32600 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 3:01pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Friend Jack, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jackhat1@a... wrote: > 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, Yes, I do agree with his words and appreciate the fact that he doesn't say that the Abhidhamma is the Word of the Buddha. Metta, James 32601 From: Andrew Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 3:20pm Subject: Sabhava ... again! Greetings all, In an effort to convince you all that I am badly "behind the times", I now want to contribute something on a long-dead thread. Sabhava. Remember that one? The fact is I have been reading Prof. Peter Harvey's "Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices" (Cambridge Uni Press, 11th reprint 2002)and have found the following interesting snippet on page 87: "Buddhaghosa, the fifth century AD commentator, explains dhammas thus: 'They are dhammas because they uphold their own-nature. They are dhammas because they are upheld by conditions or they are upheld according to their own-nature' (Asl.39). Here, 'own-nature' would appear to mean a characteristic nature, which is not something inherent in a dhamma as a separate ultimate reality, but arises due to the supporting conditions both of other dhammas and previous occurences of that dhamma. This is of significance as it makes the Mahayana critique of the Sarastivadin's notion of own-nature largely irrelevant to the Theravada." Thus, Harvey seems to concur with Jon, Sarah and others that Nagarjuna's criticisms of sabhava have little relevance to Theravada. Best wishes Andrew 32602 From: Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 3:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 'ocean of concepts', feeling Nina: "What do you think about this Vis. passage?" Hi Nina, Not very enlightening. If dukkha is an asabhava dhamma how can it have a cause? Is "cause of suffering" just conventional language? As for the dhammas we experience, they don't have objects. We can easily observe this. When I stub my toe, the throbbing painful sensation has nothing to do with hardness. I couldn't tell if that is your position or not. Aversion to painful feeling is just aversion. We link it to painful feeling by inference. This has nothing to do with insight. Larry 32603 From: Andrew Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 3:46pm Subject: The Practical View of Anatta Hello everyone and especially Victor In his book, "An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, history and practices" (Cambridge Uni Press, 11th reprint 2002), Prof Peter Harvey writes that "the not-self teaching is not in *itself* a denial of the existence of a permanent self; it is primarily a practical teaching aimed at the overcoming of attachment." I'm sure Victor will agree with this. Harvey goes on to explain that the practical exercise of examining phenomena and seeing that none of them can be taken as a permanent self results in the idea of self withering away "as it is seen that no actual instance of such a thing can be found anywhere." I would have thought that if no instance of something can be found anywhere, we are to conclude that it doesn't exist. If we don't embrace that conclusion, are we not reinforcing self-view in a subtle way? It seems that there WERE early Buddhists who believed in the existence of a self: the Puggalavadins or "Personalists". They argued that the self was as real as the khandhas. In the 7th century AD, a quarter of all Buddhist monks were Puggalavadins. All the other schools argued they were wrong. Surely there is a fine line between refusing to state "there is no self" and being a Puggalavadin? Victor in particular seems to walk that line quite confidently. I'm not sure I can keep up with him, though. Am I missing something important? Does anyone have any thoughts on how one can refuse to deny "self" and not be a believer in self like the Puggalavadins? Best wishes Andrew 32604 From: Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 3:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sabhava ... again! Andrew: "Thus, Harvey seems to concur with Jon, Sarah and others that Nagarjuna's criticisms of sabhava have little relevance to Theravada." Hi Andrew, I agree. It seems as though India, Tibet, and China never even heard of Theravada until very recently. Very surprising! The Vimuttimagga was translated into Chinese but I don't know of anything else. Also, ancient Theravada doesn't seem to be aware of any living traditions or current issues outside of Ceylon. Larry 32605 From: Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sabhava ... again! Hi, Andrew - In a message dated 4/28/2004 6:20:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, athel60@t... writes: > > Greetings all, > In an effort to convince you all that I am badly "behind the times", > I now want to contribute something on a long-dead thread. Sabhava. > Remember that one? The fact is I have been reading Prof. Peter > Harvey's "Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices" > (Cambridge Uni Press, 11th reprint 2002)and have found the following > interesting snippet on page 87: > "Buddhaghosa, the fifth century AD commentator, explains dhammas > thus: 'They are dhammas because they uphold their own-nature. They > are dhammas because they are upheld by conditions or they are upheld > according to their own-nature' (Asl.39). Here, 'own-nature' would > appear to mean a characteristic nature, which is not something > inherent in a dhamma as a separate ultimate reality, but arises due > to the supporting conditions both of other dhammas and previous > occurences of that dhamma. This is of significance as it makes the > Mahayana critique of the Sarastivadin's notion of own-nature largely > irrelevant to the Theravada." > Thus, Harvey seems to concur with Jon, Sarah and others that > Nagarjuna's criticisms of sabhava have little relevance to > Theravada. > Best wishes > Andrew ================================ That's completely true - except when a Theravadin makes the mistake of thinking and acting like a Sarvastivadin! ;-)) With metta, Howard 32606 From: Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Practical View of Anatta Hi, Andrew - In a message dated 4/28/2004 6:46:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, athel60@t... writes: > Hello everyone and especially Victor > In his book, "An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, history and > practices" (Cambridge Uni Press, 11th reprint 2002), Prof Peter > Harvey writes that "the not-self teaching is not in *itself* a denial > of the existence of a permanent self; it is primarily a practical > teaching aimed at the overcoming of attachment." I'm sure Victor > will agree with this. Harvey goes on to explain that the practical > exercise of examining phenomena and seeing that none of them can be > taken as a permanent self results in the idea of self withering > away "as it is seen that no actual instance of such a thing can be > found anywhere." > I would have thought that if no instance of something can be found > anywhere, we are to conclude that it doesn't exist. If we don't > embrace that conclusion, are we not reinforcing self-view in a subtle > way? > It seems that there WERE early Buddhists who believed in the > existence of a self: the Puggalavadins or "Personalists". They > argued that the self was as real as the khandhas. In the 7th century > AD, a quarter of all Buddhist monks were Puggalavadins. All the > other schools argued they were wrong. > Surely there is a fine line between refusing to state "there is no > self" and being a Puggalavadin? Victor in particular seems to walk > that line quite confidently. I'm not sure I can keep up with him, > though. Am I missing something important? Does anyone have any > thoughts on how one can refuse to deny "self" and not be a > believer > in self like the Puggalavadins? > Best wishes > Andrew ========================= If one takes the phenomenalist and pragmatic assumption that all there is are the "experientials" - that is, that all there is are the five khandhas, and adds that assumption to the fact that none of these are self, then one can logically infer the conclusion that there is no self. However, such a logical inference is not liberating. What is liberating is no longer grasping onto anything as me or mine, and that is not a matter of inference. With metta, Howard 32607 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:32pm Subject: OT - Cooran, May long weekend (Re: Sabhava ... again!) Hello Andrew, You know the old adage - better late than never (smile). Sorry to use your post for an off-topic message, but my old computer is presently refusing to handover anything to my new computer. There is a faint hope that a PC Rescue Virtuoso will be able to extract years of carefully saved important posts, including email addresses. Don't be in despair about KenH's disgracefully cavalier attitude about preparing properly for this week-end's Dhamma Discussions - SOME of us are diligent, trustworthy, reliable, and conscientious. OTHERS of us, well … let's just `send' metta and karuna and think of Angulimala. No-one is past praying for (so to speak) You will just have to depend on those of us who have our priorities right. (We do, don't we, Steve?) Anyway - Reg is coming up with me once we solve the small matter of storing his motorcycle. We will be starting out at about 6.00 p.m. (one of us isn't on holidays) and, the devas willing, should arrive anywhere between 8.00 and 10.00 p.m. - depending on tea breaks, getting lost (which will not be the fault of the diligent driver), and mechanical problems. Two small questions: 1. Is anyone else sleeping way down that lonely track in that cavernous shed miles from anywhere (well, a quarter of a mile) except about 15 equanimous cats and one bunyip? Could bunyips be petas? (I AM NOT scared of the dark). 2. Any chance of going frogging? With all those deep dams and gullies, I thought there might be a chance of seeing some varieties of local frogs in any break from Dhamma Discussion. After the experience last time of not being able to repair the injured March Fly, I will bring my book on `Basic care of injured frogs' (Ruth Wait) How cold is it? Cheers, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" 32608 From: Andrew Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 5:41pm Subject: OT - Cooran, May long weekend (Re: Sabhava ... again!) Hi Christine It is a bit chilly and raining here at Cooran but the weekend forecast is for fine weather. I suggest you bring warm clothes and insect repellant. Your 2 questions: > 1. Is anyone else sleeping way down that > lonely track in that cavernous shed miles from anywhere (well, a > quarter of a mile) except about 15 equanimous cats and one bunyip? Probably not. Your bed is reserved. > Could bunyips be petas? Again, probably not but I decline to provide a sutta reference for that, with the consequence that half of this list won't accept my answer. ["bunyip" is a mythical Australian swamp monster]. > 2. Any chance of going frogging? With all those deep dams and > gullies, I thought there might be a chance of seeing some varieties > of local frogs in any break from Dhamma Discussion. After the > experience last time of not being able to repair the injured March > Fly, I will bring my book on `Basic care of injured frogs' (Ruth > Wait) You can come up to the house where, every evening about dusk, 2 large green tree frogs "appear" in the toilet bowl. I have to lift them out and take them outside for their night of feeding on insects. I have no idea how they get back into the toilet system. They appear to have no dosa towards their environment! Sorry to say, I have been so busy I haven't been able to prepare much Dhamma material for discussion. We will have to rely heavily on our erudite friend, Ken H, to carry the day - from his recent DSG posts, I think he has been deep in thought and will have many insights to share. (-: Have a safe trip. Andrew 32609 From: Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 6:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV 76 Hi Nina, Sorry for not responding to this earlier. I didn't get it in my email so I went looking in the web site. You wrote: 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." L: I agree that we don't touch fluidity or shape; we only think we _touch_ them. However, I would say we do cognize fluidity and shape. They are both mind-door rupas. Shape is a manifestation of delimitation (space), and of course fluidity is one of the 4 primary rupas as "cohesiveness". Have a good vacation. We can pick up when you get back. Larry 32610 From: Andrew Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 8:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Practical View of Anatta Hi Howard You wrote: If one takes the phenomenalist and pragmatic assumption that all there is are the "experientials" - that is, that all there is are the five khandhas, and adds that assumption to the fact that none of these are self, then one can logically infer the conclusion that there is no self. However, such a logical inference is not liberating. What is liberating is no longer grasping onto anything as me or mine, and that is not a matter of inference. A: I still don't find this satisfying, I'm afraid. If I refuse to acknowledge a logical inference (which was apparently accepted by all early Buddhist schools except the Puggalavadins), aren't I clinging to the idea that "there just might be a self after all"? And if there IS some sort of self - well, that's "me" and "mine" isn't it? In addition, if a logical inference is not liberating then neither is an assertion like "a self cannot be denied". I previously put to Victor that he was treating the anatta teaching as ending in an unthinkable. Why didn't Buddha clearly declare it so, as he did with other unthinkables? My recollection is that Victor has not commented on this aspect thus far. Can one be liberated whilst being open to the possibility that, somewhere amongst all the pieces of meat at the butcher's table at the crossroads, there might just be a "cow"? Best wishes Andrew 32611 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 9:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cittas and cetasikas (basic question!) Hi Howard, When citta is akusala, all cetasikas are also akusala. Remember: citta and cetasika are of the same jati (kusala akusala, vipaka or kiriya), arise at the same base, experience the same object and fall away together. Some cetasikas, the universals, accompany each citta, some, the particulars, accompany cittas of the four jatis but not all of them. Now, when they accompany akusala citta, all of them are akusala. They do everything in the wrong way. Nina. op 28-04-2004 15:29 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > 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". 32612 From: Date: Wed Apr 28, 2004 10:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Practical View of Anatta Andrew: "Can one be liberated whilst being open to the possibility that, somewhere amongst all the pieces of meat at the butcher's table at the crossroads, there might just be a "cow"?" Hi Andrew, How's this: there's no cow in the individual parts, but the parts function collectively as cow; there's no self in the khandhas but the khandhas function as a self. This may not seem like much of an insight, but we spend most of our life thinking there is self in the parts, in particular the thinking part. The test is: does this view support both kamma and anatta? Larry 32613 From: Andrew Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 0:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Practical View of Anatta Hi Larry You wrote: How's this: there's no cow in the individual parts, but the parts > function collectively as cow; there's no self in the khandhas but the > khandhas function as a self. This may not seem like much of an insight, > but we spend most of our life thinking there is self in the parts, in > particular the thinking part. > > The test is: does this view support both kamma and anatta? A: And anicca, of course. So the self is a concept, a conventional truth in flux from moment to moment. As such, it does not exist in absolute terms, it doesn't have own-nature. But I think that those who contend that the Buddha didn't deny the existence of a permanent self are talking about a self in absolute terms. The Puggalavadins certainly did, putting self on the level with the khandhas. So if a "cow" does exist in absolute terms, how liberated do you get by cutting it up and telling yourself that the parts are not "cow" and "cow" cannot be found in them? Sorry, but that doesn't seem to help me much at all. It only convinces me more that the Buddha did not believe in a permanent self and that's why he told people to look for it and see if they could find it. Just like he told that grieving mother to look for a mustard seed in a household untouched by death. The lesson is in the futility of the search. Thanks for your input, Larry. Best wishes Andrew 32614 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 1:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Question Still Remains/Cooran Hi Ken H & All, --- kenhowardau wrote: >.....If you have any > more gems like that.... .... S: :-)I think you should take some of your own gems along like the one about the superficial causes of annoyance and the real or deeper causes and lack of respect for the Dhamma. On this note you may prompt Chris to talk more about when she bumped her knee. This was one of the first topics during our recent discussions in Bangkok. We tend to think that when we bump a knee on a table that the discomfort and anguish is a lot of akusala vipaka (unfortunate result of kamma). K.Sujin gave a good response. She said to ‘take all the names out, then it’s realities’. In other words, when we think about knee and pain and coffee table and so on, these are terms and concepts which mask the realities. In truth there are the briefest moments of akusala vipaka through the body sense, when hardness, heat or motion are experienced with unpleasant (bodily) feeling. Subsequently in the sense and mind door processes there is bound to be aversion and other unwholesome mental factors including unpleasant mental feeling accompanying the javana cittas over and over again . One moment of akusala vipaka and then so many moments of akusala cittas. In between these processes there are also bound to be other sense door processes when visible objects, sounds and so on are experienced as well. I’ve enjoyed reading your discussions with RobM, KenO, Nina and others. As I understand, papa~nca (proliferation or ‘diffuseness’) extends to all sixfold sense-impressions through all doorways. From Nyantiloka dict: “In A 1V, 173, it is said: ‘As far as the field of sixfold sense-impression extends, so far reaches the world of diffuseness (or the phenomenal world: pap~ncassa gati)’. In just the same way the vipallaasa (perversions) of sa~n~naa and citta vipallasa arise with each akusala citta (including the 5 sense-doors)- only eradicated by the arahant. We also read in the texts about visible object craving (ruupata.nhaa) being ‘craving in respect of a visible datum’ and so on for the other sense objects. From Dispeller, 838: “For when visible-data craving occurs in the form of delighting with sense delight in a visible datum as object that has come into the focus of the eye, it is then called craving for sense desire......’. I believe it was in Myanmar that we discussed examples of possible strong reactions in the sense door processes and an example was given of when one’s asleep and is suddently woken by the sound of thunder impacting on the ear door. Too much speculation is not very helpful though, I find. I also like this quote which I’ve given before (but can’t find, so am re-tyoing)from Dispeller, 1755 about improper visitors in the eye-door process: “But when a visible datum comes into focus in the eye door, impulsion arises at the end when, following the disturbance in the life continuum, adverting, etc have arisen and ceased with the accomplishment of their respective functions. That [impulsion] is like a visitor in the eye door which is the home of the previously arisen adverting and so on. And as it is improper for a visitor who has entered another’s house to ask for something, to give orders, when the owners of the home sit in silence, so lusting or hating or becoming deluded in the eye door which is the home of adverting, etc. is improper when adverting, etc. do not lust or hate or become deluded. Thus should ‘clear understanding through non-delusion’ be understood by way of ‘visiting’.” I think this question of sense experiences is also relevant to the ‘guarding of sense doors’, not just guarding of the mind door. Like you and Nina, I don’t believe all akusala cittas to be akusala kamma likely to bring results. However, we can say that all akusala cittas are support for akusala kamma. I also agree with your comments on the description of visible objects (and sounds) and also find it more helpful just to describe them as ‘just that which appears through the eyes’, (ears) and so on. Like you, I think that when ‘dots’ or even ‘colours’ are used, people tend to have an idea of seeing something different from just that which appears when we open our eyes, seeing that which has always been seen naturally. However, when there is no understanding or awareness, whatever we read will be misunderstood. I also thought your comments on the ‘Illusion of Control’ were pretty good pls take along [32036] as my contribution to the weekend discussion;-). An extract which is bound to keep some lively discussion going through the night and leave little time for fire-gazing: >KenH: To digress: The thing that intrigues me is that we might admit we can't control paramattha dhammas but still think we can control concepts. (I fall into that trap all the time.) In fact, there is no control over anything (the uncontrollable dhammas created the concepts in the first place). >We might say; "Look, I wanted to sit down and now I am sitting down – control! I wanted to close my eyes and think about anatta and that is what I am doing. Maybe there is no control over ultimate reality but there certainly is over conventional reality!" >That is what happens during formal meditation – belief in control. Admittedly, it also happens throughout the rest of the day but at those other times we are not turning it into a ritualistic practice.< Look forward to the reports. Metta, Sarah p.s Chris, good to see you back. Do hope you find a way to retrieve your material from the old computer. Any special impressions from Bangkok to add? Andrew, thanks for your ‘sabhava’ support - never too late for that struggling cause;-)Hope you and Sandra are doing well. ============================ 32615 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 1:53am Subject: Vis. XIV, 76 and Tiika, no 2, reposted Vis. XIV, 76 and Tiika, no 2, reposted 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. 32616 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 1:53am Subject: Vis. XIV, 76 and Tiika, no 1, reposted 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. (to be continued) Nina. 32617 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 1:53am Subject: dialogue with Lodewijk, no 3 Dear all, The second evening of our hiking day we talked about the Application of Mindfulness of Feeling. I was worried because I had tired out Lodewijk by my walking fanatism. It was tough and he said that he never was as tired as that before. But when sitting down for dinner we had another Dhamma talk. We talked about the second Application of Mindfulness, Mindfulness of Feelings. When I see someone suffering, seeing is one reality and thinking is another reality. Thinking gives rise to different feelings but they are all gone before we realize it. One moment we have great anxiety and sadness and there is unhappy feeling, and the next moment there can very quickly be a change to pleasant feeling when we laugh about something, even about our worries. Feelings change before we can do anything about them, they are beyond control. It is very difficult to be aware precisely of feeling. The Abhidhamma is very precise, but we usually think of a mixture of many phenomena, bodily and mental. Lodewijk finds that vipassana without any understanding of the Abhidhamma makes no sense. We need some basic knowledge of the different processes of cittas that experience different objects and that each have appropriate conditions for their arising. It is important to know that seeing arises in one process of cittas and thinking in another process and that they experience different objects, and also, that on account of our experiences different feelings arise. We discussed the sutta of the ³Divine Messengers (Gradual Sayings, Book of the Threes, Ch IV, § 35) where we read that the Buddha spoke to the monks about three divine messengers: old age, sickness and death. A person who has immoral conduct in deeds, words and thoughts is reborn in hell. Lodewijk said that this sutta had made an overwhelming impression upon him. We had discussed this sutta in Thailand (I am writing more about this sutta). An old man who is sick is very realistically described, lying in his own filth and he is just like my father. This sutta reminds us of old age, sickness and death. But when we only think about the suttas it cannot change our life. The Abhidhamma goes to the root of our problems, the real causes: our defilements. The sutta can lead us to this moment: at this moment citta reflects on death and different feelings arise. Nama and rupa appear and they are just impermanent elements, devoid of self. Through satipatthana we can truly learn to see realities as they are. We talked about disease and death and our reactions to it. Lodewijk said that his brother had so much fear of death and that he himself is afraid to be afraid of death. He would like to die as a wise person, but he realizes that he needs the perfection of truthfulness so taht he will know himself. We talked about it that nobody can predict what cittas he has at such a moment. We need to know the dhamma appearing now. We should pay attention to the third Application of Mindfulness that includes all kinds of cittas arising now: kusala citta, akusala citta, indeterminate citta. The first citta that is mentioned is citta with attachment. We should not neglect this as object of mindfulness. We discussed the objects of the fourth Application of Mindfulness are the hindrances, the five khandhas, the six internal and external sensebases (ayatanas), the seven factors of enlightenment and the four noble Truths. Thus, dhammas under different aspects and different cetasikas. They all appear now and we should not forget this. All these objects are explained to bring us back to reality when we are neglectful. We learn more that dhamma is in daily life and that daily life itself reminds us to develop satipatthana now. There is no specific order according to which there should be awareness. At one moment rupa may appear, at another moment nama may appear. Citta with awareness travels from one object to another. I discussed the MN131 Bhaddekaratta Sutta "A Single Excellent Night" which is about insight of the present moment, and B.B. translates: being aware of each presently arisen state. The Pali has: tatthaa tatthaa vipassati: he has insight here and there. It occurred to me that this is very true: insight is developed of an object as it appears here and there, no matter it is an object of the first Application or any of the other Applications. To me this is what happens in reality. There is no rule, and there is not mindfulness at each moment. I asked Lodewijk whether he understands it now when I say: it depends on the sati what object it is aware of. He found this clear. He asked me what I mean by a moment of satipatthana. I answered that there are three meanings of the word satipatthana: the four Applications of Mindfulness which are the objects of sati and panna, sati itself that is aware of these objects, and satipatthana as the way the Buddha and his disciples went. Lodewijk said about a moment of satipatthana: thus, then it accompanies the citta that is aware, and it is with panna. Now all doubts were cleared with regard to the meanings of satipatthana. Our dialogues were very helpful and conforting to both of us. Nina. 32618 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 1:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV 76, yahoo trouble Hi Larry and Jon, op 29-04-2004 03:29 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...:> > Sorry for not responding to this (Vis. 76) earlier. I didn't get it in my email so > I went looking in the web site. N: ??? again? We have to solve this. It also happened to Vis. 75, which I reposted. Is it the length of my Vis posts, should I split them? Is it your computer? No problem for next ones to also send them to you off line, whatever you like. Or just announce off line? I want to ask Jon whether the length of my post is the problem. I do not want to lose the connection of Vis and Tiika, but what other way of presentation is possible? I never like it that it is so long, but a few people may like the Pali as well. I shall repost Vis 76 in two parts now. Nina. 32619 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 2:52am Subject: na-vattaba ‘not so classifiable’ objects - Abhidhamma detail Dear Nina, Howard, Larry & All, Howard, many thanks for your report on the Abhid. retreat and I’m very glad you’re finding ‘Guide to Conditional Relations’ by U Narada so helpful. Larry, many thanks for your quotes from CMA Guide on mind-door process and other topics - very helpful for discussion. Nina, Before you leave on your trip, I’d like to report back on some of the discussion I had with A.Sujin on na-vattaba ‘not so classifiable’ or literally ‘not to be said to be’ objects which you referred to in a couple of posts. In texts like ‘Dispeller of Delusion’ (PTS transl of Sammohavinodani), I had wondered about the meaing of expressions such as in reviewing consciousness after magga and phala cittas when it said something like ‘it should not be said to have such an object’ (na-vattaba) and other similar references. Your posts referring to this ‘not so classifiable object’ were very interesting and helpful and triggered my questioning and further checking of references. You wrote to Larry when we were discussing the arupa jhana cittas: Nina: >Space like the air is a concept. The object of Jhana also a concept, but we can look at more details. Boundless space, a concept, but special. As I wrote in a former post to Howard, objects can be classified as: Slight (paritta, all sense objects), mahaggata (exalted, of jhana) and appamaa.na, boundless, here: lokuttara dhammas. Apart from these there are objects called: not so classifiable, navattaba, see Vis III, 117, note 32. This is very detailed. The object of boundless space when someone contemplates it is navatabba, it is a concept. Second jhana and third jhana have paramattha dhammas, namely cittas as object.