a path leading to cessation of suffering is right understanding. There are thoughts that direct to liberation from sensual things, thoughts that are free from ill-will, and thoughts that are free from cruelty are right thought. There is right speech. Not telling lie, not telling divisive speech, not telling harsh speech, and not telling non-fruit bearing speech is right speech. There is right action. Not killing any living beings, not stealing, and not doing wrongful indulgence in sensual pleasure are all good actions. This is right action. There is right livelihood. Not living on wrong livelihood is right livelihood. Living on livelihood not result from wrong speech or wrong action is right livelihood. There is right effort. The effort which is produced to prevent unwholesome states which has not yet arisen, which is produced to abandon unwholesome states which have arisen, which is produced to attain wholesome states which has not yet arisen, and which is produced to maintain wholesome states which have arisen, is right effort. There is right mindfulness. Mindfulness which takes body again and again, which takes feelings again and again, which takes mind states again and again, and which takes dhamma again and again is right mindfulness. There is right concentration. When well concentrated, there is a state that is being detached from sensual thoughts, cruel thoughts or aversive thoughts, wandering thoughts and repenting thoughts, sluggish inactive thoughts, and suspicious thoughts and illusive thoughts or delusive thoughts. This is right concentration. This concentration is driven by initial application and sustained application. When these two are left, there is a good concentration with rapture and tranquility. When rapture is released, there is tranquility left. When tranquility is released there is only equanimity. This is right concentration. This is the right Path leading to cessation of suffering. This is dhamma and the meditator perceives it again and again and realised that this dhamma is not of him or his. There is nothing to be attached. This is anatta. May all beings be free from suffering and be on the right Path. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htootintnaing@y... 32563 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 10:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: to old_dead_wood, present moment, no 3 Dear Dhamma friend old_dead_wood, My conversation with Lodewijk was meant as an illustration that there is a different type of citta at each moment, and that it falls away to be succeeded by the next one. Seeing does not last, it falls away and shortly afterwards hearing arises, and this does not last either. But there has to be a citta at each moment, otherwise you would not stay alive. Our whole life is a long series of different cittas and nobody can stop this series of cittas, they go on and on. Each citta that falls away is a condition for the arising of the following citta. Thus, there is momentary death of each citta, and so long as there are conditions it is succeeded by the next citta. This happens also at the last moment of this life. The last citta, the dying-consciousness, falls away to be succeeded by the next citta, which is the rebirth-consciousness of the following life. We may reason about this, and it may not be very convincing. However, when insight is developed the present citta is understood more and more precisely, and also its arising and falling away. Then there will not be any doubt that the dying-consciousness will be succeeded by the rebirth-consciousness of the next life. It will be clear that this is in fact not different from what occurs at this moment. Nina. 32564 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 10:17am Subject: dialogue with Lodewijk, no 1 Dear All, I shall relate now the Dhamma conversations I had with Lodewijk during our hiking days. We went through the satipatthana sutta, the four applications of mindfulness. I did not bring any books (too heavy to carry), thus, this is not a thorough study of the text with commentaries. I only highlighted some points in order to make them relevant to daily life and to solve some problems Lodewijk had with the four appications of mindfulness. In the evening I talked my head off on the loathsomeness of the body while we are eating the finest food in the hotel. Nothing in daily life needs to distract us. Mindfulness of the Body begins with mindfulness of breathing. Lodewijk asked me whether this does not show that calm with this subject is necessary. I explained that those who have accumulations for samatha can develop it up to the stage of jhana, but that they have to penetrate with insight the jhana-factors and the jhanacittas. The whole sutta points to insight. It is repeated that the person who develops mindfulness of breath has to contemplate origination dhammas and dissolution dhammas in the body. This points to insight. He has to realize conditions, both with regard to the present moment and also with regard to the Dependent Origination. We talked about it that generally people think of breathing while sitting and concentrating, but that also now we are breathing in and out. We are forgetful of this. Rupas may appear that are tangible object: hardness, softness, heat, cold, motion and pressure. We cling to breath, we cannot live without it, and we take it for granted that we are breathing day in day out. Reading about mindfulness of breath can bring us back to this very moment. We spoke about the postures of going, standing, sitting and lying down, about clear comprehension in all one's actions. It does not mean that this is knowing what one is doing, but we should realize that there are only elements, nama and rupa, arising because of conditions. When mindfulness of the body is applied, it does not mean that there is no awareness of nama. Nama and rupa are together all the time and their difference should be discerned by panna. All the sections in the satipatthanasutta give us examples of different situations that can remind us of dhamma now. Everything that appears is dhamma now. While we were talking about this, we were eating, but this is not distracting. The monks had to be aware while eating, chewing, talking we read in the sutta. We also spoke about the cemetery contemplations, and this reminds us of recollection of death. I said to Lodewijk that there are four meditations for every occasion as explained in the subcommentary: mindfulness of death, mindfulness of the loathsomeness of the body, metta and recollection of the Buddha. These subjects can be contemplated often. Recollection of death can bring us back to this very moment when there is momentary death of citta, the citta that arises has to fall away. The loathsomeness of the body is not difficult to contemplate, it is with us all the time. We read about hairs of the head, of the body, nails, teeth, skin etc. In fact these are only rupa elements and they do not belong to us. We found that these four meditations are connected with the four applications of mindfulness all the time. Metta is a cetasika accompanying kusala citta. It is understanding of the citta that should be stressed, otherwise we may take attachment for pure metta. Thus, this falls under contemplation of citta, the third application of mindfulness. We see that this is very necessary. Respect for the Buddha's excellent qualities can pervade all our contemplations. This repect can arise when talking on Dhamma and when being mindful of realities, that is the highest respect we can pay him. As Lodewijk said: "This is Abhidhamma, knowing oneself truthfully." He also said: "The Abhidhamma brings everything down to basic everyday life. Without the Abhidhamma do cannot understabnd the suttas." Nina. 32565 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 10:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Recognizing_the_Dhamma_-_7._Persistence_( §_7.2,_§_7.3) Dear Sarah, This is an inspiring Dhs text quoted by Dan. When it accompanies right understanding of the eightfold Path it is amazing what it can do. These are the qualities of a hero. Good to be reminded. Nina. op 26-04-2004 10:51 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > It is > interesting to read how it differs from the viriya cetasika arising with > the sense-sphere kusala cittas: [Dhs. 13] "What at that time is the > faculty of effort/energy/endeavor? That which is mental endeavor > (viriyarhambo), riddance of lethargy, exerting harder and harder, > endeavoring higher and higher, striving, painstaking zeal, utmost > exertion, steadfastness, resoluteness, unfaltering endeavor, having > sustained desire (chanda) to strive, not relinquishing the task, > discharging the task well, effort (viriya) as the faculty of effort, power > of effort, right effort -- this at that time is the faculty of endeavor." 32566 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 10:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Question About Sa~n~na/Nina Hi, Howard, op 26-04-2004 21:32 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > >> Concepts only seem to arise in the citta, but in fact they do not arise, >> being not ultimates. The thinking of them arises and falls away. Thinking >> experiences an object, thus also a concept in a mind-door process. > ======================== > I'm not clear on this, Nina. What does it mean for a concept, whatever > that is, to not arise and yet be experienced by thinking? How can a concept > be an object of consciousness when no concept ever arises? N: It can. Sanna can dig up an image of the past, say your childhood, the house where you grew up, etc. The thinking citta arises, not this image, but it constructs such an image. Citta is very clever, a magician as you said. There are many types of concepts and different approaches can be used. I use another one today. Take the Conditional Relations by U Narada. He has many helpful explanations. He uses material from commentaries, but does not always mention the sources. First p. 10: under object-condition; about the conditioning dhammas Thus, for concept there is no past, present or future, it cannot arise and fall away, like the five khandhas. Now about presence-condiiton, first p. 240: 'Presence' here means 'presence after having arisen." Now to p. 74. N: Because of wrong view, not seeing paramattha dhammas as they are, as impermanent, dukkha and anatta, we have a wrong interpretation of what is real. We take mere stories we are spinning out, illusions, for real. A distorted view, and it is dangerous if we do not know that it is distorted. I continue: He then uses a simile of images of a story projected on a screen, He explains that nama and rupa of presence condition are collectively taken as a unit for the purpose of communication: I, self, being, person, etc. Repeated use of these words H: It seems to me that a collection/sequence of mind objects, largely > marks produced by sa~n~na arise, and then a sa~n~nic construction produces a > "culminating" marking which, when accessed, calls up that entire collection or > sequence, so that there is the seeming of a single mental event which can then > be > thought about further. N: I think that there are many cittas which sanna occurring, which arise and fall away, not the concept that can be their object. Thus, in a sense we can say that concepts are derived from these many moments of spinning out stories or viewing images, shape and form. If concept is seen as arising and falling away, it would be the same as paramattha dhamma, and then awareness of paramattha dhammas loses its sense. Satipatthana becomes meaningless. I do not know whether you find U Narada helpful here. Perhaps we should talk more on concepts and the objects of satipatthana. Nina. 32567 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 10:17am Subject: Vis. XIV, 76 and Tiika Intro to Vis. 76. Also in some of the sutta texts we read about sense-cognitions as fourfold: what is seen, heard, sensed (muta) and cognized through the mind-door. Sensed includes the experience of odour, of flavour and of tangible object. The Vis gives the reason, stating: Contiguous, in Pali sampatta, means: reached. The Atthasalini (II, 314, p. 411) explains: It is a different matter in the case of odours, flavours, and tangible object. That is why their experience is taken separately by using the term muta, sensed. It reminds us of the direct contact of these objects with the relevant sense-organs. Thus, this is a fourfold classification of the experience of objects through the six doors, of the aayatanas. The Vis. stresses that the different elements are coming together at the right time so that there can be the experience of objects. We read about a classification of what occurs now, all the time. They exhibit their own characteristics and are gone before one can do anything about them. The word objective field is a translation of the Pali: visaya. This means sphere or field, and it is another term for object, aaramma.na. Vis. 76. Again, it is of four kinds as seen, etc., as concrete matter, etc., and as the physical basis tetrads, and so on. Herein, the visible-data base is 'seen' because it is the objective field of seeing. The sound base is 'heard' because it is the objective field of hearing. The three, that is to say, odours, flavours, and tangible data, are 'sensed' (lit. contacted) because