< .... S: I think you may have meant second and fourth arupa jhana cittas here? What I understand is that all jhana cittas have concepts as objects with these two exceptions which have paramattha dhammas as objects? So the first arupa jhana citta (aakaasaana~ncaayatana) takes the concept of infinite space as object. The second arupa jhana citta (vi~n~naa.na~ncaayatana)has the first arupa jhana citta itself as object. Obviously in this case, the citta itself has fallen away, but it is the paramattha dhamma itself which is subsequently experienced by way of na-vatabba (not so classifiable) object. The third arupa jhana citta (aaki~nca~n~naayatana) takes as object the concept of non-existence or nothingness. The fourth arupa jhana citta (n’evasa~n~naan’aasa~n~naayatana) again has a paramattha dhamma as object, in this case the third arupa jhana citta. (see CMA p62 for more details). Again, the third arupa jhana citta taken as object has fallen away and as we know, only a present dhamma can be object, so again this is a paramattha dhamma experienced by way of na-vatabba object. So far this all sounds very picky and technical (which it is and hope I’m not making any mistakes), but I found there were wider implications and clarifications to many of Howard’s questions never satisfactorily answered (in his mind or mine) before. For example, questions raised about whether it is the reality of nibbana experienced by reviewing consciousness cittas following magga and phala cittas, how defilements eradicated could be reviewed, paramattha dhammas known by the Buddha from the past or in other beings etc can all be clarified in a similar way. The characteristics of the paramattha dhammas are known precisely, but by way of na-vatabba objects. To take this even further, the long-standing questions about how sense door objects or just fallen away namas can be known through the mind-door can also be answered in this way if we are precise. The characteristics are directly experienced, but in fact it is by way of being unclassifiable objects as past dhammas have gone. Conversely the nimitta or concepts experienced by jhana cittas are concepts experienced by way of unclassifiable objects, similarly representing concepts of other objects. In fact all concepts can be classified in this way. So we have both paramattha dhammas and concepts classified by way of unclassifiable objects;-). I found this all very helpful. Like Howard, many of my questions (like about how non-existent defilements could be reviewed as realities etc) had persisted and these discussions and subsequent checking of sources have helped a lot. Thank you Nina for raising it. One final comment: one Thai friend present for one of our discussions subsequently raised the topic in a Thai talk/discussion but was told her question was not relevant to the discussion of satipatthana. I think the point is that when it comes to understanding the characteristics of realities directly, it’s irrelevant whether strictly speaking the understanding occurs in the sense door or mind door process or whether strictly speaking the visible object or sound have just fallen away. When awareness is aware and panna understands, just that characteristic or paramattha dhamma is known. I hope this helps and I'll be glad to hear corrections or comments. Metta, Sarah p.s I’ve also just found the extract from Nina’s first post on (to na-vattaba ‘not so classifiable’ objects to Howard) which I’ll post below for reference. ============== Nina: >We discussed in Bgk subtle points and this taught me to be very careful with the word concept. There is much more to it. We also discussed past objects, which are not concepts but dhammas. The dhamma of the past can also be a not so classifiable object. Rebirth-consciousness can have past, present or not so classifiable object.We also have to remember that concept can be a term denoting a paramattha dhamma. Thus, when saying: there are just paramattha dhammas or concepts we have to be careful. We have to differentiate more. We went over texts of Dhammasangani, Vis. and Expositor. The English transl Dhsgn. omits these parts. It omits too many things. Rhys Davids may not have understood certain texts. <...> ========================== 32620 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 2:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: to old_dead_wood, present moment, no 3 Dear Nina, We'll all look forward to further reports of your conversations with Lodewijk. I also found your posts to old_dead_wood and the reminders about understanding the present dhammas in order to understand anatta and rebirth from moment to moment very inspiring. (As he is no longer around and I can't forward your letters for some reason -- maybe a full mail box --, if anyone comes across him, pls give the links to Nina's posts addressed to him. Of course, he may still be reading here.) I believe that what you write below summarises the only way that we can really eradicate all doubts about rebirth - i.e by understanding the arising and passing away of cittas now. Metta, Sarah ======= --- nina van gorkom wrote: > 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. 32621 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 3:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Robber Guests Dear Connie (& Icaro), Like Nina I really appreciated your post full of great quotes. Thank you so much and keep sharing;-) Just one for comment now as i'm about to be running late for Tai-chi yet again: --- connie wrote: > 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.) .... S: Really how many of us know what is and isn't criminal without the great assistance of the ancient Theravada commentators? Of course, sometimes the texts or these commentaries may not agree with our views which as you say we've followed and defended with great faith in our 'good company'. Let me also repeat your 'stolen' quote: "So long as we are not sotaapanna we shall have the inclination to wrong practice all the time." I think in my case it would be a sign of really great conceit if I were to think I could interpret verses and suttas more 'correctly' than the great 'ancients' who carefully preserved the Tipitaka for us to read and hear today. Metta and thanks, Sarah p.s ICARO - we've not heard from you for sometime - are you around?? ======= 32622 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 3:26am Subject: Re: Do or not do something Hi Jack, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jackhat1@a... wrote: > 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." I am behind on another thread, but since this probably a "quickie", I will jump in. Unskillful (akusala) mental states rooted in lobha can be either prompted or spontaneous. Unskillful (akusala) mental states rooted in dosa can be either prompted or spontaneous. The question of prompted / spontaneous does not arise with moha mula cittas. Skillful (kusala) mental states with pleasant feeling can be either prompted or spontaneous. Skillful (kusala) mental states with neutral feeling can be either prompted or spontaneous. Skillful (kusala) mental states associated with wisdom can be either prompted or spontaneous. Skillful (kusala) mental states not associated with wisdom can be either prompted or spontaneous. A spontaneous mental state generally is associated with greater volition (cetana) and thefore creates weightier kamma. Hope that this helps. Metta, Rob M :-) 32623 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV 76, yahoo trouble Nina There's no problem with the length of your posts. I think Larry's problems must be to do with arrangements at his end. Please continue as before. Jon --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Hi Larry and Jon, > op 29-04-2004 03:29 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...:> > > Sorry for not responding to this (Vis. 76) earlier. I didn't get > it in my > email so > > I went looking in the web site. > N: ??? again? We have to solve this. It also happened to Vis. 75, > which I reposted. > Is it the length of my Vis posts, should I split them? Is it your computer? > No problem for next ones to also send them to you off line, > whatever you like. Or just announce off line? > I want to ask Jon whether the length of my post is the problem. I do not > want to lose the connection of Vis and Tiika, but what other way of > presentation is possible? I never like it that it is so long, but a few > people may like the Pali as well. > I shall repost Vis 76 in two parts now. > Nina. 32624 From: Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 2:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Practical View of Anatta Hi, Andrew - In a message dated 4/28/04 11:10:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, athel60@t... writes: > A: > I still don't find this satisfying, I'm afraid. If I refuse to > acknowledge a logical inference (which was apparently accepted by all > early Buddhist schools except the Puggalavadins), aren't I clinging > to the idea that "there just might be a self after all"? > -------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not recommending ignoring a valid inference at all, but merely doing two things: 1) Recognizing some of the hidden premisses of that inference, and recognizing them as matters of belief, and 2) Making the observation that logical inference, while useful and conventionally enlightening, is not in itself spiritually transformative. The hidden premisses, which BTW I *do* accept as a matter of belief (but not knowledge), are that a) as the Buddha said, the 5 khandhas constitute "the all" in the sense that they constitute the entirety of experience, and b) pragmatically, what is unexperiencable may be, and reasonably should be, presumed non-existent. If one adds these as premisses to the Buddhist axiom that all the khandhas are not self, one can validly conclude there is no self. I *do* accept all these premisses, and I *do* make the inference and accept the no-self conclusion. So, why am I not liberated? Because mere intellectual belief - and I truly do believe in there being no self anywhere in anything - is not enough. Belief backed by observation and inference shades off into confidence, but even such saddha is not yet ~nana. There is one additional input to my confidence that there is no "personal self" which is more than just inferential, and that is my single experience in which, for a period, the sense of self was completely lacking in me all the while six-sense-door experience continued. This constituted direct experiential evidence of the non-necessity of self, and it has made my no-self commitment a drop more than mere intellectual assent. ---------------------------------------------------- And if > > there IS some sort of self - well, that's "me" and "mine" isn't it? > In addition, if a logical inference is not liberating then neither is > an assertion like "a self cannot be denied". > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Quite so. (Especially the latter! ;-) ------------------------------------------------------- > I previously put to Victor that he was treating the anatta teaching > as ending in an unthinkable. Why didn't Buddha clearly declare it > so, as he did with other unthinkables? My recollection is that > Victor has not commented on this aspect thus far. > Can one be liberated whilst being open to the possibility that, > somewhere amongst all the pieces of meat at the butcher's table at > the crossroads, there might just be a "cow"? > Best wishes > Andrew > > ============================ With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 32625 From: Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 4:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Do or not do something Thanks, Rob. I'm curious. How do you use the info. on types of consciousness (besides answering my question) in your daily life? Sometimes I get caught up in some technical point in the Abhidhamma, ask myself how it is relevant to alleviating suffering and can't think of an answer. Jack I am behind on another thread, but since this probably a "quickie", I will jump in. Unskillful (akusala) mental states rooted in lobha can be either prompted or spontaneous. Unskillful (akusala) mental states rooted in dosa can be either prompted or spontaneous. The question of prompted / spontaneous does not arise with moha mula cittas. Skillful (kusala) mental states with pleasant feeling can be either prompted or spontaneous. Skillful (kusala) mental states with neutral feeling can be either prompted or spontaneous. Skillful (kusala) mental states associated with wisdom can be either prompted or spontaneous. Skillful (kusala) mental states not associated with wisdom can be either prompted or spontaneous. A spontaneous mental state generally is associated with greater volition (cetana) and thefore creates weightier kamma. Hope that this helps. Metta, Rob M :-) 32626 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 10:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'ocean of concepts', feeling Hi Larry, op 29-04-2004 00:36 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Nina: "What do you think about this Vis. passage?" > Not very enlightening. If dukkha is an asabhava dhamma how can it have a > cause? Is "cause of suffering" just conventional language? N: Dukkha has many meanings: dukkha-dukkha is painful feeling or mental unhappy feeling. Then there is dukkha because of change(viparinama dukkha): pleasant feeling changes, that is suffering, unsatisfactory. Then there is sankhara dukkha: the unsatisfactoriness inherent in all conditioned dhammas: they are impermanent and thus no refuge, not worth clinging to. This is the first noble truth, it encompasses all conditioned phenomena. What we read in the Vis. footnote as to the three characteristics: < they are not separate from the aggregates because they are unapprehendable without the aggregates>. All that is said here is that they are inherent in them. Never mind about the word asabhava. You remember Howard and Sarah spoke about it whether dhammas are the same as their characteristics and there was a quote from the Dispeller of Delusion, that dhammas and their characteristics are not different. If we do not cling to words and definitions this is no problem. All that matters: what can be experienced now and can be the object of understanding. The growth of direct understanding of what appears now is essential. Through insight the characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and anatta are to be realized. This means, at such moments one does not have to think of the word characteristic or wonder: is the characteristic itself an asabhava dhamma or not. Panna realizes the true nature of the nama or rupa that appears. At the moment of enlightenment the four noble truth are realized, thus also the cause of dukkha. Thus, dukkha that is the first noble truth has a cause: clinging. Because of clinging there is rebirth of the khandhas again and again. Clinging, the cause of dukkha is a reality, it is a cetasika. It is a dhamma with its own characteristic. As to painful feeling, dukkha vedana, this is another subject, it concerns only feeling cetasika. L: As for the dhammas we experience, they don't have objects. We can easily > observe this. N: What about seeing or hearing? They have objects, they are nama, thus, they experience an object. They are not rupa that does not experience anything. Seeing experiences visible object which is rupa. Hearing experiences sound which is rupa. L: When I stub my toe, the throbbing painful sensation has > nothing to do with hardness. N: There is feeling cetasika, bodily feeling. It arises with citta, body-consciousness. I recap: citta and cetasika are of the same jati (kusala akusala, vipaka or kiriya), arise at the same base, experience the same object and fall away together. When you stub your toe body-consciousness experiences hardness, and so do all accompanying cetasikas, hardness is the object they all share. The cetasikas perform each they own function while they assist the citta: sanna marks or remembers; feeling, in this case painful bodily feeling (but it is nama, a cetasika), experiences the "taste" of the hardness, concentration focusses on the object, etc. Thus, hardness is experienced by feeling at that moment, feeling is nama. Quite different from rupa. This is important, we should understand feeling as nama, and we should know that there can be awareness of it as nama. It is under the Application of Mindfulness of Feeling. We have to see feeling in feeling, no self in the feeling. But we cling so much to it and take it for self. Thus, if we have misunderstandings about feeling as being nama and experiencing an object, this hinders the development of satipatthana. L: I couldn't tell if that is your position or > not. Aversion to painful feeling is just aversion. N: When the body-consciousness that is vipakacitta experiencing the hardness has fallen away there are other types of cittas, and the javana cittas in that same process still have hardness as object; they can have aversion to that object, they may be rooted in aversion. Shortly after this process has fallen away there may be javana cittas in another process that take as object the painful feeling that arose just before and has just fallen away. They react to that painful feeling with aversion accompanied by mental unpleasant feeling. Their object is then painful bodily feeling. In another process again there may be javana cittas that take as object the aversion or the mental unpleasant feeling that arose and had just fallen away. Again in another process you can think of the concept of "my poor toe" with aversion. All this is possible, very likely to happen very often. A whole chain of negative reactions. But, depending on the accumulated understanding, in a following process kusala cittas with panna may take as object the previous aversion that has just fallen away. Then there is wise attention to the object, which object is aversion in this case. One can learn to see dhamma in dhamma: aversion is dhamma, not self. The fourth Application of Mindfulness! All processes occur extremely fast, there is no time to think. But understanding can be accumulated. L: We link it to > painful feeling by inference. This has nothing to do with insight. N: We understand this by inference, but through insight the understanding of different cittas that have different objects can be more precise. Then there is no thinking of processes or any terms, just penetration of characteristics of different dhammas. Eventually these can be seen as they are: impermanent, dukkha and anatta. I do not know whether I clarified this sufficiently, and if not, I have to think of another approach. It is, as said, very important to know what nama is, different from rupa. To know that each citta and each cetasika experience an object. Also theoretical understanding is very important. Nina. 32627 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 10:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV 76 Hi Larry, op 29-04-2004 03:29 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: >Quote: 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." > > L: I agree that we don't touch fluidity or shape; we only think we > _touch_ them. However, I would say we do cognize fluidity and shape. > They are both mind-door rupas. Shape is a manifestation of delimitation > (space), and of course fluidity is one of the 4 primary rupas as > "cohesiveness". N: Fluidity or cohesion is a subtle rupa to be known through the mind-door. When it is known through insight, there is no thinking of the word or term. As to shape, the Pali has: sa.n.thaana, and this means: composition or shape, thus a whole. It is like an image, not visible object. You perceive the shape of a person, but in fact this is a composition or collection of a whole, a concept. On account of colour that is seen such an image is formed up. Therefore I would not say it is a manifestation of space. Space is only in between the groups of rupa, invisible and so very slight. L: Have a good vacation. We can pick up when you get back. N: Thanks, Larry. Nina. 32628 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 10:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do or not do something Hi Jack, They are too fast to do anything or choose. Before you know they have arisen and fallen away. It is by accumulated conditions that cittas which are sasankharika or asankharika arise. The inducement should not be seen in conventional sense: you sit down and deliberate about what kind of citta you prefer at a particular moment. Nina. op 28-04-2004 22:09 schreef Jackhat1@a... op Jackhat1@a...: > 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. 32629 From: Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do or not do something In a message dated 4/29/04 10:48:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: Hi Jack, They are too fast to do anything or choose. Before you know they have arisen and fallen away. It is by accumulated conditions that cittas which are sasankharika or asankharika arise. The inducement should not be seen in conventional sense: you sit down and deliberate about what kind of citta you prefer at a particular moment. Nina. Nina, That seems contrary to Narada's interpretation. To repeat my quote of his: "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." page 19 of Abhidhammattha Sangaha. "After much deliberation or premeditation" seems to be used in a very conventional sense to me. jack 32630 From: Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 7:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do or not do something Hi, Jack and Nina - In a message dated 4/29/04 2:00:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Jackhat1@a... writes: > > In a message dated 4/29/04 10:48:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > nilo@e... > writes: > Hi Jack, > They are too fast to do anything or choose. Before you know they have arisen > and fallen away. It is by accumulated conditions that cittas which are > sasankharika or asankharika arise. The inducement should not be seen in > conventional sense: you sit down and deliberate about what kind of citta you > prefer at a particular moment. > Nina. > Nina, > > That seems contrary to Narada's interpretation. To repeat my quote of his: > "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." page 19 of Abhidhammattha Sangaha. > "After much deliberation or premeditation" seems to be used in a very > conventional > sense to me. > > jack > =========================== The idea of mindstates going by too fast for "something to be done" or "a choice to be made" has long bothered me. It seems to presuppose some separate doer or watcher sitting back and trying to examine and catch elements of a stream of experience. But there *is* no such doer or watcher. It is not a matter of an observer of a film projected on a screen - there is neither screen nor observer. There is just the experiential flow. (If anything, that flow is both screen and observer, to use a poor metaphor. And to continue to digress with that poor metaphor, the stronger the lighting, the greater the clarity.) Now, dropping the metaphor, there being only the psychophysical flow, it "keeps up" with itself. There is nobody to "lose track". The namarupic flow goes just as fast as it goes, and there is nothing else that needs to "keep up". When mindfulness, momentary concentration, and clear comprehension become sufficiently heightened, wisdom heightens and the flow is transformed into a stream of radically improved functionality. 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) 32631 From: Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 8:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do or not do something In a message dated 4/29/04 11:35:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: The idea of mindstates going by too fast for "something to be done" or "a choice to be made" has long bothered me. It seems to presuppose some separate doer or watcher sitting back and trying to examine and catch elements of a stream of experience. But there *is* no such doer or watcher. It is not a matter of an observer of a film projected on a screen - there is neither screen nor observer. There is just the experiential flow. (If anything, that flow is both screen and observer, to use a poor metaphor. And to continue to digress with that poor metaphor, the stronger the lighting, the greater the clarity.) Now, dropping the metaphor, there being only the psychophysical flow, it "keeps up" with itself. There is nobody to "lose track". The namarupic flow goes just as fast as it goes, and there is nothing else that needs to "keep up". When mindfulness, momentary concentration, and clear comprehension become sufficiently heightened, wisdom heightens and the flow is transformed into a stream of radically improved functionality. Howard, Makes sense to me with the caveat that looking at something dualistically (subject and object) can be very useful at times in our practice. I would add that the idea that the Abhidhamma is about momentary mind states that we can't possibly observe and have to take on blind faith has always bothered me. Anything you can't prove by evidence seems very un-Buddhist to me. On the other hand, one can observe streams of cittas/cetasaikes and streams of Cycles of Dependent Origination and prove "by one's own light" what causes and what alleviates suffering. The whole point, for example, of the Cycles of Dependent Origination is that one can affect whether an event (phassa) ends with suffering or non-suffering even though each individual cycle is only a billionth of a second long. jack 32632 From: Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 3:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV 76, yahoo trouble Hi Nina, There's no need to repost if they show up on the Yahoo web site, which they usually do. One or two Yahoo groups emails a week don't make it to my in-box. I don't know why. It is a phenomenon called "bouncing". It has nothing to do with the length. Don't worry about it. Larry ------------- N: ??? again? We have to solve this. It also happened to Vis. 75, which I reposted. Is it the length of my Vis posts, should I split them? Is it your computer? 32633 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 6:27pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Do or not do something Hi Jack, Abhidhamma is the theory behind the Buddha's smile. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jackhat1@a... wrote: > I'm curious. How do you use the info. on types of consciousness (besides > answering my question) in your daily life? Sometimes I get caught up in some > technical point in the Abhidhamma, ask myself how it is relevant to alleviating > suffering and can't think of an answer. Excellent question! BTW is another DSGer complains that I am slow to respond to the other ongoing thread, I am going to blame you... :-) It is important to "begin with the end in mind". Before starting to study the Abhidhamma, it is important to clearly define your goal in making the effort. Having a goal will help keep you focused on the right things and help spur you on when things get difficult. Are you studying to learn classifications of reality? Are you studying to learn new words in Pali? Do you need to study to learn that greed, hatred and delusion are bad things? Most of us study Abhidhamma to gain a Buddhist perspective on life. Perspective is extremely important. If we can gain a Buddhist perspective on life, we will perceive everything in a different way. Changing our perspective causes a fundamental shift in our perception of the world. As we gain a Buddhist perspective, the nature of the mind (lobha, dosa, moha) and the characteristics of reality (anicca, dukkha, anatta) will be obvious to us; not just at a "knowledge level" but at a deeper, "belief / confidence level". An untrained ear hears a melody. A trained ear instantly recognizes notes, structure, chord progressions, etc. in the music. The trained ear has a different, deeper perspective when listening to music. A "trained ear" requires considerable study of music theory followed up by practice of listening to music. Studying Abhidhamma is the first step in getting a "trained mind". The next step, which should be done in parallel with study, is the practice of Dana, Sila and Bhavana. With a "trained mind" we will see things as they truly are. A single day of practice of the Dhamma is more valuable than a hundred years of theoretical study. According to the Abhidhamma, the mind experiences millions of thoughts each second. We can only be aware of a small portion of these thoughts. A "trained mind" can be mindful of all thoughts, even those of which we are not aware. Abhidhamma is the study of the mind, and this will lead to a more effective practice and eventually a "trained mind". It is our perspective that drives our thoughts. Our actions are the manifestation of our thoughts. It is our thoughts that create kamma. For those of us inclined to an Abhidhamma perspective, studying the details of mental states, etc. gives us confidence (saddha) borne from a sense of "everything fits together". Studying the technical details of the Abhidhamma is part of a synthetic process; "I know that there is no self because I know why there cannot be a self because I have carefully examined the details of the Abhidhamma" or "I have confidence in the law of kamma because I know the details of how kamma works". The Visuddhimagga suggests meditation practices based on a basic character (carita) of the individual. Of the six basic character types, we can identify two that would be interested in the Abhidhamma: - Buddhi-carita: Intellectual, intelligent; propensity to curiosity and reasoning things through - Vitakka-carita: Discursive, speculative, ruminating or pondering; propensity to excessive thought and worry However, we must never lose sight of the big picture: Study (pariyatti) -> Practice (patipatti) -> Realization (pativedha) Hope this helps. Metta, Rob M :-) 32634 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 29, 2004 9:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] na-vattaba ‘not so classifiable’ objects - Abhidhamma detail Dear Sarah, op 29-04-2004 11:52 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > You wrote to Larry when we were discussing the arupa jhana cittas: > > Nina: >Space like the air is a concept. The object of Jhana also a > concept, but we can look at more details. > Boundless space, a concept, but special. As I wrote in a former post to > Howard, objects can be classified as: Slight (paritta, all sense objects), > mahaggata (exalted, of jhana) and appamaa.na, boundless, here: lokuttara > dhammas. Apart from these there are objects called: not so classifiable, > navattaba, see Vis III, 117, note 32. This is very detailed. The object of > boundless space when someone contemplates it is navatabba, it is a > concept. Second jhana and third jhana have paramattha dhammas, namely > cittas as object.