they are the objective fields of faculties that take contiguous [objective fields]. The rest are 'cognized' because they are the objective field of consciousness (cognition) only. So firstly it is of four kinds according to the seen, etc., tetrad. (32) Pali: 76. puna di.t.thaadiruuparuupaadivatthaadicatukkavasena catubbidha.m. tattha ruupaayatana.m di.t.tha.m naama dassanavisayattaa, saddaayatana.m suta.m naama savanavisayattaa, gandharasapho.t.thabbattaya.m muta.m naama sampattagaahakaindriyavisayattaa, sesa.m vi~n~naata.m naama vi~n~naa.nasseva visayattaati eva.m taava di.t.thaadicatukkavasena catubbidha.m. *** Tiika (all English below): 76. Di.t.thaadicatukkavasena, ruuparuupaadicatukkavasena, vatthaadicatukkavasenaati paa.tekka.m catukkasaddo yojetabbo. The word fourfold should be applied severally with regard to the seen etc., with regard to concrete matter (rupa-rupa) etc., and with regard to the physical bases *. .. Dassanavisayattaati cakkhuvi~n~naa.navi~n~neyyattaa. As to the expression, the objective field of seeing, this means it is to be seen by seeing-consciousness. Savanavisayattaati sotavi~n~naa.navi~n~neyyattaa. As to the expression, the objective field of hearing, this means it is to be heard by hearing-consciousness. Gandharasapho.t.thabbattayanti gandho raso pho.t.thabbanti eta.m taya.m. As to the expression, the three, that is to say, odours, flavours, and tangible data, these are these three (that are sensed). Muta.m naama mutvaa patvaa gahetabbato. Tenaaha ³sampattaggaahaka-indriyavisayattaa²ti. They are called sensed, because they are apprehended after they have been sensed and reached (the sensebase). Therefore he said, ³because they are the objective fields of faculties that take contiguous [objective fields]² ** **** English: The word fourfold should be applied severally with regard to the seen etc., with regard to concrete matter (rupa-rupa) etc., and with regard to the physical bases *. ... As to the expression, the objective field of seeing, this means, it is to be seen by seeing-consciousness. As to the expression, the objective field of hearing, this means, it is to be heard by hearing-consciousness. As to the expression, the three, that is to say, odours, flavours, and tangible data, these are these three (that are sensed). They are called sensed, because they are apprehended after they have been sensed and reached (the sensebase). Therefore he said, ³because they are the objective fields of faculties that take contiguous [objective fields]² ** ________ * There is a grouping of four tetrads: The first is: what is seen, heard, sensed and cognized. The second, third and fourth tetrads are explained in the following paragraphs. ** See the explanation above, in the Intro. The Tiika text contiues in footnote 32: note 32. ' "Sensed (muta)" means apprehendable by sensing (mutvaa), by reaching; hence he said "because they are the objective fields of faculties that take contiguous [objective fields]" . But what is it that is called a tangible datum? It is the three elements, earth, heat, and air. But why is the water element not included here? Is not cold apprehended by touching; and that is the water element? Certainly it is apprehended but it is not the water element. What is it then? It is just the fire element. For there is the sensation (buddhi) of cold when heat is sluggish. N: The translation of sensation is wrong. We have to read vuddhi for buddhi, b and v are interchangeble. Vuddhi means increase. The text has: siitabuddhi, an increase of cold, when heat is sluggish or slight (manda). Text: There is no quality that is called cold; there is only the assumption (abhimaana) of coldness due to the sluggishness of the state of heat. How is it to be known? Because of the unreliability of the sensation of cold, like "beyond and not beyond". For in hot weather, while those who stand in the sun and go into the shade have the sensation of cold, yet those who go to the same place from an underground cave have the sensation of heat. N: Cold and heat are relative notions as is demonstrated. They are still the element of heat or fire. Text: And if coldness were the water element it would be found in a single group (kalaapa) along with heat; but it is not so found. That is why it may be known that coldness is not the water element. N: Cold is not taken as an additional great Element. There are only four great Elements. In the following sentences different contrarious opinions at that time are refuted. Text: And that is conclusive (uttara) for those who agree to the inseparable existence of the primary elements; and it is conclusive too even for those who do not agree because it is disproved by associate existence through seeing the functions of the four primaries in a single group. N: The element of Earth is a foundation four the other elements, the element of Water has the function of cohesion, holding the other elements together, the function of the Element of Fire is maturing or maintaining, the function of the Element of Wind or motion is to causing motion, oscillation or propelling. There is no place for an additional great Element such as cold. Text: It is conclusive too for those who say that coldness is the characteristic of the air element; for if coldness were the air element, coldness would be found in a single group along with heat, and it is not so found. That is why it may be known that coldness is not the air element either. But those who hold the opinion that fluidity (dravataa) is the water element and that that is apprehended by touching should be told: "That fluidity is touched is merely the venerable ones' assumption as is the case with shape". For this is said by the Ancients: "Three elements coexisting with fluidity together form what constitutes a tangible; that 'I succeed in touching this fluidity' is a common misconception in the world. And as a man who touches elements, and apprehends a shape then with his mind, fancies 'I really have been touching shape', so too fluidity is recognized" ' (Pm. 459). N: Only three elements are tangible object. Even as one does not touch visible object, in the same way one does not touch fluidity or the element of water. Someone who believes that he can touch water is only thinking of a concept. We should verify this in touching water without thinking about it. **** At the end of this Tiika text (English below): Sesanti yathaavutta.m ruupaadisattavidha.m ruupa.m .thapetvaa avasi.t.tha.m ekaviisatividha.m ruupa.m. As is said, he declares visible object and so on as sevenfold *, and the remaining materiality are twentyone kinds of materiality. Vi~n~naa.nassevaati manovi~n~naa.nasseva. As to the expression, (they are the objective field ) of consciousness only, this means, only of mind-consciousness **. Avadhaara.nena ruupaayatanaadiinampi manovi~n~naa.navi~n~neyyatte niyamaabhaavato na vi~n~naataruupataati sa"nkaraabhaava.m dasseti. By stressing this, although colour etc. are to be known by mind-consciousness too, he keeps the rupas that are not experienced exclusively through the mind-door separate (not mixing them with the others). ***** English: As is said, he declares visible object and so on as sevenfold *, and the remaining materiality are twentyone kinds of materiality. As to the expression, (they are the objective field ) of consciousness only, this means, only of mind-consciousness **. By stressing this, although colour etc. are to be known by mind-consciousness too, he keeps the rupas that are not experienced exclusively through the mind-door separate (not mixing them with the others). _______ * The seven rupas that appear all the time: the three that are tangible object, and colour, sound, odour and flavour. They are experienced through their relevant sense-doors. Together with the twentyone remaining rupas, there are twentyeight rupas in all. ** The twentyone remaining rupas are experienced only through the mind-door. The seven rupas mentioned above are experienced each through the relevant sense-door and in the succeeding mind-door process through the mind-door. **** Nina. 32568 From: Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 6:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Question About Sa~n~na/Nina Hi, Nina - In a message dated 4/27/04 1:18:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > Hi, Howard, > op 26-04-2004 21:32 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > > > >>Concepts only seem to arise in the citta, but in fact they do not arise, > >>being not ultimates. The thinking of them arises and falls away. Thinking > >>experiences an object, thus also a concept in a mind-door process. > >======================== > >I'm not clear on this, Nina. What does it mean for a concept, whatever > >that is, to not arise and yet be experienced by thinking? How can a concept > >be an object of consciousness when no concept ever arises? > N: It can. Sanna can dig up an image of the past, say your childhood, the > house where you grew up, etc. The thinking citta arises, not this image, but > it constructs such an image. Citta is very clever, a magician as you said. > There are many types of concepts and different approaches can be used. I use > another one today. Take the Conditional Relations by U Narada. He has many > helpful explanations. He uses material from commentaries, but does not > always mention the sources. > First p. 10: under object-condition; about the conditioning dhammas these latter objects, materiality, consciousness and mental factors are > either of the past, present or future but Nibbaana and concept are > time-freed.> > Thus, for concept there is no past, present or future, it cannot arise and > fall away, like the five khandhas. > Now about presence-condiiton, first p. 240: 'Presence' here means 'presence > after having arisen." > Now to p. 74. to carry out their respective functions and are present at every moment, are > related to one another by presence condition. But these states are not > permanent for they cease soon after they have arisen. However, the > successive arisings and ceasings take place so rapidly that they appear to > be present all the time. Thus they give rise to the concepts of continuity, > collection, form and action in the mind. As a consquence, various forms, > images and the drama of life are visualised in the mind..> > N: Because of wrong view, not seeing paramattha dhammas as they are, as > impermanent, dukkha and anatta, we have a wrong interpretation of what is > real. We take mere stories we are spinning out, illusions, for real. A > distorted view, and it is dangerous if we do not know that it is distorted. > I continue: > not independent of or outside the mind as are the momentary material and > mental states from which they are derived. > > He then uses a simile of images of a story projected on a screen, watches the momentarily present shadows that are projected in rapid > succession on that screen.> > He explains that nama and rupa of presence condition are collectively taken > as a unit for the purpose of communication: I, self, being, person, etc. > Repeated use of these words brought about deep attachment to that view.> > > H: It seems to me that a collection/sequence of mind objects, largely > >marks produced by sa~n~na arise, and then a sa~n~nic construction produces > a > >"culminating" marking which, when accessed, calls up that entire collection > or > >sequence, so that there is the seeming of a single mental event which can > then > >be > >thought about further. > N: I think that there are many cittas which sanna occurring, which arise and > fall away, not the concept that can be their object. Thus, in a sense we can > say that concepts are derived from these many moments of spinning out > stories or viewing images, shape and form. > If concept is seen as arising and falling away, it would be the same as > paramattha dhamma, and then awareness of paramattha dhammas loses its sense. > Satipatthana becomes meaningless. > I do not know whether you find U Narada helpful here. > Perhaps we should talk more on concepts and the objects of satipatthana. > Nina. > > ======================== Thank you for the foregoing. I'm not, however, certain whether we view this matter in the same way or differently. I do not think that concepts ever arise. Only paramathha dhammas arise (such as the recalled childhood image), whole sequences of them, including sa~n~nic markings (which would be mind objects), and we *say* that a concept arose. 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) 32569 From: Philip Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 0:30pm Subject: Re: dialogue with Lodewijk, no 1 Hello Nina, and all This is one of the aspects I love about the way this group practices- these reports of conversations, from meetings in Thailand, or wherever. They remind me of the value of conversation, and encourage me to pay more attention to the conversations I have with Naomi. (We've had some very good ones recently, working through our anxieties about the future that I shared some time back, and through our very sad and angry feelings about the cold-hearted way the freed hostages were treated when they returned to Japan, which you may have heard about if you follow the news.) Nina: > We went through the satipatthana sutta, the four applications > of mindfulness. I did not bring any books (too heavy to carry), thus, this > is not a thorough study of the text with commentaries. Ph: This is very timely for me. Responding to James' post the other day about the taints led me back to the satipatthana sutta. Now, I've had this sutta available for study for close to a year now, and have looked through it several times, but I always get caught up in fresh study and never apply myself. I have been intending to start a thread asking everybody how they "use" the satipatthana sutta, which is clearly so important. I will start that thread one of these days. N: >We cling to breath, we cannot > live without it, and we take it for granted that we are breathing day in day > out. Reading about mindfulness of breath can bring us back to this very > moment. Ph: LIke many who come to DSG, I was surprised to read that attention on the breath was not an accepted practice by all, the reason being - if I recall correctly - that it is mistaken to think that it is something that can be done easily, and that the practice indicated in various sutta is actually a very advanced technique. I still practice seated meditation, and I still watch the breath, but I am now aware that it is may not the mindfulness of breath indicated in the satipatthana sutta. In any case, I believe it is an important and helpful thing to do for beginners, at least. When I sit, I sense how the breath is holding everything together. All my aspirations, fears, desires, irritations, stories, fantasies, senses of pain, of pleasure, all the indifferent feelings as well - they are all hinging on a single breath, and if the next one didn't come, they would fall away forever (?) So the breath helps me to understand annica, annata and dukkha in a beginner's way. It helps me to establish a connection, if you will, to upekkha every morning. And I go out into the world and quite often if I catch my mind rushing around, if mindfulness of the mental churning arises, it's returning to the breath for a few moments that brings me back to right understanding. So the "take ten deep breaths" kind of thing that calms people in a physiological way when they are stressed becomes "take 3 mindful breahs" for psychological calming and right understanding, in my case. N: > We spoke about the postures of going, standing, sitting and lying down, > about clear comprehension in all one's actions. It does not mean that this > is knowing what one is doing, but we should realize that there are only > elements, nama and rupa, arising because of conditions. When mindfulness of > the body is applied, it does not mean that there is no awareness of nama. > Nama and rupa are together all the time and their difference should be > discerned by panna. Ph: I don't know if this is relevant here, but I have found that sitting up straight when I'm teaching (I usually sit at a small table with 3 or 4 students) rather than slouching like I sometimes do comes along with being fully present for the student rather than lost in thinking about what I'll be eating for lunch etc. Even now, writing that, I sat up straight, and I felt a respectful feeling rising for Nina and the group as a whole. So sitting up straight and being aware of my posture seems to be associated with some wholesome mental factors. It's interesting. My wife points out that I slouch forward when I walk. Perhaps my walking posture can be transformed through mindfulness as well, gradually. Maybe to make it easier for brahma- viharas to arise as I walk to work, etc... N:> We also spoke about the cemetery contemplations, and this reminds us of > recollection of death. > I said to Lodewijk that there are four meditations for every occasion as > explained in the subcommentary: mindfulness of death, mindfulness of the > loathsomeness of the body, metta and recollection of the Buddha. These > subjects can be contemplated often. Recollection of death can bring us back > to this very moment when there is momentary death of citta, the citta that > arises has to fall away. Ph: I'm happy to be reminded of this. I'd read about it, and forgot. When I am aware of everything hinging on one breath like I wrote about above, I have a recollection of death, but I don't extend it to a cemetery contemplation. If I remember correctly, the cemetery contemplation or loathsomeness of the body contemplation are recommended as antidotes for lust or greed, aren't they? Do you think it is necessary to do them often, or only as antidotes in response to unwholesome states of mind taking hold and becoming dominant as they do on some days? N:> Metta is a cetasika accompanying > kusala citta. It is understanding of the citta that should be stressed, > otherwise we may take attachment for pure metta. Ph: I'm still learning about this. This reminds me to return to K Sujin's article on Metta, which I read though once but need to reread several more times. I have so much to read, but am feeling patient about it, fortunately. That patience is something that was stressed to me by quite a few people when I joined DSG and their advice has been staying with me nicely. Thank you for sharing your conversation, Nina. I really enjoyed it and look forward to reading more! :) Metta, Phil 32570 From: robmoult Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 2:43pm Subject: Re: mind-door process Hi Ken H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Rob M has said that sense door javana cittas are weak in kamma. I > think that is generally accepted. I think it has been explained > that cetana, in the form of kamma-patha (courses of action), only > occurs in mind-door javana processes and only when there is a > concept as object. (Corrections welcome.) ===== Agreed. ===== > > Rob M has also suggested that sense door cittas are weak in > emotion. I think he goes so far as to say they are rooted in moha > or amoha but not in dosa or lobha. This seems an extreme position > to take. (Correct me if I've got you wrong, Rob.) ===== You are correct that I claimed that the javana cittas in an eye-door citta process would be moha-mula. However, I later contradicted myself by mentioning that there was an extremely subtle attachment to sensous gratification that could arise in the sense door citta process as well (this is only uprooted in an Anagami). I also neglected to discuss the sense door citta process when the sense consciousness has pleasant or unpleasant feeling (only arises in body- door). All in all, I would say that I was wrong to claim that the javana cittas in an eye-door citta process would always be moha-mula. However, even though they may be lobha-mula or dosa-mula, they create very weak kamma (as you noted above). ===== > > Ken O, Howard and I have surmised the opposite: We think that strong > emotions (mula) occur mainly at the paramattha level (in cittas with > dhammas as object). ===== You may be contradicting yourself now. When you say "strong" emotions, what makes them "strong"? Is it not the intensity of the associated volition (i.e. that which makes strong kamma)? At the beginning, you agreed that there was very weak volition in the javana cittas in a sense-door citta process; are you now saying that there is very strong volition in the javana cittas in a sense-door citta process? ===== > > Even IF, as Rob believes, visible object were a meaningless dot of > light, strong dosa (for example) could arise to experience it. Dosa > can be conditioned by any of a large number of past (and present) > dhammas – I don't think it needs a "meaningful" object. (This gives > rise to more questions, which I will skip for now.) ===== Since you have concern with my "dot of light" simile for visible object, let's switch to the ear door. The sound rupa appearing at the ear door is a miniscule fraction of a word (word being a concept). My contention is that the emotional reaction (strength of cetana) to a miniscule fraction of a word is very weak compared to the emotional reaction (strength of cetana) to the concept of a word that has been grasped and thought about. In brief, I believe that the intensity of the associated cetana grows as the object becomes more "meaningful". ===== > > As I understand Nina's comments to Rob, she would doubt the > usefulness of all our surmising. Many, intermingled, citta > processes follow closely upon each other: Sense-door impressions > are followed by mind-door concepts but there are more sense > impressions and concepts in between. How are we to know which citta > has the strongest emotion or what degree of meaning it finds in it's > object? ===== This is also my understanding of Nina's comment; with compassion, she is trying to bring us back into the present moment. ===== > > I think Nina also said that papanca can occur in sense door > processes. That implies that citta can get quite preoccupied with > sense objects. And it makes it all the harder to believe that > visible object is just a dot of light or that audible object is just > a one-billionth part of the sound of a word. Why, for example, > would ditthi mistake a dot of light for self? ===== Papanca (mental proliferation) is a grouping together of mind door citta-processes. It doesn't make sense to say that it arises inside a sense-door process. ===== > > Sorry if I have confused the issues, please continue with your > conversation. :-) Ken H, thanks for giving me the chance to recant my earlier statement regarding javana cittas in a sense door citta process always being moha-mula. Hopefully, your summary will bring focus to the discussion. Metta, Rob M :-) 32571 From: Philip Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 9:08pm Subject: Cittas and cetasikas (basic question!) Hello all I went back to the beginning of Abhidhamma in Daily Life to try to sort out my understanding and I soon came across a basic point that I will need to get clear. I guess I could find the answer by reading through the Useful Posts and reading on in ADL, but asking here might be helpful for other beginners. How should I put my question? Well, I guess it seems to me that there are so many references to kusala and akusala citta, but from what I read about the definition of citta, and from thinking logically, it seems to me that it is the cetasikas rather than the cittas that are wholesome or unwholesome. Aren't cittas pure consciousness, and the cetasikas the mental factors such as attachment and aversion that would seem the more likely candidates for conditioning more-of-the-same in the future? As an example, I start with this description of the citta of seeing- consciousness from ADL, chapter 1: "For example, when seeing- consciousness arises, feeling (vedana) arises together with the citta. The citta which sees perceives only visible object; there is not yet like or dislike. The feeling which accompanies this type of citta is indifferent feeling. After seeing-consciousness has fallen away, other cittas arise and there may be cittas which dislike the object." But isn't the khanda that "dislikes the object" lohba (aversion) which is a cetasika, rather than the citta which "perceives only visible object"? It seems to this beginner that citta refers to consciousness of object, whether it's visible object, hearing object or even mental object (?) but the wholesome or unwholesome factors come with the cetasikas. But there are so many references to wholseome or unwholesome citta. I know this is a basic point, but thanks in advance for your clarification. Oh, one more thing. When I first started reading about Buddhism, I came across reference to Bodhicitta (sp?) which I guess is like "the Buddha mind" and is not a concept we find in Theravada. (Or is it?) Nevertheless, it surely refers to beautiful cetasikas such as compassion and loving-kindness. I wonder why it isn't called bodhicetasika? I'm kind of itching to read Nina's "Cetasikas" because it seems to me that cetasikas is where all the hot khamma gets created! ;) And that cittas is more related to sense organ-consciousness. But I've clearly got that wrong. Help! :) Metta, Phil 32572 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 9:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mind-door process Dear Ken H, Visible object is not a dot of light. It is colour or just what appears through the eyes, without defining. You can see in the Dhammasangani many examples. They seem images, but they are not. Just examples that anything that appears through eyes is visible object. We should not delimitate it. This makes it very natural. I remember A. Sujin asking: do you define all the colours in this room? But we see them all. She also said (like Howard's teacher) close your eyes and open them, and what appears? I do not see dots, I see all that naturally appears through eyes before I think or define. We should not stare and try to see little dots moving or so. Dhammasangani, p. 167: All these things are seen before you pay attention to shape and form and define. And we do not count sense-processes. Because of accumulated conditions there can be ditthi before we know more about the object. I would not say that kamma is performed only when the object is a concept. As said before: sense-door processes arising in between are all part of such moments of committing kamma. I can illustrate this point. The last javana cittas before dying are conditioned by the kamma that will produce result in the form of the next rebirth-consciousness. These javana cittas are accordingly