< > .... > S: I think you may have meant second and fourth arupa jhana cittas here? N: Yes. S; What I understand is that all jhana cittas have concepts as objects with > these two exceptions which have paramattha dhammas as objects? N: Some meditation subjects for samatha are realities, such as the elements. S: So the first arupa jhana citta (aakaasaana~ncaayatana) takes the concept > of infinite space as object. > > The second arupa jhana citta (vi~n~naa.na~ncaayatana)has the first arupa > jhana citta itself as object. Obviously in this case, the citta itself has > fallen away, but it is the paramattha dhamma itself which is subsequently > experienced by way of na-vatabba (not so classifiable) object. N: I have the Thia here and have to check. As I understand the arupajhanacittas that have paramatthas have objects that are mahaggata, but the other two have navattarammana. Or when consider kasina meditation without panna the object is navattabbarammana. > The third arupa jhana citta (aaki~nca~n~naayatana) takes as object the > concept of non-existence or nothingness. This is navattabbarammana. > > The fourth arupa jhana citta (n’evasa~n~naan’aasa~n~naayatana) again has a > paramattha dhamma as object, in this case the third arupa jhana citta. > (see CMA p62 for more details). Again, the third arupa jhana citta taken > as object has fallen away and as we know, only a present dhamma can be > object, so again this is a paramattha dhamma experienced by way of > na-vatabba object. N: The object that has just fallen away: well this happens all the time when nama experiences another nama. It is still a present object and a paramattha dhamma. The object is mahaggata. This does not make it "not so classifiable". I have to leave it here for now. Later on more. Please remind me. Nina. > 32635 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 1:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] na-vattaba ‘not so classifiable’ objects - Abhidhamma detail Dear Nina, Thanks for your reply when you're so busy. --- nina van gorkom wrote: > S; > What I understand is that all jhana cittas have concepts as objects > with > > these two exceptions which have paramattha dhammas as objects? > N: Some meditation subjects for samatha are realities, such as the > elements. .... S: This was exactly my question (whether this actually was so) and Jon raised the elements as an example and reading from Vism. As we know, concepts can be of paramattha dhammas too. Good discussion for India. Actually, it makes sense to me that in samatha these could only be concepts of the elements (like in some of the examples friends have given about their wise reflections on elements), whereas in satipatthana they are the paramattha dhammas as objects. The same with any aspects under Dhamma too, I think. K.Sujin said (as I recall and of course there can always be misunderstandings) that only those 2 arupa jhana cittas have paramattha dhammas as objects but she also told me to check texts. .... > N: I have the Thia here and have to check. As I understand the > arupajhanacittas that have paramatthas have objects that are mahaggata, > but > the other two have navattarammana. > Or when consider kasina meditation without panna the object is > navattabbarammana. .... S: I raised all these points and made notes on 2 or 3 different occasions, repeating what I heard and making a few notes. I’ll be interested in what you find and it’ll be good for further discussion in India. Meanwhile, I’ll also try to double check by listening to tapes. I’ll let you know if there is anything different from what I wrote. I’ve checked all the refs in Dispeller, but it’s not detailed enough (or over my head in parts;-)). ..... > N: The object that has just fallen away: well this happens all the time > when > nama experiences another nama. It is still a present object and a > paramattha > dhamma. The object is mahaggata. This does not make it "not so > classifiable". ... S: I was surprised at this wide implication too. If I have time, I’ll try to listen and quote what was said on this point. It may not be according to the stricter wording in the texts. More an implication of how the words could be used? I found it helpful, but of course may have misunderstood some aspects. ..... > I have to leave it here for now. Later on more. Please remind me. ..... S: It’s quite interesting. A bit of a Pandora’s box. Sukin may have comments to add as well as I know he was taking interest too, but we’ll wait for your return before resuming the topic. Metta, Sarah ====== 32636 From: sarahdhhk Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 1:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Satipatthana - Covetousness and grief Dear Nina, You asked Jon to raise this question with A.Sujin: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: <..> > Some questions for Bgk: One of the teachers said about tangible object: the > *three* Great elements impinge on the bodysense, but one of these > characteristics (like hardness) is experienced. I thought: of the octad only > one of the great Elements impinges and then its characteristic is > experienced. Kh Anop was going to ask A. Sujin. .... S: I made a few notes on this when Jon raised it, even though it's somewhat over my head: K.Sujin said 'it doesn't matter' whether one, two or three of the great elements impinge and there's 'no use in saying it'. She said that different texts give different answers because they are written by the commentators (i.e without the Buddha's omniscience). 'Still, only one characteristic appears'. We know that because it's an object of body consciousness (i.e the rupa), it must be in a kalapa of at least 8 rupas. 'The very fine detail can only be known by the Buddha's omniscience'. Hope this helps. Metta, Sarah ===== 32637 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 1:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do or not do something Hi Howard and Jack, Howard has got the essence here. It is well formulated. Nina. > =========================== > The idea of mindstates going by too fast for "something to be done" or > "a choice to be made" has long bothered me. It seems to presuppose some > separate doer or watcher sitting back and trying to examine and catch elements > of a > stream of experience. But there *is* no such doer or watcher. It is not a > matter of an observer of a film projected on a screen - there is neither > screen > nor observer. There is just the experiential flow. (If anything, that flow is > both screen and observer, to use a poor metaphor. And to continue to digress > with that poor metaphor, the stronger the lighting, the greater the clarity.) > Now, dropping the metaphor, there being only the psychophysical flow, it > "keeps > up" with itself. There is nobody to "lose track". The namarupic flow goes > just as fast as it goes, and there is nothing else that needs to "keep up". > When > mindfulness, momentary concentration, and clear comprehension become > sufficiently heightened, wisdom heightens and the flow is transformed into a > stream of > radically improved functionality. 32638 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 1:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Do or not do something Hi Jack, op 29-04-2004 17:25 schreef Jackhat1@a... op Jackhat1@a...: > Sometimes I get caught up in some > technical point in the Abhidhamma, ask myself how it is relevant to > alleviating > suffering and can't think of an answer. N:just butting in. A very good and relevant question. Please if you would care to elaborate after eight days what you find are technical points? I am just off for a week, but I am always very glad if I can do something, even a little, to explain that what seems technical is relevant to our life now. Abhidhamma study does not mean that you have to try to catch all the different types of citta you read about, or find out exactly when they arise. That is impossible. It helps to understand that all these dhammas arise because of conditions and that you do not own them or can manipulate them. However, understanding of them can grow, and, as A. Sujin stresses, this has to begin at this very moment now of seeing, hearing, bodily phenomena, kusala cittas, akusala cittas. As Lodewijk said, the Abhidhamma brings all phenomena down to basics, and that is true: nama and rupa. That is our life, and we can develop understanding of them at this moment. The Abhidhamma helps us to understand anatta, non self. In the ultimate sense there are only citta, cetasika and rupa. I like to recap what Lodewijk said: through the Abhidhamma we can develop the perfection of truthfulness, we can truthfully know our cittas. True, we learn to detect the deepest motives for all our actions, speech and thoughts. The Abhidhamma is very realistic. It shows us that there are not kusala cittas all the time, but that these are alternated with akusala cittas in different processes. We cannot know cittas from moment to moment, but at least we can learn different characteristics by beginning to be mindful of them. I stress: beginning. As Rob M said: Practice (patipatti) -> Realization (pativedha). > Correct intellectual understanding must lead to the right application of the Abhidhamma in our life and this will lead to the direct realization of the truth. Enlightenment is far off, but there is a Path leading to it. If the Path is right it must eventually lead to this goal. Lodewijk said: without the Abhidhamma Vipassana makes no sense. Yes, the two go together. Again, this does not mean that you have to catch all the different types of citta, but we can apply the main principles of Abhidhamma in our life. The Abhidhamma is not words or terms, it teaches us what is dhamma now. It teaches us what is true in the ultimate sense and what is only a concept or story, fabricated by our thinking. We understand more what is kamma and what is vipaka. Right now there are many kinds of vipakacittas, experiencing pleasant and unpleasant objects. Seeing and hearing are vipakacittas. They are conditioned already, no use to worry about them. Disease and death, it all depends on kamma. Understanding of citta, cetasika and rupa is the condition to face our problems in life, problems concerning our defilements, and also unhappy events. We can see that the Abhidhamma is powerful, that it works, and this causes our confidence and respect for the Abhidhamma to grow. The Abhidhamma helps us to develop our own understanding, and thus we shall find out for ourselves that it truly is the teaching of the Enlightened One. You wrote to Howard: J:(snipped) I would add > that the idea that the Abhidhamma is about momentary mind states that we can't > possibly observe and have to take on blind faith has always bothered me. N: No, it is not a matter of blind faith. As said, we cannot know all the momentary states, but when sati and understanding arise together, characteristics of nama and rupa can gradually be known. It is not a matter of just observing, it is a matter of understanding, and this can develop to direct understanding. Rob M stressed the development of all kinds of kusala. When there is more truthfulness of different cittas, kusala cittas and akusala cittas, this is a condition for more kusala, sincere kusala. Abhidhamma and the perfections: they are connected with each other. J: . On the other hand, > one can observe streams of cittas/cetasikas and streams of Cycles of > Dependent Origination and prove "by one's own light" what causes and what > alleviates > suffering. N: Some people in the Buddha's time attained enlightenment after hearing only a few words. Assajji said just a few words to Sariputta: This is the Dependent Origination, containing the whole of the teachings, also the four noble Truths. It is Abhidhamma, and when we hear the word Abhidhamma we do not need to think of terms. Abhidhamma is the truth of life. After hearing these words Sariputta became a sotapanna. We today we need to hear more details. We have to listen again and again, consider and develop understanding of what occurs now, again and again, for countless lives. We need the perfection of patience. As A. Sujin repeats to us all the time: patience is the highest ascetism. Nina. 32639 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 1:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XIV 76, yahoo trouble Hi Larry, I had bouncing before, but you can notify Yahoo. There can be partial bouncing. Go to "my groups" and they give you history of bouncing! Also which months there was bouncing, and slight or serious bouncing. It can and should be corrected. You can send the note: please unbounce, and Jon can help. You may receive an Email from Yahoo. Reckon, when you do not hear from me after a week when you have posted, something is amiss. The last one, Tiika to Vis 80 is quite long, but there are gems in it. When there is no arising, from where are there old age and death? And about the Paticca samuppada. I hope I can manage this text. Nina. op 30-04-2004 00:51 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > There's no need to repost if they show up on the Yahoo web site, which > they usually do. One or two Yahoo groups emails a week don't make it to > my in-box. I don't know why. It is a phenomenon called "bouncing". 32640 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 2:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do or not do something Hi Jack (& Rob M), Thanks, Rob for providing the relevant Abhid details. I always find it helpful when you do this. Jack asked about the practical relevance of the technical details and this is a very good question. I understand these ‘prompted’ and ‘unprompted’ cittas to be referring to stronger and weaker cittas. For example, we can test for ourselves whether the generosity is stronger when we see an opportunity and just spontaneously help or give as opposed to when it is ‘prompted’ by say another’s encouragement or example. The same with the dosa involved in killing which is ‘unprompted’. As Nina said, >It is by accumulated conditions that cittas which are > sasankharika or asankharika arise. The inducement should not be seen in > conventional sense: you sit down and deliberate about what kind of citta > you > prefer at a particular moment.< ... S:I’m joining in here as I know Nina is about to go on her trip. You wrote: .... > That seems contrary to Narada's interpretation. To repeat my quote of > his: > "If, for instance, one does an act, induced by another of after much > deliberation or premeditation on one's part, then it is sasankharika. .... S: Remember that though we talk conventionally, in truth there is no ‘one’ who acts and the cittas which ‘deliberate’ can be incredibly fast. They are conditioned by many factors at that time - not necessary for any words or deliberation as we know it. No self who ‘chooses’ any action. .... > If, on the > contrary, one does it instantly without any external or internal > inducement, or any > premeditation, then it is asankharika." page 19 of Abhidhammattha > Sangaha. > "After much deliberation or premeditation" seems to be used in a very > conventional > sense to me. .... S: Yet we know that the teachings are all about anatta and conditioned dhammas. Let me quote from the commentary to the Abhidammattha Sangaha translation which Narada would have been basing his comments on, I assume: Summary of Topics and Exposition, PTS, p13: “Prompting is what prepares and equips the consciousness in the form of furnishing it with energy, or consciousness is prepared and equipped by it in the said fashion. It is that exertion of oneself or others which precedes by way of giving assistance to a consciousness that is slowing down in a particular action. In this case the prompting designates the consciousness’s particular state of energy when it has arisen because of the preceding occurrence in the consciousness-flow of oneself or of others. When it is not there, it is unprompted; just this is ‘without prompting’ (asa’nkhaarika). Along with prompting is ‘with prompting ‘ (sasa’nkhaarika). Thus it is said: The particular quality [which is] produced by the preceding exertion and which produces the consciousness is prompting; it is by virtue of this that there is here the condition of [being] without prompting, and so on.” Jack, referring back to our other thread as well, when you write ‘I have consciousness that is deliberately chosen....’ or ‘I practice by deliberately selecting...’ or ‘I just sit and watch whatever comes up....’ etc., I wonder what you mean by these references to ‘I’ and who or what does this selecting or choosing? You also mentioned that after selecting the sensations or elements that the following phase of ‘watching’ is without ‘agenda or attachment’ as far as you know. Isn’t there attachment involved whenever there is an idea of ‘watching’ in order for awareness to arise? Otherwise, why would there be any watching, I wonder. I’m also in danger of repeating myself. I’m sure these points will all come up again and again;-). I enjoy your reflections and practical questions, Jack. So 'Do or not do something' now will depend on what cittas are conditioned at this very moment. Metta, Sarah p.s RobM, it’s a real treat to have you around and I’m following all your threads with keen interest. A little prompting - how is the back-up of the archives going? I know you’ve been incredibly busy - do you still read through the DSG archive diary on flights? ====== 32641 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 3:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > 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. .... S: On the contrary, I always appreciate it when you quote suttas and I’m always very ready to discuss any one of them as you know. .... >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. .... S: I think that what you’re saying here is that you often don’t agree with my interpretation of a sutta. That’s OK. Like with the shells etc in the lake metaphor, we can discuss our readings, If we have access to the ancient commentary, it may shed extra light for some of us. For others it might not and that’s fine too. .... <...> > Hmmm…well, now I am faced with a quandary. Obviously, I can't quote > suttas to explain my position… ... S: You can, but it doesn’t mean anyone has to agree with your interpretation;-) ... >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'? ... S: Does this mean we also throw out suttas referring to knowing 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. .... S: And yet unless the present conditioned dhammas are understood, there will be no experience of nibbana. Should suttas referring to namas and rupas (aka khandhas -- asPhil said --, elements, sense fields) all be thrown out too? .... > 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. ;-)) .... S: Mindfulness and concentration of what? Surely not the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness (aka namas and rupas once again;-)). James, we agree that the only ‘true release’ or escape from samsara is the realisation of nibbana by the supramundane consciousness when defilements are eradicated. However, the path has to be developed and this can only be by way of gradually knowing present namas and rupas as anatta, i.e knowing material forms, feelings, perceptions, formations and consciousness for what they are - conditioned dhammas or elements. I agree with you that the idea of self is only finally eradicated at the first stage of enlightenment, but the insight can only ever begin to develop at the present moment. MN131: Bhaddekaratta Sutta “‘..Instead with insight let him see Each presently arisen state;’ <.....> “And how, bhikkhus, is one invincible in regard to presently arisen states? Here, bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple, who has regard for noble ones and is skiled and disciplined in their Dhamma, who has regard for true men and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, does not regard material form as self or self as possessed of material form, or material form as in self or self as in material form....feeling...perception....consciousness.... This is how one is invincible in regard to presently arisen states.” Metta, Sarah ====== 32642 From: Philip Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 4:35am Subject: Understanding aggregates and annata (was Video Games) Hi James, and all. There are a couple of things I want to try to work out in my own mind about understanding "understanding." As it happens, Sarah has just replied to you in this thread as well, so I hesitate to overdo it, but thinking out loud in an exchange with a dhamma friend seems to be helping me these days, so please bear with me as I babble on. > 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. Ph: I am always thinking about what "understanding" means to me, but your experiment has helped me see that intellectual understanding - and for the time being I am only capable of intellecutal understanding - is helped by concrete terms, which you didn't really provide in your definition of the aggregartes: "The five aggregates are a continually changing psycho-physical process which are interconnected and dependently arisen" Not bad, but could be more explicit. That's why I respond well to Abhidhamma. It seems to be just about as explicit as could possibly be. But since you don't value talk of rupa and nama, let me go to the Satipatthna Sutta for a more explicit consideration of aggregates: "Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in and of themselves with reference to the five aggreages for clinging/sustenance.(snip) THere is the case where a monk (discerns): "Such is form, such is its origination, such its disappearance. Such is feeling...sych is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness..." So now I have form (rupakhanda) feeling (vedanakhanda) perception (sannakhanda) fabrications (sankharakhanda) and consciousness (vinnanakhanda) - things are still confusing for me at this point, but are become clearer, and I can see that the Buddha here is positing a practice that seems very similar to "seeing realities in the moment" as many members of this group talk about. James: > 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. Ph: Exactly! That's what Nina et al point at, isn't it? Panna arises to lead to knowing realities. For me, there is intellectual understanding. It's a bit confusing sometimes that Nina uses "understanding realities" when translating K Sujin in her book on Metta, for example, when she is talking about something that seems more like "knowing realities" to me - something more direct. Now I see there is understanding in the intellectual sense and understanding in an absolute way. I'm very interested in how the intellectual process can gradually become something more absolute. For example, when I meditate on the breath in the morning - in my own carefree, experimental way - I usually reach a point where I become aware that the breath is holding eveything together. Holding what together? All those dreams, worries, aversions, attachments etc. There is no self, clearly, so what is there. And I look intellectually at khandas. Do I understand them deeply? No. Do I understand them enough to keep me in equanimity through my daily life. Kind of. And that equanimity is becoming more absolute, surely, as the understanding deepens day by day. I think the pentrative insight will come for me more during daily life, like when I looked up from that book and *knew* my wife as the aggregates and/or rupa/nama. (For me, these collections of terms are still interchangeable. If you can tell me the difference between the aggregates and rupa/nama.) For this beginner, meditation softens the ground for insight that arises later in the day. My circumstances prevent me from seeking jhanas, so I will do what I can with shallow insight meditation leading to gradually cultivating sati and panna during my daily life. Whew. What a babble. Please bear with me. As I said, thinking out loud with a dhamma friend is very helpful for me. > 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. Ph: This is interesting. I can't say whether it's true or not. I would have thought that almost anyone with a certain degree of clarity of mind and diligence in his or her practice would come to understand annata in a deep enough way to make it more than mere "intellectual" understanding. I mean, when I am at the breath in the morning, and a certain tranquility arises, I can clearly feel that all the crud self generates, all the lovely stuff, all the neutral babble, it is so clearly not anything real. With one breath that never came, they would go up in dust. And I would say that understanding that implies a certain degree of enlightenment. Again, it seems to me that Theravada with its stages of enlightenment values the idea of gradual enlightenment. It seems that you are saying it's an all or nothing thing. Technically speaking, I can't say whether you're right not. Haven't "stream-enterers" and "once returners" had direct knowledge of annata? That's not a rhetorical question. I have no idea what goodies go with those stages of enlightenment. On to another topic: > 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. ;-)) Ph: I've been told similar things by people in other groups too, so it's encouraging. As usual, I don't struggle with things I can't believe in yet, but "postpone them for later understanding." I think I picked up that phrase from someone in this group. As for your suggestion of sensual delights going on in the deva realms, I was a bit surprised but I will leave google research on that for another lifetime. I'm having enough trouble not checking out that bikini link these days. ;) I hope you or anyone else can find something of value in this unnecessarily long-winded post. :) Metta, Phil 32643 From: Htoo Naing Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 6:23am Subject: Linking the messages Dear Dhamma Friends, There are 60 messages. They are related in a way. I just avoided monotony and just changed the headings in the way while messages are ongoing. There are 11 messages on 'How To Get Through The Samsara', 6 messages on 'Contemplation On Own Body', 7 messages on 'Sensing feeling where it arises and where it vanishes', 11 messages on 'Sensing own mind whenever it moves', 19 messages on 'Seeing Dhamma as they really are', 2 messages on 'Powerful Friends Coming Together', and 4 messages on 'Seeing and seeing of seeing' all messages in the stated order. I was just observing who tasted them. There are many people who came out to contact and discussed the matter of interest. When some tasted them in a meaningful way, some other people disregarded them and even some critised in an adverse way. Some seem to be uninterested in all these. There is some special traveller who is very enthusiatic to walk on The Journey To Nibbana. Once that traveller said, ''Hey! We have to drop the idea of self from the start.'' To that traveller, here I say we have not even started the journey. We are just collecting the necessary things which are needed during the journey. We have not got the map. The map has not been spread out even though that traveller talked that the map was spread out. Anyway from the message one to the message 60 that is number 4 of ''Seeing and seeing of seeing'' are all just only the first step and there are many steps coming, to be on the Path that leads to the intended destination. All these 60 messages are just like discussions. If no one is talking on them, the messages will remain domant. These are not teaching and not intended as teaching. Some were delighted as I can clearly see through their emails sent to me. But some were in the other way round. There were many colours. Colour of red, green, violet, black, blue, orange, yellow, indigo, green and many others. I mean when they were reading these messages ( any of 60 ), they expressed with colours that is anger, hatred, aversion, attachment, craving, ignorance, delusion, jealousy, stinginess and so on. Anyway, Dhamma is always there and try to find it and feel it. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing htootintnaing@y... JourneyToNibbana 32644 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 6:33am Subject: Re:Linking the messages for Sarah There is some special traveller who is very enthusiatic to walk on The Journey To Nibbana. Once that traveller said, ''Hey! We have to drop the idea of self from the start.'' To that traveller, here I say we have not even started the journey. We are just collecting the necessary things which are needed during the journey. We have not got the map. The map has not been spread out even though that traveller talked that the map was spread out. Anyway from the message one to the message 60 that is number 4 of ''Seeing and seeing of seeing'' are all just only the first step and there are many steps coming, to be on the Path that leads to the intended destination. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Sarah, How have you been doing? Are you travelling? You know what I mean. It has been nice to chat with you on Dhamma matter. Several time, I confused and mixed on the sexth sense. At that time you cleared me out. Thanks for your continous support. I just posted this for your attention. With Metta, Htoo Naing 32645 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 6:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > As Sukin says,> > > conditions rule! > > > --------------------------------------- > Howard: > And I agree with this, provided one doesn't exclude > intention from conditions. Of course not. Whether you're referring to the intention that is the mental factor (cetasika) of that name, or intention as conventionally understood, both are conditioned. Intention as conventionally referred to is in fact just moments of thinking, directed to future action. It is not a particular kind of citta or cetasika, nor does it involve particular combination of cetasikas. > P.S. I've taken up studying U Narada's "Guide to Conditional > Relations" once > again. ... > for me, the > spoonful of conditional-relations sugar makes the analytic medicine go down! > ;-)) Good news, Howard. I look forward to mention from time to time of things you come across. Jon 32646 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 6:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: dialogue on satipatthana James --- buddhatrue wrote: > Friend Jon (and Howard at end), > 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? There's no contradiction here. As I see it, weak understanding is strengthened by the nurturing and further cultivation of the weak understanding. It is the same as for the increase of any wholesome quality. > 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? This relates to your comment that awareness, being kusala, cannot take an akusala mindstate as its object because the 2 cannot co-arise. From our own experience we can see that kusala and akusala can arise intermingled with each other and thus each succeeding the other very rapidly. So this would indicate a way in which awareness could take the (immediately preceding) akusala mindstate as its object. > 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!! ;-)) What it tends to lead to is aspiring to having more kusala generally, and this in turn tends to lead to actions or practices designed to achieve this. > Ps. Happy Birthday, whenever it was. To you also, Howard! Thanks, James. It was on Monday (Howard's was on Sunday, and Sarah's is tomorrow, Saturday). Jon 32647 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > > 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. I'm not saying these aren't benefits, but I was trying to make the point that the Anapanasati Sutta itself and its commentary are silent on this matter. That raises the question of whether the assumptions we may have made regarding the sutta are correct. To approach the question from another angle, is there anything described in the sutta that is not attainable with another object (other than breath), i.e., that is unique to breath? Jon 32648 From: Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 3:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 4/30/04 10:31:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi, Jon - > ... > >>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. > > I'm not saying these aren't benefits, but I was trying to make the > point that the Anapanasati Sutta itself and its commentary are silent > on this matter. That raises the question of whether the assumptions > we may have made regarding the sutta are correct. > > To approach the question from another angle, is there anything > described in the sutta that is not attainable with another object > (other than breath), i.e., that is unique to breath? > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: In short - no. The sutta *does* say that anapanasati serves as a means of implementing the four foundations of mindfulness, but it certainly doesn't claim that it is unique in that respect. However, the Anapanasati Sutta does seem to be sort of a "companion piece" to the Satipatthana Sutta. One thing that is pointed out in the Anapanasati Sutta, is that mindfulness of the breath does produce calming, which may well be due in part to the (commonly observed) lulling effect of the breath, a rhythmic process. And, at the same time, the breath is not a fixed image, but is an ever-changing process composed of rupas of varying character and with repeated arisings and ceasings, which makes it suitable for vipassana investigation, as opposed to the purely samatha-meditation subjects such as kasinas. But, no, I don't think that mindfulness of the breath is unique in the features mentioned above nor due I think that anapanasati is, or is claimed to be, "the only way". Clearly, though, it is presented as a good way. ---------------------------------------------- > > Jon > ====================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 32649 From: Philip Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:51am Subject: [dsg] Re: Cittas and cetasikas (basic question!) Hello Howard Howard: > 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. (snip) > 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. Now I got it. Thanks! And now I realize that I had this clarified before by someone - Nina, I think - some months ago. Well, it takes a while to sink in, I guess. :) Metta, Phil 32650 From: Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 4:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do or not do something In a message dated 4/30/04 2:11:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: Jack, referring back to our other thread as well, when you write ‘I have consciousness that is deliberately chosen....’ or ‘I practice by deliberately selecting...’ or ‘I just sit and watch whatever comes up....’ etc., I wonder what you mean by these references to ‘I’ and who or what does this selecting or choosing? Sarah, You are making dualistic categories when you ask "who or what does this selecting or choosing." There is just selecting and choosing without an "I" as subject or doer. An example that is often used to illustrate this point is that there is not the see-er and the seen. There is just seeing which is a process. Deciding and choosing are also processes. Anatta does not preclude selecting and choosing. You also mentioned that after selecting the sensations or elements that the following phase of ‘watching’ is without ‘agenda or attachment’ as far as you know. Isn’t there attachment involved whenever there is an idea of ‘watching’ in order for awareness to arise? Otherwise, why would there be any watching, I wonder. I'm getting a little frustrated trying to make myself understood on this point. What I tried to say in my earlier response below is there is no idea of watching in the "second phase." Just sitting there and observing doesn't imply my making any decision or having attachment to sitting and observing. I just let my mind and body do what they will without my telling them to do anything. There is no "I" selecting anything. Awareness, watching, arises by itself. At those moments when I become attached to a thought and lose awareness, the decision to bring my attention back is made by itself. This is different from the "first phase." (I feel uncomfortable making this distinction between training and not training phases. I hope it makes my view more understandable.) In the first phase I might be consciously making the decision to note hardness, for example. This is part of the process of training my mind. In the second phase I am not consciously making this decision. jack >>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" not 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.< 32651 From: Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 4:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Do or not do something In a message dated 4/30/04 1:56:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: Lodewijk said: without the Abhidhamma Vipassana makes no sense. Yes, the two go together. Nina, I don't know who Lodewijk is or whether you attributed the quote above to him to give it the weight of authority, but I think Lodewijk is overstating it. Yes, the Abhidhamma can be useful. But, millions of people through the centuries have gotten value out of vipassana teachings and practices and made sense of it without any knowledge of the Abhidhamma. jack 32652 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 11:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] na-vattaba ‘not so classifiable’ objects - Abhidhamma detail Dear Sarah, We also talked about this with the late Phra Dhammadharo. Some of the meditation subjects of samatha are paramatthas, but the aim is not: knowing them as not self, but: eliminating attachment. The aim is calm that is temporary freedom from defilements. Nina. op 30-04-2004 10:05 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > S: This was exactly my question (whether this actually was so) and Jon > raised the elements as an example and reading from Vism. As we know, > concepts can be of paramattha dhammas too. Good discussion for India. > > Actually, it makes sense to me that in samatha these could only be > concepts of the elements (like in some of the examples friends have given > about their wise reflections on elements), whereas in satipatthana they > are the paramattha dhammas as objects. The same with any aspects under > Dhamma too, I think. 32653 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 11:45am Subject: to Christine Dear Christine, You are having your Cooran weekend and I hope to hear about it after one week, since I am away. Perhaps Sarah will save it. I wrote to you, but your computer broke down. Here it is: 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. 32654 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 11:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vesakha Dear Sarah, Andrew, Philip Thank you. It is the word impinging, and what one means by it, really a minor point. I should not have asked it, it is a hairsplitting matter. The main thing is: what characteristic appears now. In the last instance we have to verify ourselves the truth of realities. And we should not cling to words or terms. I get the point here. But when I wrote, a teacher said, I did not refer to a Commentator, only to one of the teachers at the Foundation. I did not read about this subject in commentaries. I do not know whether there is anything in the Commentary about this. I want to add a word about this subject lest people have misunderstandings about the way commentators work. As said before, I am always impressed by the way Buddhaghosa works, mentioning when there were opinions of other teachers. Moreover, different opinions were mostly concerning minor points. The Commentators are not the omniscient Buddha, but they most faithfully assisted in transmitting his teachings and I am infinitely grateful to the reciters of the Tipitaka and commentaries. Thanks to them we can learn so much today. Buddhaghosa did not invent new things, he edited the old commentaries as we often discussed. I am thinking of Andrew's correspondance with Philip about oral tradition. Here are a few points to consider. Think of it when people in a large group recite together, there is constant surveillance here. And when these are superior people, wise and understanding, it ensures the highest standards. This was the case when at the Councils hundreds of arahats were reciting the texts, Tipitaka and commentaries, together! People without defilements have infallible memories. No doubt about it! They were without perversity of sa~n~naa. Andrew was wondering about the word pa~n~natti not used in the suttas. But we have the words conventional truth and absolute truth. Conventional truth is pa~n~natti. The Abhidhamma explains in detail about these notions. It is essential to know the difference, otherwise vipassana cannot be developed correctly. We would take the unreal for the real. Now, happy Vesakha to you and all here on May 4th! I am also thinking of my friends in Bogor. I will have a good talk with Lodewijk, like we had last year on Rahula who had to become like the Earth, the dustrag mentality. May we all become like dustrags, with all conceit eventually eliminated. Nina. op 30-04-2004 10:15 schreef sarahdhhk op sarahdhhk@y...: > K.Sujin said 'it doesn't matter' whether one, two or three of the > great elements impinge and there's 'no use in saying it'. She > said that different texts give different answers because they are > written by the commentators (i.e without the Buddha's > omniscience). 'Still, only one characteristic appears'. We know > that because it's an object of body consciousness (i.e the rupa), > it must be in a kalapa of at least 8 rupas. 'The very fine detail can > only be known by the Buddha's omniscience'. 32655 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 0:11pm Subject: good wishes Dear Sarah Lodewijk and I wish you a very happy birthday. This is a good occasion to thank you for all your friendship and the admirable way you help Jon monitoring this list. We know you spend so much time and energy on it. Great kusala and anumodana. Our birthday danas in Sri Lanka were delightful, weren't they. I remember you were greatly moved when the monks recited the texts and you poured the water to extend the merit. With fond regards, Nina and Lodewijk. 32656 From: Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 5:17pm Subject: Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Sarah, If we look at dependent arising in the light of the 4 noble truths then "formations" is essentially desire and the result of desire is dukkha. So "consciousness" as the result of desire is dukkha. Of course every link in dependent arising is consciousness and as such is characterized by the three general characteristics but the consciousness link and the becoming link are in particular conditioned by desire, and desire is the cause of dukkha. The question is, how is desire the cause of dukkha and how is resultant consciousness, in particular, dukkha? We might also ask how is "consciousness" and "becoming" similar? Any thoughts? Larry 32657 From: robmoult Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 6:37pm Subject: VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi All, Just wanted to squash the rumour (can't imagine how this rumour got started :-) ) that a "dot of light" is a suitable analogy for visible object. A "visible object" is that which presents itself at the eye door in a small fraction of a second. Unlike a television, the rods and cones of the eye door do not scan a set of dots to construct an image. A better analogy would be that a visible object is like a single frame from a movie film. At the movie theatre, a motion picture is projected on the screen at a rate of 24 frames per second (at least that is what Jeeves said when I asked him). Each frame is seen as a visible object and the mind merges them together into a continuous stream. Anicca (impermanence) is concealed by continuity. A series of mental states arise to experience an object. Each mental state arises to perform a certain function and disappears conditioning the next mental state to arise and continue the task. Just as in the movie theatre, we take this stream as continuous and having permanence. The Vipallasa Sutta (AN IV.49) touches on this point. Let's go back to Plato's cave. The occupants of Plato's cave were chained in such a way that they could only look toward one wall of the cave. There was a bright light behind them so that they cast shadows on the visible wall. The occupants of the cave were born, lived and died looking at the shadows. Plato talked about one of the occupants breaking free from the chains, making his way outside the cave and then returning to try and explain to the others what true reality was like. Let us consider the perspective of three individuals: - The one who broke free and saw the outside world for himself - The one who has never broken free but has listened to the one who broke free and has an intellectual understanding of what the one who broke free was talking about - The one who has never heard the story from the one who broke free The one who has never heard the story is like the one who has never heard the Dhamma. They are like a person who was born and raised in a movie theatre and take the film as real. When the actor in the film dies, they are upset because they believe the film to be real. The one who has heard the story and accepts it as true from an intellectual perspective is like us; we accept the Dhamma but have never experienced Nibbana. When we visit the movie theatre, we know intellectually that what we are looking at is not real, yet we still get upset when the hero dies. Because of our intellectual understanding, the level of our emotion may not be as deep as the one who has never heard the Dhamma, but our own experience shows us how willing we are to suspend our intellectual understanding and accept for real something that is not real. The one who broke free and saw the outside world for himself is an enlightened being (Buddha or Arahant). They view the world as being like a series of movie frames being presented. They see each frame as impermanent, soon to be replaced by a slightly different frame (even faster than 24 frames per second). With this insight into impermanence, there is no support for emotions. Perhaps we can extend this metaphor even further to liken a Sotapanna to one who has had a quick glance at the world outside the cave. They are still subject to defilements as the quick glance was not long enough to uproot lifetimes of accumulated views. Nevertheless, after a quick glance, they are on their way to completely breaking free from their chains. Clearly Plato's cave has some Dhamma in it. Here is an interesting possibility. I believe that it mentions in the commentary that the Buddha used his supernormal powers to visit other countries and preach the Dhamma. I have heard that Lao Tze (founder of Taoism and a contemporary of the Buddha) said that he studied with a "golden skinned foreigner". I have been told that early Taoism has some distinctive Buddhist features. The Buddha lived in India just before the time of Socrates and Plato in Greece. Perhaps the story of Plato's cave can be traced back to a visit by the Buddha to Greece. One a similar vein, I was recently passed a fascinating book that builds a strong case that Jesus visited Tibet in his youth and studied Buddhism. I am digressing... getting back to the purpose of this post, I hope that this post dispels the rumour that visible object is a dot of light :-) Let's hear no more of this :-) Metta, Rob M :-) 32658 From: Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 4:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi Rob M. Just jumping in here. I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "dot of light." It sounds like you might be referring to a photon? If this is the case, then I totally disagree with that conclusion. The actual objects of vision are photons (photon energy.) Without that, no vision. TG 32659 From: Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 5:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi, TG - In a message dated 4/30/04 11:05:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > Hi Rob M. > > Just jumping in here. I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "dot of light." > > It sounds like you might be referring to a photon? If this is the case, > then > I totally disagree with that conclusion. The actual objects of vision are > photons (photon energy.) Without that, no vision. > > TG > ========================= Seeing is a kind of awareness, a visual experience, and the object of that is not a photon but a sight. A photon is an element of a biophysical, predictive, conceptual system/theory. 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) 32660 From: m. nease Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 9:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi Rob, I think what you're saying here is that the entire field of vision arises simutaneously--so, a 'frame' vs a 'pixel'. ----- Original Message ----- From: "robmoult" To: Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 6:37 PM Subject: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! > Each frame is seen as a > visible object and the mind merges them together into a continuous > stream. On what grounds do you hold that entire sequential 'frames' are merged rather than sequential 'pixels'? > Anicca (impermanence) is concealed by continuity. A series of mental > states arise to experience an object. Each mental state arises to > perform a certain function and disappears conditioning the next > mental state to arise and continue the task. Just as in the movie > theatre, we take this stream as continuous and having permanence. The > Vipallasa Sutta (AN IV.49) touches on this point. Sure...still begs the question, I think. > Let's go back to Plato's cave. The occupants of Plato's cave were > chained in such a way that they could only look toward one wall of > the cave. There was a bright light behind them so that they cast > shadows on the visible wall. The occupants of the cave were born, > lived and died looking at the shadows. Plato talked about one of the > occupants breaking free from the chains, making his way outside the > cave and then returning to try and explain to the others what true > reality was like. I'm familiar with this and think it is very far removed from Buddhadhamma. > Let us consider the perspective of three individuals: > - The one who broke free and saw the outside world for himself > - The one who has never broken free but has listened to the one who > broke free and has an intellectual understanding of what the one who > broke free was talking about > - The one who has never heard the story from the one who broke free > > The one who has never heard the story is like the one who has never > heard the Dhamma. They are like a person who was born and raised in a > movie theatre and take the film as real. When the actor in the film > dies, they are upset because they believe the film to be real. > > The one who has heard the story and accepts it as true from an > intellectual perspective is like us; we accept the Dhamma but have > never experienced Nibbana. When we visit the movie theatre, we know > intellectually that what we are looking at is not real, yet we still > get upset when the hero dies. Because of our intellectual > understanding, the level of our emotion may not be as deep as the one > who has never heard the Dhamma, but our own experience shows us how > willing we are to suspend our intellectual understanding and accept > for real something that is not real. > > The one who broke free and saw the outside world for himself is an > enlightened being (Buddha or Arahant). They view the world as being > like a series of movie frames being presented. They see each frame as > impermanent, soon to be replaced by a slightly different frame (even > faster than 24 frames per second). With this insight into > impermanence, there is no support for emotions. I think the entire field of vision is already a concept (that is, already post hoc and constructed of many moments of visual consciouness)--and that insight into it is conceptual and not liberating. > Perhaps we can extend this metaphor even further to liken a Sotapanna > to one who has had a quick glance at the world outside the cave. They > are still subject to defilements as the quick glance was not long > enough to uproot lifetimes of accumulated views. Nevertheless, after > a quick glance, they are on their way to completely breaking free > from their chains. If I'm right, the sotapanna has to have experienced insight into a paramattha dhamma, and not a concept (or 'frame'). > Clearly Plato's cave has some Dhamma in it. Not clearly at all, to me... > Here is an interesting > possibility. I believe that it mentions in the commentary that the > Buddha used his supernormal powers to visit other countries and > preach the Dhamma. I have heard that Lao Tze (founder of Taoism and a > contemporary of the Buddha) said that he studied with a "golden > skinned foreigner". I have been told that early Taoism has some > distinctive Buddhist features. The Buddha lived in India just before > the time of Socrates and Plato in Greece. Perhaps the story of > Plato's cave can be traced back to a visit by the Buddha to Greece. > One a similar vein, I was recently passed a fascinating book that > builds a strong case that Jesus visited Tibet in his youth and > studied Buddhism. This is all very consistent with theosophism and lots of 'new age' religion, but not with Buddhdhamma, I think--just my opinion, of course. > I am digressing... getting back to the purpose of this post, I hope > that this post dispels the rumour that visible object is a dot of > light :-) Let's hear no more of this :-) My apologies for disregarding your closing request! Of course, you know a great deal more abhidhamma than I do, so it's entirely possible you're right and I'm wrong. Don't think so, though, of course... Best Wishes, Rob, mike 32661 From: Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 5:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! In a message dated 4/30/2004 9:12:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: Seeing is a kind of awareness, a visual experience, and the object of that is not a photon but a sight. A photon is an element of a biophysical, predictive, conceptual system/theory. With metta, Howard Hi Howard Could you be more specific by what you mean by "sight?" (Keep in mind the topic here is "visible object.") I can only infer when you say "sight" that you are taking about a "view" of something "out there." Regarding your first two statements that -- (Seeing is a kind of awareness, a visual experience) I would regard that as indisputable. A photon is theoretical, but the fact that light energy needs to contact the eye in order to see is not. In the mean time let me be more clear... Whatever we experience through the senses is always an energy that has made contact with one of the sense bases and the corresponding consciousness. We don't actually see a car. We see light (photons, electro-magnetic energy,) reflecting off a car. The car is interpreted (from the contact of light) and as such is a perception and mental interpretation based on the way the light hits the eye (and based on previous conditioning/education.) There are a lot of "sights" "out there." We do not see them unless the energy of light contacts the eye/mind. The topic here is "visible object" and visible object is indeed light. (And that's no rumour.) ;-) TG 32662 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Apr 30, 2004 11:01pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Friend Sarah, Sarah: James, we agree that the only `true release' or escape from samsara is the realisation of nibbana by the supramundane consciousness when defilements are eradicated. However, the path has to be developed and this can only be by way of gradually knowing present namas and rupas as anatta, i.e knowing material forms, feelings, perceptions, formations and consciousness for what they are - conditioned dhammas or elements. I agree with you that the idea of self is only finally eradicated at the first stage of enlightenment, but the insight can only ever begin to develop at the present moment. James: Okay, great, we agree here!! (BTW, I took a somewhat radical position in this post for a purpose: to pin you down to what is important. If I mention that knowing namas and rupas is somewhat important, but nibbana is more important, you will only focus on the first part, blow it completely out of proportion, and then my meaning would be lost. You have done this before! ;-)) To summarize, so that we are both on the same page: The goal of Buddhism is enlightenment, not knowing namas and rupas. Simply understanding namas from rupas in everyday life is still mundane knowledge. Knowing namas and rupas as anatta won't occur until enlightenment, which is of a supramundane consciousness. Additionally, this supramundane consciousness won't occur until the defilements are eradicated. Am I the only one to see the necessity for meditation practice to achieve this goal? (Don't answer that…I already know your answer! ;-)) One must purify the mind and this cannot be done (`that well'…I hate to give you even an inch! ;-)) in this midst of defilements. It would be like trying to dry your clothes in a rainstorm, it just can't be done. It is incorrect to say that meditation practice should not be practiced because of the idea of self because even the knowing of namas and rupas in the present moment has the idea of self present! Your approach reminds me of the Zen story of the master who wanted to teach his disciple how his approach to Buddhism was incorrect. The disciple came across his master looking around the floor inside his hut. The disciple asked his master what he was looking for and the master replied that he was looking for his keys. They both searched around the room, high and low, but couldn't find them. The disciple then asked the master if he was sure he had lost them in the hut, and the master replied, "No, actually, I lost them outside. But the light is better in here." The disciple was shocked and told his master that they should look for the keys outside, in the dark, where they had really been lost. The master replied, "Then why do you search for nibbana only where there is light and not where it has been lost?" The disciple then became enlightened. Metta, James 32663 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 1, 2004 3:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > Just jumping in here. I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "dot of light." > It sounds like you might be referring to a photon? If this is the case, then > I totally disagree with that conclusion. The actual objects of vision are > photons (photon energy.) Without that, no vision. I was refering to a pixel, not a photon. According to the commentary, the following are the necessary conditions for sense consciousness to arise: - Eye sensitivity (eye has to work, not blind) - Visible object - Light - Attention In other words, photons (light) are necessary for eye consciousness, but they are different from visible object. Metta, Rob M :-) 32664 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 1, 2004 3:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi Mike, Long time no chat! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > I think what you're saying here is that the entire field of vision arises > simutaneously--so, a 'frame' vs a 'pixel'. ===== Yup! ===== > > On what grounds do you hold that entire sequential 'frames' are merged > rather than sequential 'pixels'? > ===== Imagine that the eye were opened for one billionth of a second. The signal to the brain would be an entire image (a frame). This is unlike a TV screen or computer monitor that builds up an image pixel by pixel. The brain would receive an entire image. ===== > > > Let's go back to Plato's cave. > > I'm familiar with this and think it is very far removed from Buddhadhamma. ===== The way that Plato took the analogy is different from the way that I took the analogy. ===== > > I think the entire field of vision is already a concept (that is, already > post hoc and constructed of many moments of visual consciouness)-- and that > insight into it is conceptual and not liberating. > ===== Could you expand on this? I'm not clear on your meaning. ===== > > > Perhaps we can extend this metaphor even further to liken a Sotapanna > > to one who has had a quick glance at the world outside the cave. They > > are still subject to defilements as the quick glance was not long > > enough to uproot lifetimes of accumulated views. Nevertheless, after > > a quick glance, they are on their way to completely breaking free > > from their chains. > > If I'm right, the sotapanna has to have experienced insight into a > paramattha dhamma, and not a concept (or 'frame'). > ===== What defines a Sotapanna is that attainment of the magga (path) citta. This citta has nibbana as object. As a result of this attainment, certain defilements are uprooted. ===== > > > Clearly Plato's cave has some Dhamma in it. > > Not clearly at all, to me... ===== You may be right if we are talking about "Plato's cave", but if we are talking about "Rob's cave" (same cave analogy, different interpretation) then there is some Dhamma in there :-) > > > Here is an interesting ... > > This is all very consistent with theosophism and lots of 'new age' religion, > but not with Buddhdhamma, I think--just my opinion, of course. No argument... and since this is DHAMMA study group (not THEOSOPHISM study group), I won't pursue this further. Metta, Rob M :-) 32665 From: Date: Sat May 1, 2004 2:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi, TG - In a message dated 5/1/04 12:54:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > In a message dated 4/30/2004 9:12:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, > upasaka@a... writes: > Seeing is a kind of awareness, a visual experience, and the object of > that is not a photon but a sight. A photon is an element of a biophysical, > predictive, conceptual system/theory. > > With metta, > Howard > Hi Howard > > Could you be more specific by what you mean by "sight?" (Keep in mind the > topic here is "visible object.") I can only infer when you say "sight" that > you > are taking about a "view" of something "out there." Regarding your first > two > statements that -- (Seeing is a kind of awareness, a visual experience) I > would regard that as indisputable. A photon is theoretical, but the fact > that > light energy needs to contact the eye in order to see is not. In the mean > time > let me be more clear... > > Whatever we experience through the senses is always an energy that has made > contact with one of the sense bases and the corresponding consciousness. We > > don't actually see a car. We see light (photons, electro-magnetic energy,) > reflecting off a car. The car is interpreted (from the contact of light) > and as > such is a perception and mental interpretation based on the way the light > hits > the eye (and based on previous conditioning/education.) > > There are a lot of "sights" "out there." We do not see them unless the > energy of light contacts the eye/mind. The topic here is "visible object" > and > visible object is indeed light. (And that's no rumour.) ;-) > > TG > ============================ The world of the physicists may or may not be a reality. Within the biophysical theory of sight, there is posited the existence of wave-particle events called "photons" occurring in an "exterior world" that impact the retina of the eye (the eye being another presumed reality, but referred to by some Buddhists as a "conventional object" and by some as "pa~n~natti", and by some Mahayanists as "mind-only"), producing nerve impulses that travel to the brain, and the brain responding by producing (excreting? ;-) "consciousness of visual object". This is a story to account for, interpret, and predict certain phenomena. It is just a story. It may well be a true one - we don't know. It is certainly useful. Phenomenologically, however - that is, in terms of direct experience, whether or not there is an external world independent of experience, and whether or not photons are part of it, seeing is not the experience of photons, it is the experience of visual objects, and phenomenologically, sights are not "out there" (nor are they "in here") - they just "are", or better, they just "occur". A photon is not the object of sight but of thought. This is the distinction that I make. It is my perspective alone - I'm not a dealer or pusher. ;-)) With phenomenal 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) 32666 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat May 1, 2004 6:23am Subject: Re: The Practical View of Anatta Hi Andrew, The not-self teaching is not about the denial or affirmation of the existence of a permanent self. To assume, conjure up the idea that self as some sort of permanent self or something, is a misunderstanding. With the assumption of what self is, question about whether self exists or not comes into play, and both assertions "self exists" and "self does not exist" are based on that assumption. The Buddha taught that form is not self. What does it mean by form is not self? Form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Seeing thus is insight into the conditioned. Assuming what self is is not. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > Hello everyone and especially Victor > In his book, "An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, history and > practices" (Cambridge Uni Press, 11th reprint 2002), Prof Peter > Harvey writes that "the not-self teaching is not in *itself* a denial > of the existence of a permanent self; it is primarily a practical > teaching aimed at the overcoming of attachment." I'm sure Victor > will agree with this. Harvey goes on to explain that the practical > exercise of examining phenomena and seeing that none of them can be > taken as a permanent self results in the idea of self withering > away "as it is seen that no actual instance of such a thing can be > found anywhere." > I would have thought that if no instance of something can be found > anywhere, we are to conclude that it doesn't exist. If we don't > embrace that conclusion, are we not reinforcing self-view in a subtle > way? > It seems that there WERE early Buddhists who believed in the > existence of a self: the Puggalavadins or "Personalists". They > argued that the self was as real as the khandhas. In the 7th century > AD, a quarter of all Buddhist monks were Puggalavadins. All the > other schools argued they were wrong. > Surely there is a fine line between refusing to state "there is no > self" and being a Puggalavadin? Victor in particular seems to walk > that line quite confidently. I'm not sure I can keep up with him, > though. Am I missing something important? Does anyone have any > thoughts on how one can refuse to deny "self" and not be a believer > in self like the Puggalavadins? > Best wishes > Andrew 32667 From: Date: Sat May 1, 2004 6:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Do or not do something Lodewijk said: without the Abhidhamma Vipassana makes no sense. Yes, the two go together. Nina, Jack: >>I don't know who Lodewijk is or whether you attributed the quote above to him to give it the weight of authority, but I think Lodewijk is overstating it. Yes, the Abhidhamma can be useful. But, millions of people through the centuries have gotten value out of vipassana teachings and practices and made sense of it without any knowledge of the Abhidhamma.<< I want to be clear on this. I am not degrading the beliefs of anyone else. There are many useful and valid paths in Buddhism. Abbidhamma, in my opinion, is useful and valid. I don't question that the interpretation of Abhidhamma of some on this list (which I don't consider a mainstream Abhidhamma view) is a valid and useful path to them. jack 32668 From: m. nease Date: Sat May 1, 2004 10:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi Rob, ----- Original Message ----- From: "robmoult" To: Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 3:45 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! > Hi Mike, > > Long time no chat! Yes, nice to be in touch again... > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" > wrote: > > I think what you're saying here is that the entire field of vision > arises > > simutaneously--so, a 'frame' vs a 'pixel'. > > ===== > > Yup! > > ===== > > > > On what grounds do you hold that entire sequential 'frames' are > merged > > rather than sequential 'pixels'? > > > ===== > > Imagine that the eye were opened for one billionth of a second. The > signal to the brain would be an entire image (a frame). This is > unlike a TV screen or computer monitor that builds up an image pixel > by pixel. The brain would receive an entire image. I still don't think so--I think it just seems so because of the brevity of cittakha.na. In fact, I think that most of the time, minute bits of the visual field are succeeded by equally minute bits of the other sense fields, rapidly assembled after the fact as a seemingly 'holographic' mirage of sight, sound, touch and so on. Obviously I can't support this from the Abhidhamma (or from the suttas, for that matter), but it is more consistent with my (obviously limited) understanding than the 'frame-by-frame' model, superior though that is to the idea of a lasting, sensible phenomenon. > > ===== > > > > > Let's go back to Plato's cave. > > > > I'm familiar with this and think it is very far removed from > Buddhadhamma. > > ===== > > The way that Plato took the analogy is different from the way that I > took the analogy. > > ===== I think I'll leave the cave alone--to me this is wonderful philosophy but not Buddhadhamma, but I know so little of philosophy that I could, of course, be mistaken. > > > > I think the entire field of vision is already a concept (that is, > already > > post hoc and constructed of many moments of visual consciouness)-- > and that > > insight into it is conceptual and not liberating. > > > ===== > > Could you expand on this? I'm not clear on your meaning. > > ===== Does the above clarify this? > > > > > Perhaps we can extend this metaphor even further to liken a > Sotapanna > > > to one who has had a quick glance at the world outside the cave. > They > > > are still subject to defilements as the quick glance was not long > > > enough to uproot lifetimes of accumulated views. Nevertheless, > after > > > a quick glance, they are on their way to completely breaking free > > > from their chains. > > > > If I'm right, the sotapanna has to have experienced insight into a > > paramattha dhamma, and not a concept (or 'frame'). > > > ===== > > What defines a Sotapanna is that attainment of the magga (path) > citta. This citta has nibbana as object. As a result of this > attainment, certain defilements are uprooted. > > ===== Right--and nibbaana is paramattha, isn't it? > > > > > Clearly Plato's cave has some Dhamma in it. > > > > Not clearly at all, to me... > > ===== > > You may be right if we are talking about "Plato's cave", but if we > are talking about "Rob's cave" (same cave analogy, different > interpretation) then there is some Dhamma in there :-) You're probably right--you did say your take was different from Plato's, I think. > > > > > Here is an interesting ... > > > > This is all very consistent with theosophism and lots of 'new age' > religion, > > but not with Buddhdhamma, I think--just my opinion, of course. > > No argument... and since this is DHAMMA study group (not THEOSOPHISM > study group), I won't pursue this further. Thanks, Rob--nice chatting with you, as always. mike 32669 From: m. nease Date: Sat May 1, 2004 11:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi Rob, p.s. Have you ever noticed that one part of your field of vision may seem to be accompanied by pleasant feeling, another by unpleasant feeling and another by neutral feeling? And, of course, other feelings attending other sense-impressions seemingly simultaneously...of course, all these could, I suppose, be complete sense fields arising and subsiding whole, each with its own attendant feeling etc. Just doesn't seem so to me. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "robmoult" To: Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 3:45 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! 32670 From: Date: Sat May 1, 2004 8:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi, Mike (and Rob) - In a message dated 5/1/04 2:53:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mlnease@z... writes: > > Hi Rob, > > p.s. Have you ever noticed that one part of your field of vision may seem > to be accompanied by pleasant feeling, another by unpleasant feeling and > another by neutral feeling? And, of course, other feelings attending other > sense-impressions seemingly simultaneously...of course, all these could, I > suppose, be complete sense fields arising and subsiding whole, each with its > own attendant feeling etc. Just doesn't seem so to me. > > mike > ========================== What I suspect is the case is that the differing feelings are in response to differing experiences. Specifically, it seems to me that a sight is followed up by repetitions involving sa~n~nic carvings-out of patterns from within that visual object producing a variety of mind-door objects with differing vedanic tastes. Without well developed concentration, mindfulness, and clarity of comprehension, most of this detail is missed, and there is the false seeming of simultaneity. 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) 32671 From: Date: Sat May 1, 2004 10:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! In a message dated 5/1/2004 3:35:22 AM Pacific Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: I was refering to a pixel, not a photon. According to the commentary, the following are the necessary conditions for sense consciousness to arise: - Eye sensitivity (eye has to work, not blind) - Visible object - Light - Attention In other words, photons (light) are necessary for eye consciousness, but they are different from visible object. Metta, Rob M :-) Hi Rob Understand what you mean. That makes sense and I can basically agree with it. However, I will maintain that light is still technically the visible object. I think the commentary is a little wrong. The forms that light bounces off and become perceivable thereby, would be analogous to a mountain side that reflects sounds as an echo. I'm not sure anyone would claim that a mountain side is an "audible object." (To some extent both forms would be supporting factors.) The sun is primarily the "visible object" that we experience. Even fires we may burn or light bulbs we might electrify are derivitives that were primarily fueled by the electro-magnetic energy of the sun. I.E., it took solar energy to grow the trees, to elevate water whereby dams and generators could produce electricity, to support the dinosaurs that who's oil we now convert into energy, etc. When a light bulb is "burning," the visible object is the light emmiting from the filiment. The walls, chairs, tables, etc. are not "themselves" visible. They only echo light into shapes/colors whereby we interpret what those shapes and colors mean. TG 32672 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 1, 2004 3:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi Mike, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > > > > Imagine that the eye were opened for one billionth of a second. The > > signal to the brain would be an entire image (a frame). This is > > unlike a TV screen or computer monitor that builds up an image pixel > > by pixel. The brain would receive an entire image. > > I still don't think so--I think it just seems so because of the brevity of > cittakha.na. In fact, I think that most of the time, minute bits of the > visual field are succeeded by equally minute bits of the other sense fields, > rapidly assembled after the fact as a seemingly 'holographic' mirage of > sight, sound, touch and so on. Obviously I can't support this from the > Abhidhamma (or from the suttas, for that matter), but it is more consistent > with my (obviously limited) understanding than the 'frame-by-frame' model, > superior though that is to the idea of a lasting, sensible phenomenon. > ===== I think that we agree that each eye-door citta process brings in a minute piece of visual data. But what is the nature of this minute piece of visual data? The texts refer to it as "that which presents itself at the eye door". So now the questions arises, "is the eye door the entire field of vision (frame model) or is the eye door a small fraction of the field of vision which is later assembled (by some other underlying process) into an entire field of vision (pixel model)"? My understanding of modern science is that there are distinct rods and cones in the retina, but brain recieves the signals from all these nerves together as a block (one frame, not a pixel). The analysis of the frame into portions comes later (a mental process). In the same vein, when we taste sweet and sour soup, the part of the tongue that "tastes" sweet is separate from the part of the tongue that tastes "sour", but the brain recieves the signals from these two parts of the tongue together. The analysis of the taste into sweet and sour comes later (a mental process). Similarly, the "heat sensing nerves" are distinct from the "cold sensing nerves" in the body, but the brain recieves the signals from both sets of nerves together. Metta, Rob M :-) 32673 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 1, 2004 3:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi Mike, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > p.s. Have you ever noticed that one part of your field of vision may seem > to be accompanied by pleasant feeling, another by unpleasant feeling and > another by neutral feeling? And, of course, other feelings attending other > sense-impressions seemingly simultaneously...of course, all these could, I > suppose, be complete sense fields arising and subsiding whole, each with its > own attendant feeling etc. Just doesn't seem so to me. I see the analysis of the field of vision into segments and reaction to those segments as subsequent mental processes to the eye door process. Metta, Rob M :-) 32674 From: robmoult Date: Sat May 1, 2004 3:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > In a message dated 5/1/2004 3:35:22 AM Pacific Standard Time, > rob.moult@j... writes: > I was refering to a pixel, not a photon. > > According to the commentary, the following are the necessary > conditions for sense consciousness to arise: > - Eye sensitivity (eye has to work, not blind) > - Visible object > - Light > - Attention > > In other words, photons (light) are necessary for eye consciousness, > but they are different from visible object. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > Hi Rob > > Understand what you mean. That makes sense and I can basically agree with > it. However, I will maintain that light is still technically the visible > object. I think the commentary is a little wrong. > > The forms that light bounces off and become perceivable thereby, would be > analogous to a mountain side that reflects sounds as an echo. I'm not sure > anyone would claim that a mountain side is an "audible object." (To some extent > both forms would be supporting factors.) > > The sun is primarily the "visible object" that we experience. Even fires we > may burn or light bulbs we might electrify are derivitives that were primarily > fueled by the electro-magnetic energy of the sun. I.E., it took solar energy > to grow the trees, to elevate water whereby dams and generators could produce > electricity, to support the dinosaurs that who's oil we now convert into > energy, etc. > > When a light bulb is "burning," the visible object is the light emmiting from > the filiment. The walls, chairs, tables, etc. are not "themselves" visible. > They only echo light into shapes/colors whereby we interpret what those > shapes and colors mean. Everything arises because of multiple conditions. We can say that the conditions that contributed to the arising of the tree include (among others): - sun - rain - soil - seed Imagine that there are three trees grouped together; an oak, a maple and a pine. Though all three trees had the same conditions of sun, rain and soil, it is the seed that makes each tree unique. For eye consciousness to arise, the following conditions are required: - Eye sensitivity (eye has to work, not blind) - Visible object - Light - Attention I see the condition of "light" as a "common conditioning factor" (like sun, rain and soil) and I see "visible object" as a "specific conditioning factor" (like the seed). Metta, Rob M :-) 32675 From: gazita2002 Date: Sat May 1, 2004 7:07pm Subject: wrong view Hello dsg-ers How obvious is dosa with its associated bad feelings? After returning home from a months' holiday which included spending time in BKK with A. Sujin and several other dsg members, I'm having lots of aversion about my job, others things including the computor!! How seductive is the thought that to stay in BKK where I can hear the true Dhamma each week, would be much better than being here. I would then be wiser and have more understanding!! We can have the idea that if we are in a more conducive place to hear and practise the true Dhamma then wisdom will grow more quickly. Instead, this may be wrong view and actually have the opposite effect and hinder the development of sati. Wisdom grows from detachment not from more attachment, and thinking that one place is better than another could be attachment not wisdom. No amount of trying, wishing, hoping for sati will make it arise. Sati must arise naturally, by conditions. Association with good friends - by conditions. Hearing the true Dhamma - by conditions Considering - by conditions Practise in accordance with the true Dhamma - by conditions. Better that I see the aversion for what it is, a reality which can be known as not me, not myself, not mine, that it is anicca, dukkha [you bet] and anatta. May we all have patience, courage and good cheer Azita. 32676 From: Suravira Date: Sat May 1, 2004 7:59pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > 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. > Sarah - do not believe we have ever meet before, I believe that you are thinking of another friend of your's. The name Suravira is composed of two Pali words sura and vira (with an long i). It is my understanding that sura is a synonym for deva. Vira (with a long i not a short i (which would translate as intoxicated)) means brave and courageous. According to folklore/myth, Suravira enters into the hell realms and gives teachings on compassion and wisdom, thereby aiding the beings in those realms towards rebirth in more favorable realms. > 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 > ====== 32677 From: Suravira Date: Sat May 1, 2004 8:51pm Subject: Re: The Practical View of Anatta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > Hello everyone and especially Victor > In his book, "An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, history and > practices" (Cambridge Uni Press, 11th reprint 2002), Prof Peter > Harvey writes that "the not-self teaching is not in *itself* a denial > of the existence of a permanent self; it is primarily a practical > teaching aimed at the overcoming of attachment." I'm sure Victor [Suravira] The term anatta is, regretably, commonly interpreted to mean "not-self", or "no-self" or "non-self". This is a very regretable translation, as the term (and notion of) "self" is multifaceted within western cultures. A more preferable definition would be "false views of individuality." As regards Prof. Harvey's position that anatta is "... not a denial of the existence of a permanent self ...", this assertion is both incorrect and partially correct. It is incorrect in that the Buddha clearly negated the notion of a permanent self (and of any permanent phenomena) through his teachings on dependent origination. Prof. Harvey's assertion is partially correct only in the sense that the Buddha never negated the subjective, individual, experience of life - of reality. > will agree with this. Harvey goes on to explain that the practical > exercise of examining phenomena and seeing that none of them can be > taken as a permanent self results in the idea of self withering > away "as it is seen that no actual instance of such a thing can be > found anywhere." > I would have thought that if no instance of something can be found > anywhere, we are to conclude that it doesn't exist. If we don't [Suravira] Is this matter of engaging in exercises adequate proof that the "self" does not exist? Or, is it first necessary to present absolute proof that this "self" does in fact exist - in a manner that cannot be disputed by someone whose percieves things correctly? Why accept the challenge of negating the existance of something that has not been proven to exist? We all have this perceived experience of life - of being in time/space - correct? This is a universal state of all sensient beings. Nevertheless, is this notion of "self" merely an abstraction that we project onto the experience of life? Do we percieve something beyond this individual experience of life - do we percieve something ever so slightly more that this being in time/space? This perception of the experience of being in time/space exists - no more and no less than any other phenomena. In fact all known phenomena arise within this mode of experience. However, is there really anything even slightly more than this mode of existance - than this perception of the experience of being in time/space? Does it just appear that there is? Or, is it that within this experience of being there recurrently arises this need to believe that there is? And, is it this deeply ingrained need that imprints this notion of "self" onto this perception of the experience of being. > embrace that conclusion, are we not reinforcing self-view in a subtle > way? > It seems that there WERE early Buddhists who believed in the > existence of a self: the Puggalavadins or "Personalists". They > argued that the self was as real as the khandhas. In the 7th century > AD, a quarter of all Buddhist monks were Puggalavadins. All the > other schools argued they were wrong. > Surely there is a fine line between refusing to state "there is no > self" and being a Puggalavadin? Victor in particular seems to walk > that line quite confidently. I'm not sure I can keep up with him, > though. Am I missing something important? Does anyone have any > thoughts on how one can refuse to deny "self" and not be a believer > in self like the Puggalavadins? [Suravira] The main trap is sprung when translating anatta as "not- self". This erroneous trap can be avoided, as well as all ancilliary concerns/issue regarding this dharma (e.g., rebirth, etc.), by promoting the term "false views of individuality" To construct a negating term, such as "not-self" one has the responsiblity for first providing a bullet-proof definition for the term "self". It seems that too many people approach this dharma of anatta bass ackward. With metta, Suravira 32678 From: Date: Sat May 1, 2004 5:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! In a message dated 5/1/2004 3:25:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: Everything arises because of multiple conditions. We can say that the conditions that contributed to the arising of the tree include (among others): - sun - rain - soil - seed Hi Rob M. I agree and when you take this reasoning to its full conclusion, it can be said that everything in the universe is a supporting condition to some extent or another for everything experienced. The below (bottom) commentarial statement is interesting in that I don't remember a single sutta where the Buddha takes about 4 conditions for sense experience contact. Its always 3 conditions. In at least one sutta, the Buddha talks about "dyads" being responsible for the arising of sensory consciousness. The eye and visible object, the ear and audible object, etc., being the dyads expounded by the Buddha. (Connected Discourses of the Buddha, Pg. 1172) Its seems to me that those compiling the commentaries probably realized that there was an error of not incorporating "light" as a chief factor in visible consciousness. I suspect the error came earlier when it was perhaps assumed that "visible objects" were something other than light. (In the olden days, people more likely thought that vision "reached out" with some sort of "vision rays" to the object.) I believe some commentaries state that smells, tastes, and tangibles actually "touch" the sense bases, while visible objects and audible objects do not. This is total non-sense as far as I'm concerned. Sensory consciousness can only arises when sensory objects/energies contact the sense organs. In actuality, a chair in the distance cannot be seen; rather, it is revealed by light as the light reflects off of it. In terms of our everyday experiences this is probably a near meaningless distinction. In terms of understanding conditional relations this may be very important for some individuals. Commentarial Quote... For eye consciousness to arise, the following conditions are required: - Eye sensitivity (eye has to work, not blind) - Visible object - Light - Attention TG 32679 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat May 1, 2004 10:36pm Subject: Re: Understanding aggregates and annata (was Video Games) Friend Phil, Thank you for the lovely e-mail. I am glad that you feel comfortable enough with me, and with this group, to explore your feelings and thoughts out loud. That is a good thing and I encourage you to do it quite frequently. Okay, I will respond to a few of the items: Phil: Haven't "stream-enterers" and "once returners" had direct knowledge of annata? That's not a rhetorical question. I have no idea what goodies go with those stages of enlightenment. James: I don't