kusala or akusala. Now, the object they take can be colour, sound etc. Also an image of the next realm, or a symbol of kamma that one performed. Thus, it can be an object experienced through six doors, not just through the mind-door. Also, I do not believe that with each akusala javana citta the akusala has the intensity of kamma that can bring result. Would there be already akusala kamma when I yawn without awareness of nama and rupa? Nina. We should not forget op 27-04-2004 09:43 schreef kenhowardau op kenhowardau@y...: > I think Nina also said that papanca can occur in sense door > processes. That implies that citta can get quite preoccupied with > sense objects. And it makes it all the harder to believe that > visible object is just a dot of light or that audible object is just > a one-billionth part of the sound of a word. Why, for example, > would ditthi mistake a dot of light for self? 32573 From: Christopher Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 9:51pm Subject: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana (and my intro) Hi, Thanks for the replies on my question. Many times I think that maybe it would be most 'natural' just to live with full understanding of dukkha, but not to advance to the point where the stream is entered and the cycle of dependant origination will inevitably one day be broken. I mostly wonder about this as to what is in accordance with the truth, no doubt my ego has much influence on this idea. Sara asked me to introduce myself a few replies back. I actually joined this group a year ago, my name on here was 'christhedis' (some default) until I finally got around to fixing it. I was born in the UK, grew up in Canada, and now wander around, currently have been in Thailand for approaching 1 year. I've been interested in Buddhism for 10 years, but only seriously in past year and a half, when I started Buddhist meditation. Have done Goenka and Mahasi meditation courses, and spent time in forest monasteries here in Thailand (actually staying at one now). Been using anapanasati lately and getting interesting results. Hope that's ok. Last name starts with H, so it's Chris H. or Christopher, whichever works best. Thanks, hope to hear any comments or opinion about my living with dukkha thought. Christopher. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rikpa21" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher" > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > This (rather strange) question is actually about Mahayana > Buddhism. > > Please forgive me for asking it here, I have often received lots > of friendly > > help in here, and I'm not sure where else I might find an answer. > So > > any help is appreciated.. > > > > When meditating as a Mahayanist, one aims to avoid entering the > > stream so as to stay in the round of rebirths in order to help > other > > beings. I am wondering if there is a certain way that a meditator > does > > this, and if so, how? Would there come a point in meditation where > it is > > obvious that entering the stream is possible, and a person can > simply > > choose not to advance? Or is it possible to 'accidentally' enter > the > > stream, only realizing afterwards what has happened? If so, what > does > > a Mahayanist do about this? > > From the Mahayana Vajracchedika Sutra (Diamdond Cutter): > > "Subhuti, it is the same concerning bodhisattvas. If a bodhisattva > thinks that she has to liberate all living beings, then she is not > yet a bodhisattva. Why? Subhuti, there is no independently existing > object of mind called bodhisattva. Therefore, the Buddha has said > that all dharmas are without a self, a person, a living being, or a > life span. Subhuti, if a bodhisattva thinks, 'I have to create a > serene and beautiful Buddha field', that person is not yet a > bodhisattva. Why? What the Tathagata calls a serene and beautiful > Buddha field is not in fact a serene and beautiful Buddha field. And > that is why it is called a serene and beautiful Buddha field. > Subhuti, any bodhisattva who thoroughly understands the principle of > non-self and non-dharma is called by the Tathagata an authentic > bodhisattva." 32574 From: Philip Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 11:01pm Subject: Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana (and my intro) Hello Christopher. Nice to meet you. >Many times I think that maybe it would be most 'natural' just to >live with >full understanding of dukkha, but not to advance to the point where >the >stream is entered and the cycle of dependant origination will >inevitably >one day be broken. I mostly wonder about this as to what is in >accordance with the truth, no doubt my ego has much influence on this > idea. I've wanted to say something about this as well. I *like* people, and I've learned to see through certain kinds of self-induced suffering, so I would like to have a human rebirth, I thought. I don't yet understand the desire to see the cycle broken, I thought. I read this from Nina's Abhidhamma in Daily Life : "One is glad to be born if one does not realize that birth is the result of kamma and that one will go forth in the cycle of birth and death as long as there is kamma. Not seeing the dangers of birth is ignorance. At this moment we are in the human plane of existence but as long as we have not attained any stge of enlightenment we cannot be sure that there will not be rebirth in one of the woeful planes. We have all performed both akusala kamma and kusala kamma in different lives. Who knows which of those deeds will produce the patisandhi-citta of the next life, even if we continue doing good deeds." Before reading this, I'd assumed that with a decent intellecutal understanding of annata, annica and dukkha I could maintain a decent human existence, and be free from the worst extremes of dukkha that arise from unbridled ignorance. But that was a mistake, I see now. I cannot have any control over the way akusala kamma from past lives will play out in my next patisandhia-citta (rebirth citta?) so I had best be more diligent in seeking an end to liberation. Human rebirth cannot be guaranteed by one decent human life. There should be a motivation to achieve the first stage of enlightenment. (I still haven't found that motivation, but hopefully the kind of thinking I'm doing here is getting me closer to being more motivated.) I don't know if that addresses your question, but it was something that I wanted to share. Metta, Phil 32575 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 11:17pm Subject: [dsg] Re: mind-door process Hi Howard (Rob M and Nina), ------------------- KH: > > Ken O, Howard and I have surmised the opposite: We think that strong > emotions (mula) occur mainly at the paramattha level (in cittas with > dhammas as object). > > H: > I'm not certain that this is exactly what I implied. What I said was the following: ------------------- Thanks for the recap, Howard, and my apologies for misrepresenting you. As I admitted in my previous messages, I don't have a clear understanding, or even a firm opinion :-) on the relative strengths of reactions to dhammas v's reactions to concepts. Normally, I would wait for an Abhidhammika, preferably of the NAG persuasion, to venture an opinion and then blithely claim it as my own :-) But in this case, I'm not sure who has what opinion. Some parts of your recap, for example, still have me scratching my head. Just as I am about to post this, I see that Rob M and Nina have also recapped. I look forward to reading it all very carefully. I will ask more questions when I at least know what we're talking about. (Don't hold your breath.) Kind regards, Ken H 32576 From: robmoult Date: Tue Apr 27, 2004 11:35pm Subject: Re: Cittas and cetasikas (basic question!) Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Philip" wrote: > I went back to the beginning of Abhidhamma in Daily Life to try to > sort out my understanding and I soon came across a basic point that I > will need to get clear. I guess I could find the answer by reading > through the Useful Posts and reading on in ADL, but asking here might > be helpful for other beginners. > > How should I put my question? Well, I guess it seems to me that > there are so many references to kusala and akusala citta, but from > what I read about the definition of citta, and from thinking > logically, it seems to me that it is the cetasikas rather than the > cittas that are wholesome or unwholesome. > > Aren't cittas pure consciousness, and the cetasikas the mental > factors such as attachment and aversion that would seem the more > likely candidates for conditioning more-of-the-same in the future? Even though the Abhidhamma is extremely precise in its approach, the term "citta" is used to mean two different things: - Pure awareness (this is a paramattha dhamma) - Mental state (pure awareness + a collection of cetasikas) In other words, Citta (defn 2) = Citta (defn 1) + Cetasika Does this factoid help your understanding? Metta, Rob M :-) 32577 From: Ken O Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 0:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mind-door process Hi RobM Its me Ken O again > ===== > > It is important to note that every citta in a citta process has > exactly the same object. In other words, if the ear-consciousness > citta has a certain sound as its object then the subsequent > receiving citta, the subsequent investigating citta, the subsequent > determining citta and all seven subsequent javana cittas will also have the same sound as their object. k: I have discussed with RobK over this matter before since the object in the begining is indifference, the subsequent javana process should be indifference. I remember he said that is not true. I agree with him. Let me quote you this text given to me by RobK <> k: We can see that what is vipaka is different what is javana. We cannot based on what is felt in vipaka as the determining aspect of what is javana. > ===== > > When we are aware of "feeling" (pleasant, unpleasant or neutral), > then it is always the object of a mind-door process. > > ===== k: Sorry, IMHO (no offense meant) I think you are mixing your conventional way of thinking with those of paramatthas. When we feel aversion or greed it can be in the javana process on the object. Citta coginze the object but it is feeling that give the taste. Feeling can be an object in the mind door process but feeling is also a taste of the object in the sense door process. There are two different things and that does not mean that feelings must be an object in order for one to know. It can be a conditioning mindstate that arise with the citta on the object - and that feeling can be experience or taste. Freewill plays its part here." For months, I wrestled with > the question, "how can there be free will when there is no self?". Ken, > if you are wrestling with a similar question, let me know and let's > look at it together (it may be digressing from the point of this exchange or it could be at the heart of this exchange, I am not > sure). > k: Thanks RobM - knowing you has been very beneficial to me ;-). I dont think I am wrestling with any kind of thought of free will. In my personal perception as all is anatta where is there a free will (in western way of thinking). In Abdhidhamma in my personal opinion free will is panna. Only panna is free will because only when panna arise then we will know what is the danger of akusala and actions will then be kusala. Panna is anatta too ;-) Call it the Panna Action Group. Ken O 32578 From: Philip Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 0:29am Subject: Re: Cittas and cetasikas (basic question!) Hi Rob, and all Rob: > Even though the Abhidhamma is extremely precise in its approach, >the >term "citta" is used to mean two different things: >- Pure awareness (this is a paramattha dhamma) >- Mental state (pure awareness + a collection of cetasikas) >In other words, Citta (defn 2) = Citta (defn 1) + Cetasika >Does this factoid help your understanding? Ph: Thanks. That helps a lot Rob. But I think I still don't understand completely because in ADL I see, for example, "Citta only experiences an object" and then a bit later "Sobhana cetasikas accompanying wholesome cittas are, for example alodha adosa, panna..." It would seem to me from this that the citta in the latter sentence refers to defn 1, since it is accompanied by cetasikas. ( i.e defn 1 plus cetasika) And yet, if "citta only experiences an object" how can it be "wholesome?" How can pure awareness be wholesome? Is it called wholesome because it is a kusala vipakacitta, the result of a wholesome deed in the past? A past wholesome deed conditions the sense-consciousness citta through vipaka, making it "a wholesome citta", which in turn gives rise to sobhana cetasikas. Is that right? Metta, Phil 32579 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 1:01am Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Friend Sarah, Sarah: So when it seems that we can select an object for the practice of satipatthana or read a sutta as suggesting that we should indeed do this, I believe it's a misinterpretation. Whilst the various dhammas to be seen by wisdom are divided up in various ways in this and other suttas, this is for the purpose of explanation, not for giving an order for the objects to be known. By the time there is thinking and