think it is important to memorize these various stages and what is achieved in each. Without a practical context, like being a member of a Bhikkhu Sangha, this knowledge will only lead you to believe that you know something you don't. Instead, I would just focus on the first stage of Enlightenment, Stream Entry. I suggest you read this article for backgroud: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/stream.html Phil: As for your suggestion of sensual delights going on in the deva realms, I was a bit surprised but I will leave google research on that for another lifetime. James: Yea, that is a little bit shocking isn't it? Hehehe… This isn't one of those details about Buddhism which monks speak about too often, which is understandable. But I can give you two examples off the top of my head: 1. A monk died while practicing meditation too strenuously (from a `wind disorder') and he was spontaneously reborn in a deva realm. He didn't know that he had been reborn however because he had been so engrossed in meditation. He came to visit the Buddha, as a deva, and he asked him why it was that he was in hell. He assumed that he was in hell because hundreds of female devas kept trying to seduce him to have sex and he wasn't interested! LOL! 2. The Buddha's brother became a monk but subsequently wanted to disrobe because he was too attracted to sensual desires…he was a real ladies man! ;-)). The Buddha, being clever, transported him to a deva realm to show him that there were thousands of female devas ready and willing to have sex and the Buddha told his brother that if he stayed a monk and practiced he would be reborn there. This inspired the Buddha's brother to practice diligently until he became enlightened and subsequently lost all interest in sex. Phil: I'm having enough trouble not checking out that bikini link these days. ;) James: LOL! I also suffer strongly from sensual desire (though bikinis don't do it for me!...if you know what I mean ;-)). Actually, this may surprise you to know, but right now my goal in this lifetime isn't to become enlightened. I used to have the goal to become enlightened, and even went to Thailand to become a monk to achieve this goal, but realized that I was not going to be able to find the right company of `admirable friends' to achieve enlightenment (BTW, I was severely depressed after this realization). My goal now is to be reborn in a deva realm until the next Buddha arrives, hopefully become on of his disciples, and then become enlightened. Nowadays I practice the Brahma-Viharas to attain the first levels of jhana. (But I am not suggesting that you follow suit. You may be able to become enlightened in this lifetime. It is all dependent on conditions.) Metta, James 32680 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 2, 2004 1:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pannatti (Concept) Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > What is your reading of the sutta pitaka regarding whether in-&-out > breaths are bodily fabrications or not? > > Metta, > Victor I think you're referring to the comment in my last post? What I meant there was that my reading of the tipitaka is that there is no actual dhamma called 'breath', but that what we take for breath is mostly the dhammas of hardness/softness and heat/cold and motion/pressure experienced through the body-door (in terms of the five aggregates, these are dhammas of the rupa aggregate). Now in some suttas, such as the Satipatthana Sutta, where 'body' and aspects of the body (including 'breath' ) are mentioned, these are to be understood as referring to all rupas. So in the case of the particular sutta you mention, I would need to check the commentary before coming to a view regarding the intended meaning of the reference to breathing as bodily fabrications. Jon > --- 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 32681 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 2, 2004 1:46am Subject: Listening, considering etc (was, Pannatti (Concept)) James --- buddhatrue wrote: > Friend Jon, > > 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). Both the issues you mention are important ones, and they are related. Of course I would agree that the Buddha taught about the development of serenity (samatha bhavana), including its aspects of jhana and the Brahma-Viharas. But this form of kusala is known outside the teachings of a Buddha, whereas the truth about the presently arising dhammas is found only in the teachings of a Buddha. There is frequent mention in the suttas of the importance to the development of insight (vipassana bhavana) of listening to the teaching about dhammas, considering what one has heard, and reflecting on how it relates to the presently arising dhamma. The reason for this is I think that without the correct intellectual backing, there can be no development at a deeper level, and worse still, any 'practice' is bound to be wrong. To my understanding these same conditions of listening and reflecting also support the development of all the other kinds of kusala, not just satipatthana. Hope this clarifies my references to listening, considering and reflecting. Jon 32682 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 2, 2004 2:08am Subject: More on Anapanasati Sutta James --- buddhatrue wrote: > 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? Well, I'd like to suggest it describes someone in whom both samatha bhavana (with breath as object) and mindfulness are already well developed, rather than being a beginner's guide. This may not be the impression you get on first reading the sutta, but then first impressions can be misleading (preconceptions are inevitable ;-)). > 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. It depends what you mean when you say the sutta *calls for* focusing on one object for an extended period. It certainly describes a person who is developing samatha with breath as object, in fact I would say it presupposes that, and as such it has no direct application to someone who is not doing that. But I think our main difference is that I don't see it as being a beginner's guide, nor do I see anything there saying that this particular combination of development of samatha and vipassana is being generally recommended for followers. > 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! This is a fair comment but I think it's also fair to say that the teaching contained in the suttas, although precise and detailed, is often cryptic. The Anapanasati Sutta is a good example of this; it cannot be understood without a lot of detailed study and elucidation from other sources. As I understand it, "mindfulness of breathing" was the term already in use at the time of the Buddha's enlightenment to describe the practice that in his teachings is classified under samatha bhavana (development of serenity), and which I will refer to as 'samatha with breath as object', to distinguish it from the insight aspect of the sutta. What the Anapanasati Sutta shows, in my view, is not how samatha with breath as object can be developed (since that was already widely known and practised), but rather how there can also be the development of insight (vipassana bhavana) at the same time, even while the jhanas are being developed or experienced, despite the fact that moments of mundane jhana and moments of insight cannot coincide. Now although this development of insight is included under the rubric of mindfulness of breathing, the object of the insight is not breath, but is any presently arising dhamma . This is made clear in the commentary, as I previously explained in a post to Jack and which I restate below. (My apologies for the length of the passage, but for reasons I gave at the beginning I think it's necessary to go into things in some detail to unlock the embedded meaning of the sutta. At least it's Pali-free ;-)). Apologies also for any overlap/repetition.) So "mindfulness of breathing" as an aspect of insight development refers to the development of insight by a person who is developing samatha with breath as object. Jon <<<<<<<<<<< [From the Sutta -- 4th tetrad, followed by relevant passage regarding frames of reference being brought to completion. Ven Nyanitoloka trans:] (xiii) He trains thus 'I shall breathe in contemplating impermanence'; he trains thus 'I shall breathe out contemplating impermanence'. (xiv) He trains thus 'I shall breathe in contemplating fading away'; he trains thus 'I shall breathe out contemplating fading away'. (xv) He trains thus 'I shall breathe in contemplating cessation'; he trains thus 'I shall breathe out contemplating cessation'. (xvi) He trains thus 'I shall breathe in contemplating relinquishment'; he trains thus 'I shall breathe out contemplating relinquishment'... On that occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu abides contemplating mental objects in mental objects, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having put away covetousness and grief with regard to the world. Having seen with understanding what is the abandoning of covetousness and grief, he becomes one who looks on with complete equanimity. That is why on that occasion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu abides contemplating mental objects in mental objects, ardent, clearly comprehending, mindful, having put away covetousness and grief with regard to the world. That is how respiration-mindfulness, developed and repeatedly practised, perfects the four foundations of mindfulness. Visuddhimagga (VIII, 234), which contains the detailed word commentary on the fourth tetrad, elaborates in the meaning of the expression 'contemplating impermanence' contained in the sutta passage "He trains thus 'I shall breathe in contemplating impermanence'". It explains that a proper understanding of that passage requires an understanding of 4 terms, namely (a) 'the impermanent', (b) 'impermanence', (c) 'the contemplation of impermanence' and (d) 'one contemplating impermanence'. As to these 4 terms, it says: (a) Herein, the five aggregates are 'the impermanent', because their essence is rise and fall and change.' (b) 'Impermanence' is the rise and fall and change in those same aggregates, or it is their non-existence after having been; the meaning is, it is the break-up of produced khandhas through their momentary dissolution since they do not remain in the same mode. (c) 'Contemplation of impermanence' is contemplation of materiality, etc., as 'impermanent' in virtue of that impermanence. (d) 'One contemplating impermanence' possesses that contemplation. What is the significance of these explanations? Firstly, that contemplation of impermanence within the meaning of the tetrad is contemplation of the impermanence of *any of the five aggregates* (not just of the 'breath' rupas of the rupa aggregate only) -- see the explanations at (a) and (c) above. Secondly, that whenever such contemplation occurs, the person in question is to be regarded as 'one contemplating impermanence', i.e., emphasising the fact of the contemplation *occurring* rather than as something *being done* by the person -- see the explanations at (c) and (d) above. The Visuddhi-Magga passage word commentary then concludes by saying: <> This draws together all the foregoing explanation. My reading is as follows: When there occurs, in a person who is developing samatha with breath as object, contemplation of the impermanence of the five aggregates, then that person is said to be 'training himself' in the manner stated in the sutta. So while the tetrad is indeed all about insight (and insight only), it is to be understood as describing insight into the five aggregates in general, and not insight into 'breath' per se, nor even necessarily into those particular rupas of the rupa aggregate that are taken as breath. The significance of the breath here lies in the occasion on which the insight occurs (i.e., person developing samatha with breath as object), rather than in the actual object of insight. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> See also Nina's post at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/27840 32683 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 2, 2004 2:14am Subject: Anapanasati Sutta (again) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... Howard: In short - no. The sutta *does* say that anapanasati serves as a means of implementing the four foundations of mindfulness, but it certainly doesn't claim that it is unique in that respect. However, the Anapanasati Sutta does seem to be sort of a "companion piece" to the Satipatthana Sutta. Jon: I agree with this last observation. As I understand it, the Anapanasati Sutta elaborates on mindfulness of breathing as described in the Satipatthana Sutta. Howard: One thing that is pointed out in the Anapanasati Sutta, is that mindfulness of the breath does produce calming, which may well be due in part to the (commonly observed) lulling effect of the breath, a rhythmic process. And, at the same time, the breath is not a fixed image, but is an ever-changing process composed of rupas of varying character and with repeated arisings and ceasings, which makes it suitable for vipassana investigation, as opposed to the purely samatha-meditation subjects such as kasinas. Jon: Just a comment on your reference here to breath as an object of insight (vipassana). I think it's clear from the commentaries that, as vipassana bhavana, mindfulness of breathing means insight with any *dhamma* as object, and that includes dhammas other than just the rupas that are taken for breath. Only as samatha bhavana is 'breath' as such (in reality, the concept of breath) the object. As I understand it, the term 'mindfulness of breathing' is taken from the particular form of samatha bhavana/jhaana development of that name. (As we know, one of the favoured teaching methods of the Buddha was to take an existing term or practice an give it a new meaning, and I see this as a classic instance of that approach.) Howard; But, no, I don't think that mindfulness of the breath is unique in the features mentioned above nor due I think that anapanasati is, or is claimed to be, "the only way". Clearly, though, it is presented as a good way. Jon: Well I agree that mindfulness of breathing is presented in a positive light, and I have never suggested it should be regarded as otherwise. But if breath is not unique in any way, what is the main message of the sutta? If the sutta is to be read as recommending mindfulness of breathing as a preferred way of developing the path, we would expect to find some mention of the specific advantages of this way over any other way. If that kind of explanation isn't to be found in the sutta or commentary, it could mean that the message is other than we think it is. In Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary', the sutta and its commentary are summarised in this way: The first three [groups of four] apply to both tranquillity (samatha) and insight-meditation, while the fourth refers to pure insight practice only. Here is the fourth tetrad just mentioned ('pure insight pracitce only'): IV. (13) " 'Reflecting on impermanence (anicca) I will breathe in,' thus he trains himself; 'reflecting on impermanence I will breathe out,' thus he trains himself. (14) " 'Reflecting on detachment (virága) I will breathe in,' thus he trains himself; 'reflecting on detachment I will breathe out,' thus he trains himself. (15) " 'Reflecting on extinction (nirodha) I will breathe in,' thus he trains himself; 'reflecting on extinction I will breathe out,' thus he trains himself. (16) " 'Reflecting on abandonment (patinissagga) I will breathe in, thus he trains himself; 'reflecting on abandonment I will breathe out,' thus he trains himself." Thus, insight *while breathing* not, *of breath*. The object of the insight, as explained in the commentary passage previously quoted in the thread with Jack, and just restated in my post to James, is any dhamma of the five aggregates. So putting aside the particular context here, namely of a person developing samatha with breath as object, the insight development being described here comes down to the same as anywhere else in the suttas, namely, insight into the impermanence of presently arising dhammas. Jon 32684 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun May 2, 2004 5:41am Subject: Re: Understanding aggregates and annata (was Video Games) Dear James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: < snip > James: LOL! I also suffer strongly from sensual desire (though bikinis don't do it for me!...if you know what I mean ;-)). Actually, this may surprise you to know, but right now my goal in this lifetime isn't to become enlightened. I used to have the goal to become enlightened, and even went to Thailand to become a monk to achieve this goal, but realized that I was not going to be able to find the right company of `admirable friends' to achieve enlightenment (BTW, I was severely depressed after this realization). My goal now is to be reborn in a deva realm until the next Buddha arrives, hopefully become on of his disciples, and then become enlightened. Nowadays I practice the Brahma-Viharas to attain the first levels of jhana. (But I am not suggesting that you follow suit. You may be able to become enlightened in this lifetime. It is all dependent on conditions.) KKT: Your goal now is to be reborn in a deva realm? Ah, now I understand how the worship of Amitabha began. (ie. the new Buddhist religious movement beginning around 500 years after Buddha's Parinibbana and believing in the salvation of Buddha Amitabha by aspiring to be reborn in His Pure Land) All that began with someone who had a similar idea to yours. (just kidding :-)) Have a great day! KKT 32685 From: Date: Sun May 2, 2004 2:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati Sutta (again) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 5/2/04 5:14:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi, Jon - > ... > Howard: > In short - no. The sutta *does* say that anapanasati serves as > a means of implementing the four foundations of mindfulness, but it > certainly doesn't claim that it is unique in that respect. However, > the Anapanasati Sutta does seem to be sort of a "companion piece" to > the Satipatthana Sutta. > > Jon: > I agree with this last observation. As I understand it, the > Anapanasati Sutta elaborates on mindfulness of breathing as described > in the Satipatthana Sutta. > > Howard: > One thing that is pointed out in the Anapanasati Sutta, is > that mindfulness of the breath does produce calming, which may well > be due in part to the (commonly observed) lulling effect of the > breath, a rhythmic process. And, at the same time, the breath is not > a fixed image, but is an ever-changing process composed of rupas of > varying character and with repeated arisings and ceasings, which > makes it suitable for vipassana investigation, as opposed to the > purely samatha-meditation subjects such as kasinas. > > Jon: > Just a comment on your reference here to breath as an object of > insight (vipassana). I think it's clear from the commentaries that, > as vipassana bhavana, mindfulness of breathing means insight with any > *dhamma* as object, and that includes dhammas other than just the > rupas that are taken for breath. Only as samatha bhavana is 'breath' > as such (in reality, the concept of breath) the object. As I > understand it, the term 'mindfulness of breathing' is taken from the > particular form of samatha bhavana/jhaana development of that name. > (As we know, one of the favoured teaching methods of the Buddha was > to take an existing term or practice an give it a new meaning, and I > see this as a classic instance of that approach.) ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Clearly much is involved in this meditative procedure besides attending to rupas underlying the breath - the entire range of satipatthana is involved. I will say a drop more about this at the end. ----------------------------------------------- > > Howard; > But, no, I don't think that mindfulness of the breath is > unique in the features mentioned above nor due I think that > anapanasati is, or is claimed to be, "the only way". Clearly, though, > it is presented as a good way. > > Jon: > Well I agree that mindfulness of breathing is presented in a positive > light, and I have never suggested it should be regarded as otherwise. > But if breath is not unique in any way, what is the main message of > the sutta? If the sutta is to be read as recommending mindfulness of > breathing as a preferred way of developing the path, we would expect > to find some mention of the specific advantages of this way over any > other way. If that kind of explanation isn't to be found in the > sutta or commentary, it could mean that the message is other than we > think it is. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I wouldn't take it upon myself to judge the Buddha or his explanations. He does include the following in this sutta: "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. The four frames of reference, when developed & pursued, bring the seven factors for Awakening to their culmination. The seven factors for Awakening, when developed & pursued, bring clear knowing & release to their culmination." Oh, and the words "when developed AND PURSUED" [emphasis mine] suggests to me prescription and not just description. ----------------------------------------------------- > > In Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary', the sutta and its commentary > are summarised in this way: > The first three [groups of four] apply to both tranquillity (samatha) > and insight-meditation, while the fourth refers to pure insight > practice only. > > Here is the fourth tetrad just mentioned ('pure insight pracitce > only'): > IV. (13) " 'Reflecting on impermanence (anicca) I will breathe in,' > thus he trains himself; 'reflecting on impermanence I will breathe > out,' thus he trains himself. > (14) " 'Reflecting on detachment (virága) I will breathe in,' thus he > trains himself; 'reflecting on detachment I will breathe out,' thus > he trains himself. > (15) " 'Reflecting on extinction (nirodha) I will breathe in,' thus > he trains himself; 'reflecting on extinction I will breathe out,' > thus he trains himself. > (16) " 'Reflecting on abandonment (patinissagga) I will breathe in, > thus he trains himself; 'reflecting on abandonment I will breathe > out,' thus he trains himself." > > Thus, insight *while breathing* not, *of breath*. The object of the > insight, as explained in the commentary passage previously quoted in > the thread with Jack, and just restated in my post to James, is any > dhamma of the five aggregates. So putting aside the particular > context here, namely of a person developing samatha with breath as > object, the insight development being described here comes down to > the same as anywhere else in the suttas, namely, insight into the > impermanence of presently arising dhammas. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: You might find it interesting, as modern support for the commentarial view (and yours) that anapanasati is not just mindfulness of the actualities underlying breath, that Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's detailed book on this sutta is entitled "Mindfulness While Breathing" - "while" and not "of". ---------------------------------------------- > > Jon > ====================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 32686 From: m. nease Date: Sun May 2, 2004 10:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi Rob, ----- Original Message ----- From: "robmoult" To: Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 3:13 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! > I see the analysis of the field of vision into segments and reaction > to those segments as subsequent mental processes to the eye door > process. Sure--but feeling arises simultaneously with each cittakha.na, right? mike 32687 From: m. nease Date: Sun May 2, 2004 11:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hello Again Rob, ----- Original Message ----- From: "robmoult" To: Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 3:11 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! > So now the questions arises, "is the eye door the entire field of > vision (frame model) or is the eye door a small fraction of the field > of vision which is later assembled (by some other underlying process) > into an entire field of vision (pixel model)"? > > My understanding of modern science is that there are distinct rods > and cones in the retina, but brain recieves the signals from all > these nerves together as a block (one frame, not a pixel). The > analysis of the frame into portions comes later (a mental process). > > In the same vein, when we taste sweet and sour soup, the part of the > tongue that "tastes" sweet is separate from the part of the tongue > that tastes "sour", but the brain recieves the signals from these two > parts of the tongue together. The analysis of the taste into sweet > and sour comes later (a mental process). > > Similarly, the "heat sensing nerves" are distinct from the "cold > sensing nerves" in the body, but the brain recieves the signals from > both sets of nerves together. I'll certainly defer to your superior knowledge of neurophysiology. I tend to think of abhidhamma as being a sort of anatomy of a moment of experience, which I take to be quite a different thing from neurophysiology, physics and so on. I know some other contributors also think of modern science as being somehow the same as abhidhamma, but I don't see it that way at all. To me, trying to fit abhidhamma into modern science is a dead end--just my opinion, of course--but I have no interest at all in trying to reconcile the two. If I'm wrong, there may be great virtue in doing this, so best wishes for your efforts. Nice chatting with you as always. mike 32688 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun May 2, 2004 0:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati Sutta (again) Hi Jon and Howard. Well, I'm now getting back into the habit of jumping into these topics when I can, and as you may recall mindfulness of breathing, and the Anapanasati sutta are favorite topics of mine. If it seems abrupt that I am jumping into the middle of this debate with a strong opinion, please forgive me, and if you cannot, then blame it on Nina! She encouraged me to come back!! : ) [Nina, I will soon stop trying to give you responsibility for my actions. I know it's not fair.] Comment below: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 5/2/04 5:14:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard; > > But, no, I don't think that mindfulness of the breath is > > unique in the features mentioned above nor due I think that > > anapanasati is, or is claimed to be, "the only way". Clearly, though, > > it is presented as a good way. > > > > Jon: > > Well I agree that mindfulness of breathing is presented in a positive > > light, and I have never suggested it should be regarded as otherwise. > > But if breath is not unique in any way, what is the main message of > > the sutta? If the sutta is to be read as recommending mindfulness of > > breathing as a preferred way of developing the path, we would expect > > to find some mention of the specific advantages of this way over any > > other way. If that kind of explanation isn't to be found in the > > sutta or commentary, it could mean that the message is other than we > > think it is. > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, I wouldn't take it upon myself to judge the Buddha or his > explanations. He does include the following in this sutta: > > "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. The four frames > of reference, when developed & pursued, bring the seven factors for Awakening > to their culmination. The seven factors for Awakening, when developed & > pursued, bring clear knowing & release to their culmination." > > Oh, and the words "when developed AND PURSUED" [emphasis mine] > suggests to me prescription and not just description. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard, Thank you for this clear explanation of how and in what context the Buddha emphasized the breath as an object or setting for practice of mindfulness, that it is indeed seen as a practice, and that it is being promoted as a way to pursue satipatthana. What I am interested in, and have never gotten a real explanation of [and am too personally ignorant to supply myself] is why Abhidhamma looks askance at the obvious interpretation of breathing meditation and meditation in general as ways of pursuing the development of mindfulness. Where did the idea that one cannot pursue anything come from? That to develop an intention that something take place through certain practices must necessarily create a conceptual block to that which is intended, and that only the most passive kind of approach to development of insight can lead to any actual moments of insight? It seems to me that reading sutta and clarifying the Buddha's teachings are also "practices," and I don't understand the underlying philosophy by which such a pursuit and that of meditation and other skillful means of development are distinguished from each other as "fruitful" and "fruitless." Jon, addressing you for a moment, when you say that the Buddha used the name of former or popular practices to announce or name a new one, and that this seems to you the probably explanation of calling the Buddha's mindfulness practice while breathing "mindfulness of the breath," this seems extremely tortured to me. Why is it that there is so much emphasis on not distorting the teachings, but then when the Buddha's own words so obviously point to a practice which happens to contradict some point in Abhidhamma philosophy or commentary, an explanation that twists and turns the words to mean something completely different than what they say appears to be necessary? Why not just accept the idea that there is more than one practice proposed by the Buddha, and that one of them is mindfulness meditation, just as he says? I still would like to know what is at stake in making sure that the meaning of anapanasati turns out to have nothing special to do with either the breath or meditation, when that is clearly what it is about. What is the point of philosophy which which this acknowledgment would not fit? If this can be openly discussed, perhaps we can arrive at a real understanding of what the differenc in opinion is, and what documents really support it. If there is a contradiction between some sutta and some of the Abhidhamma commentaries, and if those in the Abhidhamma community come down on the side of the coms, then why not face this possibility, rather than trying to re-callibrate the context of the Buddha's own words in order to make it a fit? Buddha's words in the anapanasati sutta constantly refer to the breath as the object of meditation. "When having a long exhalation, he thinks: "This is a long exhalation," etc. The whole first part of the sutta establishes the mindfulness of the breath as object in all of its specifics, paying careful attention to exactly what each breath is doing, and then establishes this mindfulness as the basis for going on to the Four Foundations of Mindfulness. It is another angle, one that is breath-centered, on the satipatthana sutta. You cannot twist the meaning of the sutta to ignore the majority of its content and try to erase the word "breath" from the procedure. This issue should finally be faced square on, and the Buddha's own words and emphasis and theme should be acknowledged. Anyway, I apologize for appearing combative and perhaps rude, after being away for so long, but I figure that I will do more justice to the topic by being clear and straightforward about it than by dancing around it. By doing so, I intend to pay you the respect of getting your best and most considered response, and do not at all intend to insult you. And I am braced for whatever you may think of my opinion. > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > You might find it interesting, as modern support for the commentarial > view (and yours) that anapanasati is not just mindfulness of the actualities > underlying breath, that Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's detailed book on this sutta is > entitled "Mindfulness While Breathing" - "while" and not "of". > ---------------------------------------------- Howard, I appreciate this note, and think that "while breathing" opens up a lot of possibilities, but at the same time, I would note that this does not at all say it is *not* about mindfulness of the breath at the same time. It is clear in the whole beginning section of the sutta, which is the main body of the text, that the object of discernment is the action of the breathing itself, and not just other things while the breath is in the background. I don't think anyone could interpret the sutta that way. If they did, it would not even make sense to call it "mindfulness while breathing" since one is *always* breathing, whether mindfully or not. It would then make more sense to just translate it "mindfulness" and leave the breathing out altogether, as it is always in the background anyway. I think we should just admit that the breath as object of discernment and contemplation does have special properties, as it is a central and most intimate focus for all living beings, and I think the Buddha intended it that way. While all cittas may theoretically have equal value for dicernment, some may have more of a charged content for arising consciousnesses, based on their continued and repeated apprehension - breathing being "locked in" as a continually arising object for consciousness -- and may also have more accumulated experiences and meanings passed on by the cetasikas responsible, and thus may have more of a "charge" for awakening the arising consciousness. Whether this last is seen to be somewhat "far out" or not, the argument for breath being an important object for mindfulness according to Buddha, still stands. While breath like everything else may merely break down into individual rupas, the sequence of rupas and the number of consciousness involved with them, and the accumulations passed on by corresponding cetasikas, does make a difference, and rupas do not merely exist in monadic isolation because of accumulations and essences that are given to then inhere in them for cittas. One must take into account the role that certain types of rupas take as opposed to others which others may only arise incidentally on rare occasions, and have less powerful accumulations attaching to them, and the potential that this may have for repeated and cumulative exposure to cittas. Best, Robert 32689 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun May 2, 2004 0:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati Sutta (again) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 5/2/04 5:14:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > jonoabb@y... writes: > > Here is the fourth tetrad just mentioned ('pure insight pracitce > > only'): > > IV. (13) " 'Reflecting on impermanence (anicca) I will breathe in,' > > thus he trains himself; 'reflecting on impermanence I will breathe > > out,' thus he trains himself. > > (14) " 'Reflecting on detachment (virága) I will breathe in,' thus he > > trains himself; 'reflecting on detachment I will breathe out,' thus > > he trains himself. > > (15) " 'Reflecting on extinction (nirodha) I will breathe in,' thus > > he trains himself; 'reflecting on extinction I will breathe out,' > > thus he trains himself. > > (16) " 'Reflecting on abandonment (patinissagga) I will breathe in, > > thus he trains himself; 'reflecting on abandonment I will breathe > > out,' thus he trains himself." > > > > Thus, insight *while breathing* not, *of breath*. The object of the > > insight, as explained in the commentary passage previously quoted in > > the thread with Jack, and just restated in my post to James, is any > > dhamma of the five aggregates. So putting aside the particular > > context here, namely of a person developing samatha with breath as > > object, the insight development being described here comes down to > > the same as anywhere else in the suttas, namely, insight into the > > impermanence of presently arising dhammas. Hi Jon. Okay, here is Thich Nath Hanh's translation. Somebody ought to sort out who's got the literal meaning and who doesn't: 1. Breathing in a long breath, he knows, "I am breathing in a long breath." Breathing out a long breath, he knows, "I am breathing out a long breath." 2. Breathing in a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing in a short breath." Breathing out a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing out a short breath." Jon, this is how the sutta starts, the first two stanzas. There is no other substantive way to translate this, as there is no other object of mindfulness mentioned here other than the breath. So the breath is indeed the object of discernment or contemplation here, what I would call "meditation." Then it assumes the awareness of the breath has been established and starts adding other objects of mindfulness while maintaining the awareness of the breath in the background. I don't see any other way to interpret the sutta. Why keep mentioning the breath as the foundation for every stanza? It can't just be a coincidence! 3. "I am brething in and am aare of my whole body. I am breathing out and am aware of my whole body." The awareness of the body, and then various other increasingly less physical objects [such as the mind, which the Buddha also mentions] are added to the awareness of the breath. The breath is the foundation and main object of this sutta. I don't see any other way to interpret it without twisting its meaning. And he also makes the statement which Howard has quoted: "The practice of Full Awareness of Breathing, if developed and practiced continuously, will lead to the perfect accomplishment of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness." It is clearly a call to practice continuously the full awareness of breathing, and to include in that awareness, all of the arising objects within the four foundations of mindfulness. It includes what you would include as the arising rupas in everyday life as objects of mindfulness, as well as an admonition that to practice such in conjunction with full awareness of breathing is a most effective way of doing so. I would invite an investigation from whatever view you like as to why the Buddha felt the breath was such a centrally important object of awareness, but to deny that he thought so would be a serious misinterpreation of his own words. Robert 32690 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun May 2, 2004 2:31pm Subject: Re: Listening, considering etc (was, Pannatti (Concept)) Friend Jon, Jon: Of course I would agree that the Buddha taught about the development of serenity (samatha bhavana), including its aspects of jhana and the Brahma-Viharas. But this form of kusala is known outside the teachings of a Buddha, whereas the truth about the presently arising dhammas is found only in the teachings of a Buddha. James: This is not entirely true. Actually, the Buddha was the one to teach the Brahma-Viharas; this practice was not in existence before the enlightenment of the Buddha. Before the enlightenment of the Buddha, the ascetics of his time were trying different methods to be united with Brahma. After the Buddha became enlightened, he taught that practicing the Brahma-Viharas was the only way to be reborn in the Brahma realm. No one else had taught this practice prior to the Buddha, so the Brahma-Viharas are not a form of kusala outside the teachings of the Buddha. However, the jhanas were present and practiced before the Buddha, so you are correct about that aspect. Still, I don't understand your point anyway. The Buddha said that these practices were important, end of story. Why are you second guessing the Buddha? Metta, James 32691 From: Robert Epstein Date: Sun May 2, 2004 2:50pm Subject: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi Sukin. Thank you for your very complete answer to my post. I appreciate all your points, even those I have a different view about, and I am sorry for repyling so many days later. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > :-) 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 guess that goes to the point that we can't put too much stock in views! : ) > I will try to pay extra attention to you. ;-) You are very kind! : ) 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'. Yes, and the question is not whether some general or intellectual sense of purpose causes panna; obviously it would not. But there is a question as to what does cause panna to arise and accumulate, so that it can be passed on to subsequent cittas. I think you might agree that we have to choose a description of how this works that is somewhere between "volition," -- which would assume a "self" to have volition, and perfect arbitrariness, which would say that no matter what we do, our actions, thoughts, intentions that arise will make no difference whatever, because panna arises via conditions that have nothing to do with our thoughts, understandings and actions. I don't think you would say that, just that we don't have control, as there is no central self to have such control or to mount a project apart from its arising in the moment. But I think it is important to say that despite the lack of control and volition that these kandhas contain, that there are activities that we may find ourselves attracted to, may hear about, may fall into via kammic predispositions, that will influence the development of sati leading to panna. Certainly if sutta reading or meditation are engaged in with the idea of self and attachment to the goal rather than focus upon the reality of the moment, then it will be counter-productive. But let's keep in mind that the purpose of meditation is to indeed focus upon the moment and not upon the result, except for understanding. And I think that one can do so. We may be deluded in any activity, and have akusala thoughts and purposes arising, but the solution is the same in any case. The idea that sutta reading is given as gradual and intellectual and thus is less prone to result orientation again is not convincing to me. I think that we read sutta striving for understanding and that the goal is to gain insight and wisdom. If we can avoid result orientation and enjoy whatever present insight is derived, we can exercise the same discipline or non-discipline that is needed to keep meditation from becoming overblown. Since the purpose of meditation and the mechanism of it is to focus on the reality of the moment, hopefully that is what the practitioner will sit to do, just as the sutta reader sits to read and gain whatever understanding comes in the moment. > 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' ;-). And there is ultimately no "sitting" or "meditation" to do or not to do. Still one reads the meaningless words, and one sits in meaningless meditation. ; ) > 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'. I may be mixed up on the terminology, but isn't panna wisdom? Please let me know if I am mistaken because I don't want to answer you incorrectly. What is panna's limitation in that case? If we are able to tell the difference between wisdom, understanding, and knowledge, I think we can safely meditate as well and tell the difference equally well between striving and seeing. And when we don't, the arising cittas at least have the repeated opportunity to notice this. > > 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? I think you may have a mistaken notion of the arrogance of the meditator. I don't see any inherent gain in restricting one's focus to "intellectual" understanding. In fact, this may hinder the development of real insight if one is content with intellectual knowledge, which I assume you agree, is on the level of concept. If direct discernment is not the intention, then I don't understand how this fits either the dhamma or the abhidhamma. Perhaps you can explain how having a more limited focus on something that is intellectual, equally out of control of the nonexistent self however, can aid one in avoiding having a goal orientation that will block the arising of understanding. It seems to me instead that thinking of the path as an intellectual attainment that may someday be rewarded with a gift of insight, is choosing an intellectual path and that one may remain restricted to it if one doesn't go beyond such a path. I personally don't understand the merit in that orientation. As for the meditator, he does not assume he will be granted direct insight through the magical power of the breath. Like yourself, he is following the Buddha's roadmap for discernment and development of sati, and has made the difficult move of sitting really with no purpose and with plenty of discomfort and boredom, to satisfy the requirement to focus on the moment and discern whatever arises as best he can in the moment. This seems like a noble and not an arrogant position. I don't know anyone who sits for a bit and assumes that he has some wisdom. Insight either comes or doesn't and comes when it does, as you describe in the alternative path. 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. This is truly a misapprehension of the zen position. Zen sitting is a long and tedious process just as is sutta reading and comprehension. No one sits in crossed legs and thinks "Ah, now I'm like the Buddha!" The image you cite here is one of taking the position of the Buddha, or putting oneself on the same path as the Buddha, not magically turning into a Buddha without any understanding arising. It's merely a metaphor. 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? ;-) Can you tell when you are detached? I would say perhaps yes but I would think you would say 'no,' since if you are claiming detachment there must be a "self" to decide this? If one must consciously decide to `let go' > then it must not be panna, whereas if panna arose, then letting go > has already happened. Rather fatalistic, no? So if one does the "right thing" it's the "wrong thing" but if one does "nothing" and it just "happens by itself" then it's okay. Well, according to what you have said it only happens "by itself" anyway, so the sense of "self" would only be an overlay, not a truth. If letting go happens, can it be noticed without the "self" arising? First of all it was the > Buddha who talked about `association with the wise and so on' as > being the conditions for enlightenment. Well I believe he talked about meditating on the breath as well. Hmn...we must be reading differently....Maybe not as a condition for enlightenment, but as one of the noteworthy expressions or means of contemplating the four foundations of mindfulness. Second, to approach any of > these with a `self' directing and making choices would surely be > counter productive. Well what happens when you direct yourself to read a sutta? And do you read it with no desire for understanding? If desire does arise, does it make the activity less than useless? Or does kusala still arise because of the repeated return to the reading of the sutta as such? 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. But eventually we do have to become aware, we do have to have kusala arisings, we do have to have sati and understanding, so somewhere along the line we are not so uncertain and in the dark anymore. Some of us may have these moments already, and they would have to know that they are indeed discernment of reality, and not have doubt. Now what if this happens and one does not have doubt because it is panna? Shoudl they then doubt themselves [akusala] and assume it is impossible and reject the development of wisdom? Or should they go with it and allow it to accumulate? You can't take the position that you know nothing and can do nothing and doubt that you have any understanding forever. If you do you're actually subverting the path. We have to progress, even if the thought of progress should not arise. Humility can also be akusala, if it rejects the potential for liberation! We have to have faith, don't we? And to some extent, expect sati of one level or another at least to arise, if we claim to be on this path. > 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. And what if it does? Can we then acknowledge it? There must be a place for saying "yes" to something and not just "no," am I correct? 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 ;-). Or perhaps, contrary to expectation, satipatthana will clearly arise as a result of the path, and then the path should not be dropped!! 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". Then that should indeed be discerned. And then on to the next moment. > 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. And yet there is a goal. So what is a "good perception of the correct goal" according to Right Understanding, as opposed to "an idea of a better time and place." And why does the Buddha talk about Nibbana and the realization of the path at all? Isn't this "an idea of a better time and place" in itself? In which case the entire path is foudned on an akusala idea. This is critical. We must see what is a "goal that does not hinder" and one that does. Obviously Right Understanding of the path understands later stages, not just a rupa all by itself with no context. We talk about the later stages of the path all the time. We don't pretend to be creatures of the moment who have no understanding of past or expectation of future. The accumulated panna if present is part of the way in which the moment is apprehended and it understands what is there and what it means. If it is just naked rupa that is the goal then what is the use of accumulating panna? Why have developed intelligence and the great discrimination power of the Buddha? 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. But his music will be lousy. :) Of course there is a prescribed path. The Abhidhamma has thousands of pages of commentary on how the true path is discerned and followed. How can you say that one is not following a prescribed path when studying and following all this? There are the rupas, the namas, the cittas and cetasikas, and one is to discern all these functions so that one can discern the true reality of how these arise. All of this is a study, and a path, an attempt to understand and thus "change the state of arising cittas through gradual accumulation and insight." It is is aprogressive path that uses the moment as its vehicle and also recognizes that as its goal. We can't pretend that path A has an agenda and path B doesn't. All paths have an agenda!! All of them. what you do with this in the moment is what is important. But let's be honest about what is there in the mind of the practitioner. > 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. Right, but I also believe in being somewhat practical. Every path has an associated activity, whether it is sutta study or sitting meditation. And of course different activities have a kusala effect on different individuals. I would never doubt that. Maybe one person's proper path to satipatthana is indeed to play the piano and he will awaken to understanding that there are no notes, just rupa of piano key and nama of sound. what an awakening! [I forget if sound would be rupa or nama...since there is no object in sound.....please clear my mind for me, thank you....] > 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. :-( I would agree with that; and I would say that whether one awakens to the reality of what we call breath, or to the reality of the squiggles we call "words of the sutta" it is the same awakening. Or not. : ) But there's nothing in that against meditation. And I would say, nothing against contemplation of sutta either. Best Regards, Robert 32692 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun May 2, 2004 2:56pm Subject: Re: Understanding aggregates and annata (was Video Games) Friend KKT, Good to see you again. I was wondering where you were hiding yourself recently. KKT: Your goal now is to be reborn in a deva realm? James: Sure, why not? The Buddha Sangha is not what it used to be; I don't think I can achieve enlightenment in this lifetime without a strong company of admirable friends; and this human realm is really the pitts! ;-)) Might as well hang out in a deva realm, work on the perfections, and be reborn in the time of a Buddha. You know, the Buddha did teach that this is possible! One's intentions have a great influence on future lives. Since you brought it up, what is your goal? KKT: Ah, now I understand how the worship of Amitabha began. (ie. the new Buddhist religious movement beginning around 500 years after Buddha's Parinibbana and believing in the salvation of Buddha Amitabha by aspiring to be reborn in His Pure Land) James: I don't know anything about this belief and it doesn't sound comparable to my goal. My goal is very simple and personal; I am not calling anyone, even myself, to `salvation' in a Pure Land! LOL! KKT: All that began with someone who had a similar idea to yours. (just kidding :-)) James: Huh? What's funny? I don't get it. ;-)) All good ideas can be transformed later into something that is not quite right. Is the original good idea at fault? (And I am not saying that I have a `good idea', I am just expressing my thoughts at the moment. I know that I am not ready for enlightenment and that there isn't a really good reason to be reborn a human unless a Buddha is present. End of story.) KKT: Have a great day! James: You too! Hope you make appearances more often. ;-) Metta, James 32693 From: Suravira Date: Sun May 2, 2004 3:20pm Subject: What are the 2nd and 3rd discourses given by the Buddha? Can someone tell me the names of the 2nd and 3rd discourses of the Buddha? Thanks, Suravira 32694 From: Date: Sun May 2, 2004 4:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What are the 2nd and 3rd discourses given by the Buddha? Hi Suravira, In his general introduction to SN, p.35, B. Bodhi writes, "Thus we find three SN suttas of geat importance also recorded in the Vinaya Mahavagga, represented as the first three discourses given by the Buddha at the dawn of his ministy: the Dhammacakkappavattana, the Anattalakkhana, and the Addittapariyaya (56:11; 22:59; 35:28). Larry ----------------- Suravira: "Can someone tell me the names of the 2nd and 3rd discourses of the Buddha?" 32695 From: Date: Sun May 2, 2004 1:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati Sutta (again) Hi, Rob - In a message dated 5/2/04 3:17:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, epsteinrob@Y... writes: > Howard: > > You might find it interesting, as modern support for the > commentarial > >view (and yours) that anapanasati is not just mindfulness of the > actualities > >underlying breath, that Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's detailed book on this > sutta is > >entitled "Mindfulness While Breathing" - "while" and not "of". > >---------------------------------------------- > > Howard, I appreciate this note, and think that "while breathing" opens > up a lot of possibilities, but at the same time, I would note that > this does not at all say it is *not* about mindfulness of the breath > at the same time. It is clear in the whole beginning section of the > sutta, which is the main body of the text, that the object of > discernment is the action of the breathing itself, and not just other > things while the breath is in the background. I don't think anyone > could interpret the sutta that way. If they did, it would not even > make sense to call it "mindfulness while breathing" since one is > *always* breathing, whether mindfully or not. It would then make more > sense to just translate it "mindfulness" and leave the breathing out > altogether, as it is always in the background anyway. > > I think we should just admit that the breath as object of discernment > and contemplation does have special properties, as it is a central and > most intimate focus for all living beings, and I think the Buddha > intended it that way. While all cittas may theoretically have equal > value for dicernment, some may have more of a charged content for > arising consciousnesses, based on their continued and repeated > apprehension - breathing being "locked in" as a continually arising > object for consciousness -- and may also have more accumulated > experiences and meanings passed on by the cetasikas responsible, and > thus may have more of a "charge" for awakening the arising > consciousness. Whether this last is seen to be somewhat "far out" or > not, the argument for breath being an important object for mindfulness > according to Buddha, still stands. > > While breath like everything else may merely break down into > individual rupas, the sequence of rupas and the number of > consciousness involved with them, and the accumulations passed on by > corresponding cetasikas, does make a difference, and rupas do not > merely exist in monadic isolation because of accumulations and > essences that are given to then inhere in them for cittas. One must > take into account the role that certain types of rupas take as opposed > to others which others may only arise incidentally on rare occasions, > and have less powerful accumulations attaching to them, and the > potential that this may have for repeated and cumulative exposure to > cittas. > > =========================== I agree that the breath is the centerpiece of the practice of anapanasati, and obviously so. I also think there are several features of the breath, mentioned before by me, that make it particularly suitable as a vehicle for satipatthana. However, I agree with Jon that it is not the sole vehicle for that and also that much of the practice involves investigation of dhammas not underlying the breath, which, thus, makes it a mindfulness practice based on the breath and centered there but not exclusively there, and which makes the terminology "mindfulness while breathing" or, better, I think, "mindfulness with the breath" quite reasonable. 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) 32696 From: Sarah Date: Sun May 2, 2004 10:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:Linking the messages for Sarah Dear Htoo, Thank you for thinking of me and for your kind comments and special linking of messages;-). --- htootintnaing wrote: > There is some special traveller who is very enthusiatic to walk on > The Journey To Nibbana. Once that traveller said, ''Hey! We have to > drop the idea of self from the start.'' To that traveller, here I say > we have not even started the journey. .... S: ;-) I always enjoy our discussions. I think the last couple of messages I wrote (to you) you didn’t respond to, so I assumed you were too busy on your journey;-). Actually, you and some others ask me to let you know when there are messages addressed to you and I have good intentions but always forget to do this. Let me know if you didn’t see them. ..... > Dear Sarah, > > How have you been doing? Are you travelling? You know what I mean. It > has been nice to chat with you on Dhamma matter. Several time, I > confused and mixed on the sexth sense. At that time you cleared me > out. Thanks for your continous support. I just posted this for your > attention. .... S: It’s kind of you to say this, but truly we help and support each other here and all the detail you provide is very helpful too, Htoo. Sometimes friends suggest that what some of us say may not be in accordance with ‘mainstream Abhidhamma’ understanding, so it’s important to discuss, check texts and so on to clarify. You’ve mentioned a couple of times about your Patthana series. Maybe you can post these in short installments and I’ll promise to read them and discuss any aspects of special interest as related to the journey or laying out of the map;-). Metta, Sarah ====== 32697 From: Sarah Date: Sun May 2, 2004 10:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana (and my intro) Hi Christopher (& Phil), --- Christopher wrote: > 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. .... I liked Phil’s sharing in response to your post and also his kind one to James. So, Phil, pls don’t be concerned about any over-doing;-). Chris, It would not be natural at all to live ‘with full understanding of dukkha’. The path of the enlightened ones definitely goes against the stream and the natural state. All dhammas, including wisdom, are conditioned. So as wisdom develops to understand more and more about the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and lack of self in these dhammas, it is inevitable that the stream will be entered and the cycle broken one day. As you suggest, any views dictated by erroneous ideas of a self or ego are bound to interfere with the progression of wisdom. At these times there is natural living with no understanding of dukkha or the fact that dhammas are not within the ego’s control at all. ... > 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. .... Chris H would work well for me, but I’ll follow your lead on how you sign off. Thanks, for re-introducing yourself. Maybe we should suggest this anytime anyone changes their email address. Actually you were one of the people I didn’t wish the new Chris to be confused with.;-) Of course I remembered you well. Are you still in Thailand? If so where? If you’re in Bangkok anytime you may like to meet up with friends like Sukin. Thanks again for the clarification and interesting questions. Metta, Sarah ======= 32698 From: Sarah Date: Sun May 2, 2004 11:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Do or not do something Hi Jack & All, As Nina is away for a while, I’ll just add a couple of comments here, hopefully to clarify a little: --- Jackhat1@a... wrote: > Lodewijk said: without the Abhidhamma Vipassana makes no sense. Yes, the > two > go together. > Nina, > > Jack: >>I don't know who Lodewijk is or whether you attributed the quote > > above to him > to give it the weight of authority, but I think Lodewijk is overstating > it. .... S: Lodewijk is Nina’s husband. She has been posting some of their recent dhamma discussions on walks and this was a repeat of one or two lines of his. Jack, I’m quite sure Nina was just remembering his recent words and also trying to encourage him just as some of us might quote each other here. Lodewijk is quite elderly, not in the best of health and doesn’t have computer access, so Jon and I have encouraged Nina to include his comments (sometimes he writes them down for her to post too) and relay any feedback to him for consideration. We’ve known him for about 30 years and he’s a very fine, kind and modest man. It’s a way of sharing our discussions with family members and I’d encourage others to do the same. .... > Yes, the Abhidhamma can be useful. But, millions of people through the > centuries have gotten value out of vipassana teachings and practices and > made > sense of > it without any knowledge of the Abhidhamma.