determining to concentrate or focus on a particular object, present namas and rupas have passed away already without any knowledge. In other words, such ideas of selection are based on the idea that another object would be more suitable than the presently arising one which is contrary to what we read about knowng `presently arisen dhammas'. James: Okay, now I think I understand your position better. I was beginning to wonder why no matter how many different suttas I quote to explain my position, it is like you don't read them. After all, you are obviously an intelligent person; I was beginning to wonder what the problem was! ;-)) Now I see that you have this underlying belief that the suttas don't really mean what they are saying. They have a deeper meaning which must be wrangled out of them. Well, I don't blame you for thinking this, and I don't blame A. Sukin either, I blame Buddhaghosa for this faulty view. If you would stop reading Buddhaghosa you would stop getting this idea that suttas contain a `secret meaning' that only those with `enough panna' can get. I think and sense that this type of view breeds conceit. Hmmm…well, now I am faced with a quandary. Obviously, I can't quote suttas to explain my position…so I'll try some logic. First, let me focus on this last part you write, "contrary to what we read about knowing `presently arisen dhammas'." Sarah, the goal of Buddhism isn't to `know presently arisen dhammas', who cares about `presently arisen dhammas'? The goal of Buddhism is to know Nibbana, which does not arise and does not cease. Concepts, dhammas, nama, rupa… they are all unsatisfactory and not really worth `knowing'. Throw them out the window! They are rubbish and trash! ;-)) The only think worth knowing is nibbana…the sweet release. Nibbana is not a part of `the present moment' either. Who cares about `the present moment'? Throw that out the window also! ;-) Nibbana is beyond time and moments and everything. So, knowing namas and rupas is like wallowing in filth and thinking it is heaven. The mind must penetrate to the nibbana element to have true release. The only way to do this is to practice mindfulness and concentration. Okay, nuff said. ;-)) Metta, James 32580 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 2:37am Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hello James and Sarah, Suttas don't contain 'secret' meanings - but,as I understand it, the suttas are teaching vehicles whose meanings are densely packed layer on layer. This condensed form was necessary in order that the Teachings would not be lost in the years before they were finally put into writing. It allowed them to be memorised by the large groups of bhikkhus (banakas) assigned to each portion of the Tipitaka. They are not verbatim reports of chats and conversations. "Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata -- deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness -- are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves." (Ari sutta). Metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > > James: Okay, now I think I understand your position better. I was > beginning to wonder why no matter how many different suttas I quote > to explain my position, it is like you don't read them. After all, > you are obviously an intelligent person; I was beginning to wonder > what the problem was! ;-)) Now I see that you have this underlying > belief that the suttas don't really mean what they are saying. They > have a deeper meaning which must be wrangled out of them. Well, I > don't blame you for thinking this, and I don't blame A. Sukin > either, I blame Buddhaghosa for this faulty view. If you would stop > reading Buddhaghosa you would stop getting this idea that suttas > contain a `secret meaning' that only those with `enough panna' can > get. 32581 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 2:53am Subject: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Dear Friends, The D.O. corner seems to have had a long break. We discussed avijjaa (ignorance) at length and how it is a condition for sankhaara (formations). Perhaps we can continue to discuss how sankhaara in this context are a cause of vi~n~naa.na (consciousness)and the meaning of vi~n~naa.na here. To get started, I’d like to give the details on these links in two posts, quoting: ‘THE DISCOURSE ON RIGHT VIEW’,The Sammaditthi Sutta and its Commentary, Translated from the Pali by Bhikkhu Nanamoli, Edited and Revised by Bhikkhu Bodhi. >(Formations) 60. Saying, "Good friend," the bhikkhus delighted and rejoiced in the Venerable Sariputta's words. Then they asked him a further question: "But, friend, might there be another way in which a noble disciple is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma?" -- "There might be, friends. 61. "When, friends, a noble disciple understands formations, the origin of formations, the cessation of formations, and the way leading to the cessation of formations, in that way he is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma. 62. "And what are formations, what is the origin of formations, what is the cessation of formations, what is the way leading to the cessation of formations? There are these three kinds of formations: the bodily formation, the verbal formation, the mental formation. With the arising of ignorance there is the arising of formations. With the cessation of ignorance there is the cessation of formations. The way leading to the cessation of formations is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration. 63. "When a noble disciple has thus understood formations, the origin of formations, the cessation of formations, and the way leading to the cessation of formations... he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma." < ****** Commentary: >Formations ~~~~~~~~~~ 62. In the section on formations, a formation (//sankhara//) has the characteristic of forming (//abhisankharanalakkhana//). But in the detailed section, the bodily formation (//kayasankhara//) is a formation that proceeds from the body. This is a designation for the twenty kinds of bodily volition -- **the eight sense-sphere wholesome and twelve unwholesome** -- that occur by way of activation in the bodily door.[57] The verbal formation(//vacisankhara//) is a formation that proceeds from speech. This is a designation for the (same) twenty kinds of verbal volition that occur by way of breaking into speech in the door of speech. The mental formation(//cittasankhara//) is a formation that proceeds from the mind. This is a designation for the twenty-nine kinds of mental volition -- **the mundane wholesome and unwholesome** -- that occur in one sitting alone in thought, and which do not cause activation of the bodily and verbal doors.[58] With the arising of ignorance (//avijjasamudaya//): But here ignorance should be understood as a condition for the wholesome by way of decisive support and for the unwholesome by way of conascence as well. The rest by the method stated.< ***** S: I added the asterisks above to emphasise that the formations here refer to the kusala and akusala volitions (cetana as kamma) capable of bringing about results through body, speech or mind in the forms of consciousnes (vipaka cittas or vi~n~naa.na in the d.o.context). Whilst not all kinds of volition included in the possible kinds given (20 kinds of bodily volition, 20 kinds of verbal volition, 29 kinds of mental volition) will produce results by way of kamma condition, these are the total number of possible volitions which can perform this function as I understand. Further comments or quotes welcome. Metta, Sarah ====== 32582 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 2:56am Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Friend Christine, Christine: Suttas don't contain 'secret' meanings - but,as I understand it, the suttas are teaching vehicles whose meanings are densely packed layer on layer. James: Christine, this is basically saying the same thing, that suttas contain secret meanings `under' `all those densely packed layers'. Why do you think that suttas are `condensed'? The suttas are the direct words of the Buddha and his monks. They aren't especially `condensed' for ease of memorization, they are the direct words. The Buddha said that the meaning is subtle and difficult to comprehend, but he didn't say it was hidden and required it's `unveiling' by someone else (i.e. Buddhaghosa). Metta, James 32583 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 3:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Back to D.O. - vi~n~naa.na (consciousness) Dear Friends, Sankhaara(formations)are a cause of vi~n~naa.na (consciousness) Again quoting from: ‘THE DISCOURSE ON RIGHT VIEW’,The Sammaditthi Sutta and its Commentary, Translated from the Pali by Bhikkhu Nanamoli,Edited and Revised by Bhikkhu Bodhi: ***** >(Consciousness) 56. Saying, "Good, friend," the bhikkhus delighted and rejoiced in the Venerable Sariputta's words. Then they asked him a further question: "But, friend, might there be another way in which a noble disciple is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma?" -- "There might be, friends. 57. "When, friends, a noble disciple understands consciousness, the origin of consciousness, the cessation of consciousness, and the way leading to the cessation of consciousness, in that way he is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma. 58. "And what is consciousness, what is the origin of consciousness, what is the cessation of consciousness, what is the way leading to the cessation of consciousness? There are these six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness. With the arising of formations there is the arising of consciousness. With the cessation of formations there is the cessation of consciousness. The way leading to the cessation of consciousness is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration. 59. "When a noble disciple has thus understood consciousness, the origin of consciousness, the cessation of consciousness, and the way leading to the cessation of consciousness... he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view... and has arrived at this true Dhamma." < ***** From the commentary >Consciousness ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 58. In the section on consciousness, eye-consciousness (//cakkhuvinnana//) is consciousness in the eye or consciousness born from the eye. So also with ear-, nose-, tongue- and body-consciousness. But with the other one, i.e. mind-consciousness (//manovinnana//), mind itself is consciousness. This is a designation for the **resultant consciousness of the three (mundane) planes of existence** except for the two groups of fivefold consciousness.[56] With the arising of formations (//sankharasamudaya//): But here the arising of consciousness should be understood to occur with the arising of formations according to the method stated in the Visuddhimagga, as to which formation is a condition for which consciousness (XVII, 175-185). **** S: So to stress, in this context of D.O., consciousness is referring to vipaka cittas only, resulting from kamma in the form of the 5-fold sense consciousness and all other kinds of mundane vipaka cittas, starting with patisandhi (rebirth) consciousness. Further comments or quotes very welcome. Metta, Sarah ====== 32584 From: Philip Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:03am Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? HI James, and all > So, knowing namas and rupas is like wallowing in filth and thinking > it is heaven. The mind must penetrate to the nibbana element to > have true release. The only way to do this is to practice > mindfulness and concentration. Okay, nuff said. ;-)) Friend James, don't let frustration with NAG drive you away from appreciating the importance of nama and rupa. From what I can see, so far, giving up an interest in rupa and nama is paramount to giving up an interest in understanding annata, annica and dukkha. Check out this passage, from "Walking Meditation" by Sayadaw U Silananda (Buddhisp Publication Bodhi Leaves #137) For me, it gets at the why Ive been able to better understand the three characteristics since beginning to try to become aware of rupa and nama: "Before yogis begin practicing walking meditation, they may have thought that a step is just one movement. After meditation on that movement, they observe that there are at least four movements, and if they go deeper, they will understand that even one of these four movements consists of millions of tiny movements. They see nama and rupa, mind and matter, arising and disappearing, as impermanent. By our ordinary perception, we are not able to see the impermanence of things because impermanence is hidden by the illusion of continuity. We think that we see only one continuous movement, but if we look closely we will see that the illusion of continuity can be broken. It can be broken by the direct observation of physical phenomena bit by bit, segment by segment, as they originate and disintegrate. The value of meditation lies in our ability to remove the cloak of continuity in order to discover the real nature of impermanence. Yogis can discover the nature of impermanence directly through their own effort. (SNIP) We must comprehend that all things are just mind and matter arising and disappearing, that things are insubstantial. Once we realize this, we will be able to remove attachment to things. As long as we do not realize this, however much we read books or attend talks or talk about removing attachment, we will not be able to get rid of attachment. It is necessary to have the direct experience that all conditioned things are marked by the three characteristics." This is not wallowing, my friend. This is understanding of the three characteristics, in my opinion. And in my opinion talk of nibbana without understanding the three characteristics is misguided. Well, duh! :) Of course you have your own way of understanding them. Just bear in mind, though, that an appreciation of Rupa and Nama does not following the NAG way. Rupa and nama are not concepts created by or maintained by K Sujin and the people who follow in her tradition. They are taught by da Buddha, bud! :) Metta, Phil 32585 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:36am Subject: Re: Video Games? Friend Philip, Philip: Friend James, don't let frustration with NAG drive you away from appreciating the importance of nama and rupa. James: Philip, frustration with NAG is not driving me away from anything and I am not speaking from frustration with anything. I am quite calm and relaxed and radiating loving kindness your way ;-)). Anyway, Nama and Rupa are not `important' in any way. They are transient phenomena that are not worth clinging to. "Knowing" nama and rupa doesn't lead to understanding anatta either. Anatta can only be understood when Nibbana is understood. The Buddha entered Jhana, went all the way to the fourth level, recalled his and others past lives, and destroyed the taints, all without `knowing' nama and rupa…at least he didn't mention anything about that. If it was important I'm sure he would have mentioned it. Philip: Rupa and nama are not concepts created by or maintained by K Sujin and the people who follow in her tradition. They are taught by da Buddha, bud! :) James: LOL! Philip, believe it or not, it is quite possible to be a genuine Buddhist and to know absolutely nothing about nama and rupa. The Buddha didn't teach the Abhidhamma. Metta, James 32586 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 5:10am Subject: Re: mind-door process Hi Rob M and Nina, Rob, while we are on the subject of visible object: Suppose I have, in a previous lifetime, performed a particularly heinous crime and I am about to experience the fruit of my evil kamma. What is it that appears at the eye-door, a dot of light? Where's the big deal in that? I could be wrong, of course, but wouldn't any rupa, experienced because of grossly akusala kamma, be something horrific? When the Buddha's foot was crushed by a rock, there was great physical pain (but no mental anguish, of course.) That suggests to me that the tactile rupas concerned were of a particularly unpleasant nature. So, perhaps the visible rupas, conceptualised as blood and splintered bones, were also unmistakeably unpleasant. Even though visual contact can never cause physical pain, I think visible object can be experienced by unenlightened beings with strong dosa and, therefore, with strong mental pain. -------------------- KH: > > We think that strong > emotions (mula) occur mainly at the paramattha level (in cittas with > dhammas as object). > > ===== RM: > You may be contradicting yourself now. When you say "strong" emotions, what makes them "strong"? Is it not the intensity of the associated volition (i.e. that which makes strong kamma)? At the beginning, you agreed that there was very weak volition in the javana cittas in a sense-door citta process; are you now saying that there is very strong volition in the javana cittas in a sense-door citta process? ------------------ I'm not sure I am contradicting myself on this occasion. Does strong dosa require strong cetana? And even if it does, is it necessarily the same as the cetana that produces vipaka? If a rock crushes my foot and I suffer mental anguish, without ill will for any living being, will that generate unpleasant vipaka? (I'm not saying it won't: I am genuinely ignorant in these matters.) ----------------------- RM: > In brief, I believe that the intensity of the associated cetana grows as the object becomes more "meaningful". > ------------------- The way you describe audible object is, to me, the same as the way you describe visible object. Again, I may be on the wrong track but, logically, the vipaka of akusala kamma must be dramatically different from the vipaka of kusala kamma. The objects experienced can't be meaningless dots and bits of sounds. Nina, also, is trying to help me understand visible object. I am too slow-witted to see how the description, "colour," clarifies, but I am helped by, "just what appears through the eyes without defining." That is much more satisfactory than "a dot of light," don't you think? Before there can be mindfulness at the level of satipatthana, panna has to know what to look for (if I may put it so simplistically). If panna has been told to look for a dot of light, I think it will miss visible object every time – just as certainly as it will if it has been told to look for a tree or any other concept. -------------------- RM: > Papanca (mental proliferation) is a grouping together of mind door citta-processes. It doesn't make sense to say that it arises inside a sense-door process. > -------------------- You will have to take that up with Nina :-) I see she also disagrees with us on another matter: She says that kamma-patha is not purely a matter for cittas with concept as object. That's good enough for me (aspiring to be teacher's pet). :-) Thinking about it, I do get a sense of all those different citta processes following so closely on one another. Strong dosa (directed by cetana) in one citta could condition the killing of a person conceptualised in another citta, could it not? This is getting too hard for me :-) Nina, thank you for your help in all this confusion. Your example of 'the last javana cittas before dying' was especially convincing. Kind regards, Ken H 32587 From: Philip Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 6:13am Subject: Re: Video Games? Hi James, and all. > James: Philip, frustration with NAG is not driving me away from > anything and I am not speaking from frustration with anything. I am > quite calm and relaxed and radiating loving kindness your way ;- )). Ph: Right back at you. :) I guess I mentionned that about NAG because I couldn't imagine any other reason you would want to deny the importance of rupa and nama. How about if they are referred to the Five Aggregates (khandas) instead? I'm sure there's a reason that they are different but it seems to me that ruppa/citta/cetasikas = khandas, more or less. Surely you don't deny the importance of understanding the Aggregates in order to understand annata? James: > "Knowing" nama > and rupa doesn't lead to understanding anatta either. Anatta can > only be understood when Nibbana is understood. Ph: Really? So we have to go along trapped in self, driven by self, a slave of self until we understand Nibbana? I think Theravada offers a progressive route to enlightenment. I think I understand annata. It's common sense in the light of the Buddha's teaching - see the Five Aggregates. But I don't pretend to understand Nibbana. You'll say that I *don't* understand annata but I say say I do. So nyah! ;) James: >The Buddha entered > Jhana, went all the way to the fourth level, recalled his and others > past lives, and destroyed the taints, all without `knowing' nama and > rupa?Et least he didn't mention anything about that. Ph: Ok, I guess some dispute that 1/3 of the Triple Basket was not in fact taught by the Buddha. I'm new to this dispute so I can't comment but it seems unlikely to me that the Buddha's teaching doesn't enter one of the three baskets. Of course, I don't know much at all about the history and development of Buddhism. > James: LOL! Philip, believe it or not, it is quite possible to be a > genuine Buddhist and to know absolutely nothing about nama and > rupa. Ph:. But it's also possible to be a genuine Buddhist and be interested in rupa and nama, so why try to deny people their rupa and nama? If folks in the NAG posit that it is impossible to follow the way without understanding nupa and nama, then I'd understand why you feel the need to debate them. Actually, that's a good question. Is anyone at DSG saying that it is impossible to become enlightened without studying Abhidhamma? Well, it's been stated that suttas can't be understood without understanding Abhidhamma first. I can understand why you want to question that. James: > The Buddha didn't teach the Abhidhamma. Ph: I've heard of the mythical sounding version that has the Buddha teaching it in one of the heavenly (?) realms. I struggle with doubts about the existence of different realms. You too? The Buddha does teach about the existence of different realms, right? If you believe in the realms, why can't you believe in the Buddha teaching in them? Don't bother answering that unless you really want to. I'm taking it on faith that the Buddha did teach the Abhidhamma. Taking things on faith because there is reasonable evidence. (ie The fact that the Abhidhamma is in the Triple Basket is good enough for me.) In any case, I've enjoying discussing this with you and appreciate your lending me an ear, friend James. Metta, Phil 32588 From: Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 2:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cittas and cetasikas (basic question!) Hi, Phil - As I understand it, a citta (or mindstate) is a mental state consisting of the presence of (or awareness of) an object, which could be "physical" or "mental", co-occuring with a number of other mental events dealing with that same object in differing ways. It is these accompanying mental events (the cetasikas) that may be kusala or akusala. A mindstate that can produce kammic results has kusala or akusala roots, and it is the nature of the roots, kusala or akusala, that derivatively characterize the mindstate as kusala or akusala. And a mindstate that doesn't produce kammic fruit but is, itself, kammic fruit, is derivatively "kusala" or "akusala" depending on the nature of the kammically productive states that led to it. So, for example, a state of seeing would be "kusala" or "akusala" not in the sense that the state, itself, is wholesome or unwholesome, but merely in its being the *result* of wholesome or unwholesome conditions. The foregoing is my understanding. It may be off in several respects. It is definitely weak at points. In particular, I'm not clear on whether or not an akusala citta, one with akusala roots, must have *all* its cetasikas akusala, or wherther there could be a "mix". 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) 32589 From: Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 3:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? In a message dated 4/28/04 4:05:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, plnao@j... writes: > So, knowing namas and rupas is like wallowing in filth and thinking > it is heaven. The mind must penetrate to the nibbana element to > have true release. The only way to do this is to practice > mindfulness and concentration. Okay, nuff said. ;-)) James, Here is what Narada, the translator of _A Manual of Abhidhammattha Sangaha_, a work often referenced in posts here, has to say about this issue in his preface. I would think you would agree with his thoughts. "Undoubtedly Abhidhamma is extremly helpful to comprehend fully the word of the Buddha and realise Nibbana, as it presents a key to open the door of reality. It deals with realities and a practical way of noble living, based on the experience of those who have understood and realized. Without a knowledge of the Abhidhamma one at times finds it diffficult to understand the real significance of some profound teachings of the Buddha. To develop Insight Abhidhamma is certainly very useful. But one cannot positively assert that Abhidhamma is absolutely necessary to gain one's Deliverance. Understanding or realisation is purely personal (sanditthika). The Four Noble Truths that form the foundation of the Buddha's teaching are dependent on this one-fathom body. The Dhamma is not apart from oneself. Look within. Seek thyself. Lo, the truth will unfold itself. Did not sorrow-afflicted Patacara, who lost her dear and near ones, realize Nibbana, reflecting on the disappearnce of water that washed her feet? Did not Culapanthaka, who could not memorize a verse even for four months, attain Arahantship, by comprehending the impermanent nature of a clean hankerchief which he was handling, gazing at the sun. Did not Upatissa, later Ven. Sariputta Thera, realize Nibbana on hearing half a stanza relating to cause and efffect? To some a fallen withered leaf had alone been sufficient to attain Pacceka Buddhahood. It was mindfulness on respiration (anapanasati) that acted as the basis for the Bodhisatta to attain Buddhahood." jack 32590 From: Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? In a message dated 4/28/04 1:04:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: S: By the time there is thinking and determining to concentrate or focus on a particular object, present namas and rupas have passed away already without any knowledge. In other words, such ideas of selection are based on the idea that another object would be more suitable than the presently arising one which is contrary to what we read about knowng `presently arisen dhammas'. .... >>S: Let me ask you whether at this moment it really is possible to select an object - say to experience hardness without thinking or seeing or hearing or attachment or doubt for example. And how would this be more beneficial to the development of satipatthana than the awareness of presently arising thinking or doubt or a wish to focus?<< Sarah, As I said in a previous post, I practice by deliberately selecting a particular material ultimate such as hardness or coldness as object. In my 4-Material Element meditation, I practice by selecting, one by one, 13-16 different types of sensations in my body. This is practice, artificial, and choosing one object over another one. Then after doing this, I just sit there and watch whatever comes up. I think I do this later phase with no agenda or attachment. Sometimes I don't have time to do the second phase. But, after doing this practice for a year or so, I find myself being aware of ultimates as I just sit, say, in a dentist's office. To me (and I think to the Buddha), this practice phase is essential. Here is what I said in my last post. >> Here is what I mean by deconstructing. I'm sitting in the dentist's office. I see I am in discomfort. I think (use concepts) to decide to put my attention on my physical body sense door. Once my attention is there, I just observe with no thought or direction. At times, my training in 4 material elements (ultimates) meditation kicks in and my attention goes to the physical body elements without the first step of using concepts to decide to do it. It all happens with "my" doing anything. Thinking, deciding and using concepts in this situation to me is only useful in that it points me toward a state of not thinking, deciding or using concepts. My meditation practice has benefits to me such as reducing stress but its ultimate use to to practice "directly understanding dhammas with detachment and without any idea of self." as you say below. "Understanding" in this sense means direct, non-conceptual wisdom not book learning.<< I'm finding myself repeating myself so I think its maybe time to go off on another subject. Thanks. jack 32591 From: Htoo Naing Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 8:55am Subject: Dhamma in a place Dear Dhamma Friends, Paramattha dhamma are being delineated under the pages in the following link. Paramattha dhamma are the basis and if they are understood, patthana dhamma will be understood with some effort. When dhamma are understood, seeing dhamma with real senses will not much difficult if they are properly learned. www.geocities.com/htootintnaing/patthana24.html www.geocities.com/htootintnaing/patthana1.html From page 1 through page 24, it is easy to manage and everything is written as simple as possible. If there is any query, please do not hesitate to ask any question and i will be more than happy to answer not that I know everything but that my willingness makes me producing effort is Dhamma discussion. I wrote from page 1 to page 24 and there are still coming. I do have a good facility to do edition and I do not have close references near me. If there is any wrong point please let me know. The messages are not lengthy but they can easily be managed. I do hope you all enjoy reading all these pages and any comment is welcome. With Metta, Htoo Naing htootintnaing@y... 32592 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cittas and cetasikas (basic question!) Dear Philip, op 28-04-2004 06:08 schreef Philip op plnao@j...: Well, I guess it seems to me that > there are so many references to kusala and akusala citta, but from > what I read about the definition of citta, and from thinking > logically, it seems to me that it is the cetasikas rather than the > cittas that are wholesome or unwholesome. > > Aren't cittas pure consciousness, and the cetasikas the mental > factors such as attachment and aversion that would seem the more > likely candidates for conditioning more-of-the-same in the future? N: The cetasikas such as attachment and aversion and ignorance are roots, foundation of the akusala citta, that is right. Citta's task is cognizing an object, that is right. But cetasikas arise with the citta and condition it. They are very closely connected with it. They are the helpers, advisers, so that citta can perform its task of cognizing an object. In the Patthana it is said that they condition one another by way of conascence condition and reciproxity condition, association-condition and others. We can verify this. Take pleasant feeling with kusala citta and pleasant feeling with attachment, they still have different qualities. The pleasant feeling with attachment has restlessness, and the one with kusala citta is more of a calm nature. The first words of the Matika of the first Book of the Abhidhamma, the Dhammasangani are: kusala dhamma, akusala dhamma, indeterminate dhamma. Kusala citta and beautiful cetasikas are kusala dhamma. The same for akusala dhamma. Indeterminate dhamma: this includes vipakacitta. When we say vipakacitta also vipaka cetasikas that accompany citta are included. It is always implied, but for convenience we say vipakacitta. Ph:The citta which sees perceives only visible object; there is > not yet like or dislike. The feeling which accompanies this type of > citta is indifferent feeling. After seeing-consciousness has fallen > away, other cittas arise and there may be cittas which dislike the > object." > > But isn't the khanda that "dislikes the object" dosa (aversion) > which is a cetasika, rather than the citta which "perceives only > visible object"? N: The akusala citta is contaminated by the accompanying dosa (not lobha, I corrected), it also finds the object unwelcome. Here there is no question of seeing, but this is after the seeing has fallen away. Citta and all the accompanying cetasikas are affected by dosa and the feeling is unhappy. Ph: It seems to this beginner that citta refers to consciousness of > object, whether it's visible object, hearing object or even mental > object (?) but the wholesome or unwholesome factors come with the > cetasikas. N: the wholesome or unwholesome factors are the akusala cetasikas. But as said, they contaminate citta, make it sick. Akusala citta is ill-adviced by them and everything goes wrong. Also the universals that accompany each citta are doing everything the wrong way: sanna remembers in the unwholesome way, there is wrong concentration, unwise attention to the object. > Ph: , I > came across reference to Bodhicitta (sp?) which I guess is like "the > Buddha mind" and is not a concept we find in Theravada. (Or is it?) > Nevertheless, it surely refers to beautiful cetasikas such as > compassion and loving-kindness. I wonder why it isn't called > bodhicetasika? N: Cetasikas are always implied whenever we speak about citta, citta cannot arise without cetasikas. Ph: I'm kind of itching to read Nina's "Cetasikas" because it seems to > me that cetasikas is where all the hot khamma gets created! ;) N: Kamma is cetana cetasika. When citta is kusala, cetana is kusala and it wills, intends kusala I learnt that mostly kusala citta has the intensity of kusala kamma, unless it is very weak. As to akusala kamma, certain factors make it into a completed action. Not every akusala citta is akusala kamma. Ph: And > that cittas is more related to sense organ-consciousness. But I've > clearly got that wrong. N: Some cittas are sense-cognitions and these are vipakacittas. Many, many other types, and not only of the sensesphere. You will learn about them in due time. Nina. > 32593 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'ocean of concepts', feeling Hi Larry, op 27-04-2004 02:04 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > you said feeling has an object. N: Yes, it shares the same object with the citta it accompanies. Thus, the object can be an object experienced through the sense-doors or through the mind-door, a reality or a concept, pleasant or unpleasant. Feeling feels about the object, it savours the taste of the object. L:This is what we are taught but the > feeling we experience _is_ an object (of consciousness). N: Citta cannot experience itself, and evenso feeling cannot experience itself right at the moment they occur. Example: seeing only sees colour, and it does not know its own characteristic of seeing, it just sees and does not know anything else. Evenso the indifferent feeling, it just feels about colour, it does not know its own nature of indifferent feeling. But nama can know another nama, namely that which has just fallen away. Kusala citta with awareness can be aware of the akusala citta that has just fallen away, or of the unhappy feeling that has just fallen away. It seems that we know unhappy feeling right at that moment, but cittas arise and fall away so fast. In reality it is not so. It is already a following citta that knows. L: Every dhamma we experience is only an object of consciousness. N: Yes, not we, but citta experiences the dhamma which is thus object of citta. L:Does an object _really_ have an object, or do we just associate an object with it by inference? N: Citta really has an object, (I think you mean this), and only by insight this is known very clearly. Not by inference, or because of what we learnt by theoretical knowledge. But we can begin to realize the truth now, beginning to know seeing that experiences colour, has colour as its object. This is the way to know the meaning of object-condition we find in the Patthana. I do not know whether this is clear enough? L: Is dukkha a concept or a reality? "Unsatisfactory" doesn't > sound like a reality, N: As you remember we studied rupa as characteristic: the four lakkhana rupas are realities, in the list of rupas, but they are asabhava rupas, not rupa-rupa (term at last explained in Tiika Vis 77!) or concrete matter. I just recently found something interesting: Vis. XXI, 5-8, and footnote 4. < And here the following differences should be understood: the impermanent, and the characteristic of impermanence...> etc for the other two. Here are very good quotes from S. III 22 about the three characteristics. The five khandhas are impermanent. further on: About the characteristic of non-self: Note the word mode. the footnote: (from the Tiika). Maybe this clarifies. L: but if dukkha is a concept how can it have a > cause? If dukkha is a reality surely it can only be unpleasant feeling. N: Dukkha has many meanings, the Truth of dukkha encompasses much more than unpleasant feeling: the unsatisfactoriness or continuous oppression of the five khandhas. And it has a cause: desire. L: If it is feeling then it is in the wrong place in Dependent Arising. > There feeling conditions desire instead of the other way around. > Something is amiss here. N: It could not be, they are the Buddha's teachings! In the D.O. we should not take dukkha as just unpleasant feeling, more meanings. And indeed further on in the D.O.: feeling conditions desire: here we have to consider pleasant, unpleasant and indifferent feeling, and all of these condition desire. Pleasant feeling, you want more, indifferent feeling, very desirable (so calm), and also unpleasant feeling: you want to be freed from it. What do you think about this Vis. passage? Nina. 32594 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Question About Sa~n~na/Nina Hi Howard, op 27-04-2004 19:34 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > Thank you for the foregoing. I'm not, however, certain whether we view > this matter in the same way or differently. I do not think that concepts ever > arise. Only paramathha dhammas arise (such as the recalled childhood image), whole sequences of them, including sa~n~nic markings (which would be mind objects), and we *say* that a concept arose. N: you wrote before: There are some misunderstanding here, I think. At this moment there is no childhood, long gone. Only citta may think of it for a moment, and it is due to sanna that it can be remembered. We do not know exactly how this works, but all experiences of the past are accumulated from citta to citta and when there are conditions the past can be remembered. And true, what one felt strongly about is more easily remembered, pleasant or unpleasant. I like to recall what is said in the Abhidhamma: citta, cetasika and rupa (I do not speak on nibbana now) are paramattha dhammas, concepts are not. Concepts are time-freed: they do not arise and fall away. I find these matters very important for the development of satipatthana and for solving my problems in life. Important to know what is only, only a story we can think of and what is only, only thinking and then gone. There are happy memories and unhappy memories. Past worries are gone and then there are new ones but these go also in an instant. What is real now: seeing, colour, hearing, sound, thinking, the five khandhas. They are elements. I want to have more understanding of the elements of this moment, that is my lifelong task. What are these elements? Dhammas devoid of self. Paramattha dhammas are different from this image or story and that one. I do not want to take the unreal for the real, I want to learn, and not just in theory, what is a paramattha dhamma and what is not. Otherwise I would drown in the ocean of concepts. Getting lost in misery and despair. What is satipatthana? Nothing else but the development of understanding of paramattha dhammas, ephemeral realities that are not self. And we should not cling to words and definitions. Even a beginning of understanding of paramattha dhammas does help. As Larry said: Nina. 32595 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dialogue with Lodewijk, no 1 Dear Philip, op 27-04-2004 21:30 schreef Philip op plnao@j...: They remind me of the value of conversation, and > encourage me to pay more attention to the conversations I have with > Naomi. (We've had some very good ones recently, N: Make always notes, otherwise you forget. > Ph: I have been intending to start a thread > asking everybody how they "use" the satipatthana sutta, which is > clearly so important. I will start that thread one of these days. N: Very good. Ph: LIke many who come to DSG, I was surprised to read that > attention on the breath was not an accepted practice by all All my aspirations, > fears, desires, irritations, stories, fantasies, senses of pain, of > pleasure, all the indifferent feelings as well - they are all hinging > on a single breath, and if the next one didn't come, they would fall > away forever N: a very good observation. >Ph: N:> We also spoke about the cemetery contemplations, and this > reminds us of >> recollection of death. > > Ph: I'm happy to be reminded of this. I'd read about it, and > forgot. When I am aware of everything hinging on one breath like I > wrote about above, I have a recollection of death, but I don't extend > it to a cemetery contemplation. If I remember correctly, the cemetery > contemplation or loathsomeness of the body contemplation are > recommended as antidotes for lust or greed, aren't they? N: We do not only have to think of lust or greed. It is very valuable to be brought to reality now: only elements, nama and rupa, so that there will be less clinging to my body, my feelings, my citta. All these elements are there very shortly and then gone. That is recollection of momentray death. Loathsomeness of the body is the same. When eating such fine food I mentioned to Lodeiwjk that nobody pushes your food down with a ladle, nor pushes it further down in the body. Just elements. I had my notes on the table and liked having this conversation, making notes at the dining table (waiters bustling around us, which is not distracting) and working them out until late at night. Just like I always do in India. I felt very happy having such conversations, just had a great time. Ph: Do you think > it is necessary to do them often, or only as antidotes in response to > unwholesome states of mind taking hold and becoming dominant as they > do on some days? N: No rules. I do not think of antidotes. If we see the value, it can occur to us naturally, spontaneously. Antidotes has for me a forced connotation. Should we not know also our akusala? These can be excellent reminders of satipatthana, they are in the third satipatthana and in the fourth one, the hindrances. First thing is not taking them for self. They are also just elements. Ph: I have so much to read, but am feeling > patient about it, fortunately. That patience is something that was > stressed to me by quite a few people when I joined DSG and their > advice has been staying with me nicely. N: This was also our subject as you will see. Ph: Thank you for sharing your conversation, Nina. I really enjoyed it > and look forward to reading more! :) N: You really encouraged me to continue writing, Philip. Thank you, Nina. 32596 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:59am Subject: dialogue with Lodewijk, no 2 Dear all, When sitting in the restaurant we did not only talk on the satipatthanasutta but also on the perfections which are always connected with the development of satipatthana. We had to wait a long, long time in between the courses that were served. We should accumulate patience also with regard to very insignificant matters of daily life. If we do not accumulate patience little by little how can we be patient enough to develop satipatthana? We can develop patience for example when we drop things on the floor, during the little contrarieties in daily life. We talked about the problems with regard to my very old father. He talks with difficulty, and one day he is very brilliant, but another day he is greatly disturbed, far away from reality. When we have more patience, compassion can arise naturally and spontaneously, it can arise more often. It takes patience to know our own akusala. We need patience not only when an object is unpleasant but also when an object is pleasant. When we have patience the citta is kusala instead of akusala citta rooted in attachment or aversion. We also discussed that some people who develop satipatthana are in a hurry to see any result of their development. When sitting down on a bench for a picnic we talked more about the perfections. Lodewijk thinks that the study of the Abhidhamma does not lead to intellectualizing all our experiences, but that it helps us with the perfection of truthfulness. The different dhammas we learn about through the Abhidhamma appear and they exhibit their own characteristics so that these can be known as they are. We should truly know our cittas as they are, kusala cittas and akusala cittas. We need truthfulness with all the perfections. The perfections are: liberality (dåna), morality (síla), renunciation (nekkhamma), wisdom (paññå), energy (viriya), patience (khanti), truthfulness (sacca), determination (aditthåna), lovingkindness (mettå) and equanimity (upekkhå). We should be sincere in our determination to develop all perfections without expecting any gain for ourselves. When we are generous, when we try to help someone, we should have no preferences for specific people and not expect any kindness, any recognition in return. This means that we need equanimity and renunciation or detachment all the time. We should develop truthfulness in speech, and that is sila. We need truthfulness when we extend metta to someone else, and not confuse metta with attachment. But it is natural that there are metta and attachment alternately in our relationship with others. Through satipatthana we learn the difference. Lodewijk finds it helpful to just know that they are different. I also talked about energy, viriya. In the development of satipatthana we have to be heroic, no matter what obstacles there are in our life: within us or outside us. Nina. 32597 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:59am Subject: my vacation Dear Larry, Jon and all, I am closing off my Email, Friday night April 30 until My 8, a vacation in Belgium. Taking my Pali Vis and Tiika with me, Larry. We have almost reached the khandha of consciousness. Jon, I admired your Vis in small booklets for on a journey. What is its ISBN, I like to order from my bookshop, not by internet. I try to answer some very good Emails from Larry, Howard and Philip, otherwise after my return. Nina. 32598 From: Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 9:09am Subject: Do or not do something Anyone, Am I correct in the following? In the Abhidhamma, a deliberately chosen consciousness (sasankharika) can be just as skillful as one that just arises without inducement (asasankharika). I can have a consciousness that is deliberately chosen that is still associated with knowledge. To quote from Narada's Abhidhammattha Sangaha, "If, for instance, one does an act, induced by another of after much deliberation or premeditation on one's part, then it is sasankharika. If, on the contrary, one does it instantly without any external or internal inducement, or any premeditation, then it is asankharika." jack 32599 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 2:58pm Subject: Re: Video Games? Friend Philip, Philip: Surely you don't deny the importance of understanding the Aggregates in order to understand annata? James: Well, this depends on what you mean by `understand' the Aggregates. Do you mean understand what they are? If so, I don't believe that this is so important. Okay, let's try this experiment, I will define the five aggregates for you and we'll see if it makes you enlightened: The five aggregates are a continually changing psycho-physical process which are interconnected and dependently arisen. Okay, are you enlightened yet? No? Why not? You now `understand' what the five aggregates are. The reason you are not enlightened is because there still exists clinging to the five aggregates. Clinging is something which cannot be eliminated with mere `understanding', it must be eliminated with penetrative insight. Philip: Really? So we have to go along trapped in self, driven by self, a slave of self until we understand Nibbana? James: Yes. Until we 'realize' Nibbana, that is. Philip: I think I understand annata. It's common sense in the light of the Buddha's teaching - see the Five Aggregates. James: Well, here we have that word `understand' again. You may have an intellectual understanding of anatta but that isn't a direct knowledge of anatta. If you had a direct knowledge of anatta, you would be enlightened. Philip: But I don't pretend to understand Nibbana. You'll say that I *don't* understand annata but I say say I do. So nyah! ;) James: LOL! Well, this group has had very long discussions and threads on this subject before. You missed all the fun! I think I am relatively alone in this group in my thinking that anatta is just as hard to comprehend as nibbana (I don't feel like I really know either one!). Many feel that they can intellectually comprehend anatta but not nibbana. I think it is impossible to `intellectually comprehend' either one. The `understanding' would be at such a basic and surface level that it shouldn't even be counted as true knowledge, more `just a finger pointing at the moon.' Philip: Ok, I guess some dispute that 1/3 of the Triple Basket was not in fact taught by the Buddha. I'm new to this dispute so I can't comment but it seems unlikely to me that the Buddha's teaching doesn't enter one of the three baskets. Of course, I don't know much at all about the history and development of Buddhism. James: Well, you can go on the Internet and do the research and find out. I wrote some posts about this, where I summarized this type of research, but you won't find them in the `Useful Posts' section. (I had a little spat with Sarah over that one too! ;-)) I think both sides of the issue should be presented in the Useful Posts section and let newcomers, like you, decide for themselves.) Anyway, I don't have a problem with the Abhidhamma until people start claiming that the Buddha taught it and that it is superior to the suttas. Both of those claims do irritate me, I have to admit, because I highly value the truth. Philip: so why try to deny people their rupa and nama? James: LOL! I am not denying anyone their rupa and nama! I am just saying that knowing nama and rupa isn't completion of the Buddhist path, as it is sometimes presented in this group. Philip: If folks in the NAG posit that it is impossible to follow the way without understanding nupa and nama, then I'd understand why you feel the need to debate them. James: Then you understand why I debate them because they posit just such a position. (BTW, I'm not quite sure of the membership in this hypothetical `NAG'. I predominately think of certain individuals, not nebulous group memberships.) Philip: Is anyone at DSG saying that it is impossible to become enlightened without studying Abhidhamma? James: I don't think that this has been stated outright. After all, this is a scholarly group and it would be possible to provide various examples of those who were enlightened without studying the Abhidhamma…after all, Pacceka Buddhas (Silent Buddhas) become enlightened without the Abhidhamma. However, this type of position is implied quite often. Philip: I struggle with doubts about the existence of different realms. You too? James: I had the same doubts when I first became a Buddhist, my freshman year at college, but since then I have lost all doubts. Just give it time. ;-)) Philip: The Buddha does teach about the existence of different realms, right? If you believe in the realms, why can't you believe in the Buddha teaching in them? James: The Buddha and other monks would visit the various deva realms but they didn't do a whole lot of dhamma teaching in them… they just made cordial visits and brief dhamma instruction. Devas are not very attentive to the dhamma because they are too engrossed in sensual pleasures. This is one of the reasons why I don't believe the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma for months, continually to a large assembly of devas. They wouldn't have sat still for it!! (Heck, they probably wouldn't have stopped having sex for that long!! ;-)) See Devatasamyutta "Connected Discourses with Devatas" and Devaputtasamyutta "Connected Discourses with Young Devas" in the Samyutta Nikaya for background information. Philip: Don't bother answering that unless you really want to. James: Don't know if I `really wanted to', but I answered it anyway. ;-) Philip: In any case, I've enjoying discussing this with you and appreciate your lending me an ear, friend James. James: The enjoyment is mutual, friend Philip. Metta, James