<< ..... S: There may be some confusion over terms here. For example, when you talk about the elements or about any other realities which are being experienced now, it is Abhidhamma whether or not we’ve ever opened an Abhidhamma text or not or whether or not we use this word. I don't think we'd be having the discussions we do unless you had quite some familiarity with 'Abhidhamma'. Similarly, vipassana refers to the development of wisdom or insight. Without any understanding of what there can be insight into, it can’t develop. Let me know if you disagree. .... > I want to be clear on this. I am not degrading the beliefs of anyone > else. > There are many useful and valid paths in Buddhism. .... S: I’m not sure about this. I think there’s really only the path of satipatthana, however we dress it up. .... >Abbidhamma, in my > opinion, is > useful and valid. I don't question that the interpretation of Abhidhamma > of > some on this list (which I don't consider a mainstream Abhidhamma view) > is a > valid and useful path to them. .... S: I’m not sure what a ‘mainstream Abhidhamma view’ would be, but I think it would be helpful to look at any aspects which seem to conflict and to check texts or discuss further. This is what I do with Htoo, RobM and others who have studied a lot of Abhidhamma and sometimes have different interpretations. I learn a lot from these discussions. Another friend wrote to me off-list wondering if there was anything in what Nina or some others of us write on Abhidhamma that ‘can be or has been refuted by Abhidhamma devotees who follow other approaches’. The friend gave kamma as an example that seems to be given different interpretations and also wondered if it’s taught differently in the suttas and the Abhidhamma. I think these are very valid questions - it’s easy to read the suttas to check for ourselves. It’s not at all easy to read the Abhidhamma texts. In response, I suggested that anyone should raise any comments or quotes that seem to give a different interpretation or understanding and then we can discuss and look at relevant texts further. Disagreements can lead to useful reflections. I haven’t come across anything on kamma or any other aspect that seems to conflict, but would be glad to look at any examples.I didn't know what was meant. My own approach has always been to check, test and question all the way along and I find it very helpful when others do the same. It is the Dhamma itself, not a person that is our guide and refuge. And as Sukin wrote before, pa~n~naa (wisdom) itself is our good friend in an ultimate sense. Metta, Sarah ======= 32699 From: Sarah Date: Sun May 2, 2004 11:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Not entering the Stream in Mahayana Hi Suravira, --- Suravira wrote: > Sarah - do not believe we have ever meet before, I believe that you > are thinking of another friend of your's. .... S: I apologise for this and it’s not the first time. Checking back in escribe, I see now that there have been 3 Chucks from the USA - one whom some of us met from California in Bangkok, one from Philadelphia (I think) whom some of us nearly met on two occasions in Bangkok as well and yourself from N.Carolina, now Suravira. (There is also another friend, Charles with a couple of Pali names, so perhaps I may be forgiven for a little confusion at times when it comes to the 'C' names;-)). ... > The name Suravira is composed of two Pali words sura and vira (with > an long i). It is my understanding that sura is a synonym for deva. > Vira (with a long i not a short i (which would translate as > intoxicated)) means brave and courageous. According to > folklore/myth, Suravira enters into the hell realms and gives > teachings on compassion and wisdom, thereby aiding the beings in > those realms towards rebirth in more favorable realms. .... S: Thank you for this explanation and apologies again, Suravira. I also liked your question about the suttas and was impressed at how easily Larry managed to find the answer. I look forward to your further contributions and if I didn’t do so in my confused state, please let me welcome you here to DSG. Please share anything else on your background and interest in Buddhism if you’d care to. Metta, Sarah ===== 32700 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 3, 2004 0:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Larry, Thanks for your response. --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > If we look at dependent arising in the light of the 4 noble truths then > "formations" is essentially desire and the result of desire is dukkha. .... S: Formations are kusala and akusala kamma motivated by desire and ignorance. The result of kusala and akusala kamma is rebirth and all subsequent vipaka on account of which the other links depend. .... > So "consciousness" as the result of desire is dukkha. .... S: All conditioned dhammas are dukkha (in the 4NT meaning of dukkha). .... >Of course every > link in dependent arising is consciousness .... S: No. Only vipaka cittas are vi~n~naa.na (consciousness) in this D.O. sense. .... >and as such is characterized > by the three general characteristics but the consciousness link and the > becoming link are in particular conditioned by desire, and desire is the > cause of dukkha. The question is, how is desire the cause of dukkha and > how is resultant consciousness, in particular, dukkha? ... S: Desire for phenomena which are inherently impermanent and unsatisfactory. Seeing the permanent in the impermanent, the desirable in the undesirable , the self in the non-self, and the beautiful in the foul, desire for sense objects and futher becoming continues to bring its results. Ignorance of the truths means the defilements are not eradicated and hence the cycle continues. Resultant consciousness is dukkha like all other conditioned phenomena because of being impermanent and inherently unsatisfactory. .... >We might also ask > how is "consciousness" and "becoming" similar? Any thoughts? .... S: It’s a good question and I think consciousness is included in the ‘becoming’ link, but maybe better to just deal with consciousness now and look at this qu further when we get to ‘becoming’, don’t you think? Let me know if there is any disagreement on what I’ve said above. Metta, Sarah ====== 32701 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 3, 2004 0:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sabhava ... again! Hi Larry (& Abdrew), --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Andrew: "Thus, Harvey seems to concur with Jon, Sarah and others that > Nagarjuna's criticisms of sabhava have little relevance to Theravada." > > Hi Andrew, > > I agree. It seems as though India, Tibet, and China never even heard of > Theravada until very recently. Very surprising! The Vimuttimagga was > translated into Chinese but I don't know of anything else. .... S: I don't think the Vimuttimagga has ever been accepted by the Theras or Theravada Councils either to my knowledge. (Some different interpretations). .... > Also, ancient Theravada doesn't seem to be aware of any living > traditions or current issues outside of Ceylon. ... Perhaps this is because the Theravada teachings were preserved and put into writing in Ceylon (Sri Lanka). The preservation of the teachings was the main concern. In the Mahavamsa we can read about how bhikkhus travelled from all over Asia to pay respect and help preserve the teachings, so I'm sure there was plenty of knowledge about other living traditions in other areas. Buddhaghosa himself came from India. Andrew, hope to hear your report on the weekend....hope you got the accomodation and frogs sorted out;-) Metta, Sarah ======= 32702 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 3, 2004 0:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do or not do something Hi Jack, --- Jackhat1@a... wrote: > You are making dualistic categories when you ask "who or what does this > selecting or choosing." There is just selecting and choosing without an > "I" as > subject or doer. An example that is often used to illustrate this point > is that > there is not the see-er and the seen. There is just seeing which is a > process. ... S: Would you agree that there is seeing consciousness and there is visible object which is seen? By ‘selecting’ and ‘choosing ‘, then, are you referring to thinking or to intention (cetana) which arises with all cittas? .... > Deciding and choosing are also processes. Anatta does not preclude > selecting > and choosing. .... S: Certainly not. I think you’re referring to kinds of thinking which may or may not lead to the desired result. For example, there may be thinking and deciding to turn right, but by conditions we may turn left anyway. In other words, such thinking and choosing is conditioned and so are the subsequent moments of thinking, seeing, hearing and so on as well. Any disagreement? .... > I'm getting a little frustrated trying to make myself understood on this > > point. What I tried to say in my earlier response below is there is no > idea of > watching in the "second phase." Just sitting there and observing doesn't > imply my > making any decision or having attachment to sitting and observing. > just let > my mind and body do what they will without my telling them to do > anything. > There is no "I" selecting anything. Awareness, watching, arises by > itself. .... S: I apologise for causing any frustration - it’s not my intention. I think you see awareness and watching as being synonyms whereas I don’t. Watching suggests there is some intention or wishing to have awareness or some idea that this activity will be conducive. Otherwise, what is the purpose of ‘sitting and observing’? .... >At > those moments when I become attached to a thought and lose awareness, > the > decision to bring my attention back is made by itself. .... S: I think decisions are always ‘made’ or brought about by conditions. .... > This is different from the "first phase." (I feel uncomfortable making > this > distinction between training and not training phases. I hope it makes my > view > more understandable.) In the first phase I might be consciously making > the > decision to note hardness, for example. This is part of the process of > training > my mind. In the second phase I am not consciously making this decision. .... S: I think you are implying that the conscious training to note various realities or focus on them is necessary for the second phase when they are ‘noted’ without any special wish or intention. I may be wrong here, but it sounds a little like the argument we often hear that there has to be a self to bring about a non-self or something to that effect. I would say, the path has to begin with detachment from the beginning so that any conditioned dhamma can be known (i.e not just primary rupas) from the outset. Apologies again if my posts leave you feeling frustrated and misunderstood, Jack. I assure you that you have plenty of good company here in that regard, no doubt reflecting my lack of skill in communication;-). Metta, Sarah ====== 32703 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 3, 2004 0:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] wrong view Hi Azita, --- gazita2002 wrote: > How seductive is the thought that to stay in BKK where I can hear > the true Dhamma each week, would be much better than being here. I > would then be wiser and have more understanding!! > > We can have the idea that if we are in a more conducive place to > hear and practise the true Dhamma then wisdom will grow more quickly. > Instead, this may be wrong view and actually have the opposite effect > and hinder the development of sati. > > Wisdom grows from detachment not from more attachment, and > thinking that one place is better than another could be attachment > not wisdom. No amount of trying, wishing, hoping for sati will make > it arise. Sati must arise naturally, by conditions. > Association with good friends - by conditions. > Hearing the true Dhamma - by conditions > Considering - by conditions > Practise in accordance with the true Dhamma - by conditions. .... S: You give yourself all the right reminders, so again to repeat Sukin, pa~n~naa is the good friend in the ultimate sense. There can be hearing, considering, right practising now at this very moment. Another place or time or company is mere wishful thinking or speculation, possibly with wrong view as you suggest. .... > Better that I see the aversion for what it is, a reality which can > be known as not me, not myself, not mine, that it is anicca, dukkha > [you bet] and anatta. > > May we all have patience, courage and good cheer .... S: You bet;-) Metta, Sarah p.s Hope your daughter Abby is doing OK....?? ===== 32704 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 3, 2004 1:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi RobM (Mike, TG, Howard & All), Great discussions and thank you for sharing your latest reflections. Your cave and shadow analogy reminder me of Thein Nyun’s description of the shadows on the cinema screen which he uses in his preface to his translation of the Discourse on Elements (Dhaatu-Kathaa), the 3rd book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka (PTS). ..... “The material and mental elements may be compared to the shadows on the cinema screen, which appear and disappear in rapid succession. The mind-consciousness element (of what is conventionally said to be the spectator) takes the actors, actressess, rivers, mountains, etc., as objects, and a drama is built up from them. This is due to a perverted belief that the actors, etc., exist, and the shadows serve as stimuli for imagining them. Similarly the material and mental elements arise and cease in rapid succession and the mind-consciousness element takes men, women, trees, mountains, etc., and a drama of a world of animate and inanimate things is built up from them. This is due to the perverted belief in the existence of a living world of persons and things and the elements serves as stimuli for imagining them. Here the difference from the cinema is that there are no spectators as the mind-consciousness element is also like the shadow on the screen, i.e. it is always arising and ceasing. If the mind-consciousness element is not seen in this manner according to reality it will be believed that it permanently resides in the body and that it is the same mind-consciousness element that 1) seeks and takes objects; 2) is present throughout the day; 3) was present yesterday, is present now and will be present tomorrow - in other words, that from birth to death the mind-consciousness element is the same and is conscious of all daily actions, speech and thoughts.” ***** Of course we also read about ‘shadows of ultimate things’ in the Abhidammattha Sangaha. From CMA,ch V111, Bodhi transl: ..... “All such different things [S: e.g land, mountain, cave, kasina sign etc], though they do not exist in the ultimate sense, become objects of consciousness in the form of shadows of (ultimate) things. They are called concepts (pa~n~nattii) because they are thought of, reckoned, understood, expressed, and made known on account of, in consideration of, with respect to, this or that mode. This kind of concept is so called because it is made known.” ***** You and others like TG & Howard have also been discussing the conditions for seeing consciousness including light and I thought of this quote from Summary and Exposition of Topics ch 4 (Abhidammatthavibhaavinii, comy to the text above, PTS): ..... “Seeing, beholding directly. But since it is said that ‘one sees visible forms with the eye’ (Vibh 248) is it not the eye-faculty itself that performs the function of seeing, and not consciousness? Not so. Materiality, being blind, has no capacity to see the visible form. And if it were the eye-faculty that saw visible form, then it would also be possible for someone experiencing a consciousness other [than eye-consciousness] to see visible form. Yet if one attributes the function [of seeing] to consciousness, then, since consciousness has no obstacles, one would see concealed visible objects. One can allow the seeing of something concealed when it is placed behind crystal, etc., and there is no obstacle to light, but when it is something concealed by a wall, etc., there is an obstacle to light, and in the absence of this condition consciousness does not arise and eye-consciousness does not apprehend the object. But in the above quotation ‘by the eye’ means ‘by the eye-door which is the means [of seeing]’.” ***** Finally, at the risk of over-doing the quotes, I’d like to give this one from Dispeller 228(Sammohavinodanii, PTS) which stresses the conditioned nature of all these elements: ..... “Likewise [they should be regarded] as inactive and unoccupied. For it does not occur to the eye and visible-datum and so on: ‘Would that consciousness might arise from our concurrence.’ And they are not active nor do they occupy themselves as door, basis and object for the purpose of arousing consciousness; but rather it is the rule (dhammataa) that eye-consciousness and so on come into being with the concurrence of eye-visible-datum and so on. Therefore they should be regarded as inactive and unoccupied.” ***** Metta, Sarah p.s Rob, you may also like to review this post and quotes I wrote before and see if we are more in agreement now: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/20043 Also see others under ‘visible object’ in U.P. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts ================================= 32705 From: Philip Date: Mon May 3, 2004 1:41am Subject: Re: Understanding aggregates and annata (was Video Games) Hello James, and all J :> Thank you for the lovely e-mail. I am glad that you feel > comfortable enough with me, and with this group, to explore your > feelings and thoughts out loud. That is a good thing and I > encourage you to do it quite frequently. Ph: Yes, I do feel very comfortable here, and inspired to be more diligent in my practice. (I have to use that word though I can see why some don't think it's quite right.) I do feel particularly comfortable with you, for some reason. Perhaps because I've already been openly cranky with you and have talked about bikinis and speedos so our dhamma friendship feels more familiar to me than the more refined dhamma friendship I am forming with other members - not that a feeling of familiarity is necessarily a good thing. > Phil: Haven't "stream-enterers" and "once returners" had direct > knowledge of annata? That's not a rhetorical question. I have no > idea what goodies go with those stages of enlightenment. > > James: I don't think it is important to memorize these various > stages and what is achieved in each. Without a practical context, > like being a member of a Bhikkhu Sangha, this knowledge will only > lead you to believe that you know something you don't. Instead, I > would just focus on the first stage of Enlightenment, Stream Entry. Ph: Still thinking about a stage of enlightenment that could come before sotapahnna (sp?) I thought of "sortapahnna" (lol) Seriously, when we have gained an intellectual understanding of annata, and have experienced a kind of earth-shifting moment of insight based on this understanding, life is not the same again. There is a kind of non-going-back to believing in self after that moment. I have sort-of been awakened in a real way. I don't insist on a new stage of pre-enlightenment, but I am grateful to ahve reached it. It took 15 years or so since I first came across the Buddha's teaching, 15 years of occasionally reading passages of dhamma (along with various christian mystics and hindu and new age stuff) and taking them in a way that was just feeding and comforting self. I guess I was on the road to having a substantial understanding, but I think coming across this group and the Abhidhdmma is what really did it. I have that thoughtful inquiry from Sarah to thank for that! I wonder if making statements about one's own progress always points at conceit or wrong view. It could potentially, of course. And probably usually does. But for beginners, who have taken a big first step, I think it's justified. I think what will happen now is frustration from expecting progress to continue to happen in big steps, which it won't. I know this from the ESL classroom, as I think I've said before. Language learners have a steep learning curve at the beginning, then hit a plateau that frustrates them. I should be prepared for a plateau, because right now, to tell the truth, I am expecting to continue to make progress at understanding realities and uprooting defilements, and that expectation is unwise. > J: LOL! I also suffer strongly from sensual desire (though > bikinis don't do it for me!...if you know what I mean ;-)) Ph: Whether bikini or speedo they plant the seedo of desire or deedo - it's flesh we needo!!! haha seriously, I've always assumed sensual lust to be my grossest hindrance, and it has been in the past, but these days my biggest obstacle to overcome is hostility towards Bush and his crew. Hostility towards them is fed by checking news pages just as surely as lust was ...oops, would theoretically be.. fed by checking out bare naked ladies and the gentlemen with whom they consort. I am quite proud today that I haven't checked the news yet. (I was successful on this for three weeks back in January, but had a backslide.) Schadenfreude is a very interesting phenomenon. I think it is a kind of human nature, and I don't know why. It may be the distant enemy of mudita. I was getting pleasure out of America's trouble in Iraq, and getting pleasure out of that is much more unwholesome than checking out boo-tay, I'd say. Best to do without both, of course. J:> Actually, this may surprise you to know, but right now my goal in > this lifetime isn't to become enlightened. Ph: I doubt anyone in this group aims to become enlightened in this lifetime, if we take enlightenment as Nibbana. One thing I appreciate in this groups is the patient approach towards enlightenment during countless lifetimes. J: > I used to have the goal > to become enlightened, and even went to Thailand to become a monk to > achieve this goal, but realized that I was not going to be able to > find the right company of `admirable friends' to achieve > enlightenment (BTW, I was severely depressed after this > realization). Ph: I hope you will keep looking for that company of "admirable friends." I haven't found it in real life, or in other internet groups until this one. No, that's not true. I have admirable friends in other groups as well. I assume that by admirable friends you mean friends with whom you can share discussion of the true dhamma. People are admirable in many ways that don't have anything to do with Buddhism, of course. Anyways, I'm very grateful to have your dhamma friendhsip, and that of the rest of the group. Metta, Phil 32706 From: Sarah Date: Mon May 3, 2004 1:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] VISIBLE OBJECT IS NOT A DOT OF LIGHT!!! Hi Howard, We're very much on the same page on this one: --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Phenomenologically, however - that is, in terms of direct > experience, > whether or not there is an external world independent of experience, and > > whether or not photons are part of it, seeing is not the experience of > photons, it > is the experience of visual objects, and phenomenologically, sights are > not > "out there" (nor are they "in here") - they just "are", or better, they > just > "occur". A photon is not the object of sight but of thought. This is the > > distinction that I make. It is my perspective alone - I'm not a dealer > or pusher. ;-)) .... S: My perspective too. I also agreed with Mike's comments on not confusing science to RobM. Time for a break.... Metta, Sarah p.s Mike, TG, KKT - good to see you around:-) ================== 32707 From: Philip Date: Mon May 3, 2004 2:06am Subject: Frying pan sound and citta/cetasika Hello all With help from Rob M and Howard, I have been able to undestand more clearly the difference between citta and cetasika, and why there is more emphasis here on citta being kusala or akusala rather than the cetasika, but I'll pose another question that will help me continue to work it out. The other day I was sitting reading when my wife (I'll call her Naomi from now on) started to cook something. I heard a sizzling of something in the frying pan - rupa of sound followed by citta of hearing consciousness - and a moment later smelled garlic - rupa of small followed by citta of smelling-consciousness. At some point in there, maybe even before I smelled the garlic, I guess an akusala cetasika arose, because the sound of frying usually means the smell of garlic is on its way in this house - or at least when I cook it almost always is. I say akusala because garlic makes me greedy and I overeat. Now according to Abhidhamma in Daily Life, when we hear something pleasant or unpleasant it is the result of a wholesome or unwholesome deed we performed. I have trouble understanding why Naomi's decision to cook something is the result of my deed (certainly asking her to cook when she doesn't want to doesn't work, so I don't see how my khamma could do it ! :) ) but I'll leave that aside for now. My point is that it seems to me that it is not the citta that is akusala here, but my greedy consumption of food in the past that conditions lobha, an akusala cetasika, to arise. The citta (hearing consciousness) just happened because it was supper time. It seems to me that it is the cetasika that arose conditioned by past cetasika that is where the real understanding needs to arise. I wonder why I am insisting on this? Maybe there is something in me that wants to insist on citta (e.g hearing consciousness) being random, and cetasika being more our responsibility. But I guess it's good that I am really trying to get my understanding of citta/cetasika sorted out. I am posting this without having reread Rob M and Howards's posts first. My apologies for that. I will go and reread them now. Metta, Phil 32708 From: bodhi2500 Date: Mon May 3, 2004 2:09am Subject: Breathing Beings Hi Christine and all, Chris, during the weekend you wondered if `breathing beings' included creatures still inside an egg, i.e.: cane toad eggs. I found this in the Metta Sutta, Khuddakapatha and its commentary, translation by Bhikkhu Nanamoli. Metta Sutta Whatever breathing beings there are, No matter whether frail or firm, With none excepted, long or big Or middle-sized or short or small Or thick, or those seen or unseen, Or whether dwelling far or near, That are or that yet seek to be, Let every creature's heart rejoice. Commentary> "That are or that yet seek to be" > Or alternatively, in the case of the four kinds of womb generation, creatures that are egg-born or uterus-born are called those `that yet seek to be' as long as they have not broken the egg-membrane or the caul-membrane [respectively]; but when they have broken the egg-membrane or the caul-membrane and have come out, they are called those `that are'. Take care Steve P.S. Thanks again Andrew and Sandra. 32709 From: Philip Date: Mon May 3, 2004 2:24am Subject: Mai pen rai in Pali? Hello all As I mentionned in a post to James, I have been having trouble overcoming my addiction to the news, which is causing a lot of hostility to arise in me. When I am having success in resisting the urge to check out news, I find myself saying "it doesn't concern me, it doesn't concern me" which probably came about because of my growing interest in examining my susceptibility to the eight worldly concerns. This morning as I was washing the dishes, I thought of the Thai expression "mai pen rai" for the first time in about 10 years. Many in this group are very familiar with it but if anyone isn't I guess it could be translated as "don't worry about it" or "it doesn't matter" and it is a very common phrase and has even been called a kind of daily life philosophy in Thailand. Today, as I was cycling, I found "mai pen rai" coming into my head again and again when I found my mind wandering on to some kind of worldly concern. So I can see that it will be a new kind of mini- mantra to bring me back to examining present realities for the next little while. I have two questions for the Thaiophiles in the group. 1) Does "mai pen rai" have any Buddhist etymological roots? I know that in Japan some everday expressions actually have Buddhist etymolgical origins that people aren't aware of. (In case Rob K or anyone else interested in Japanese is reading this, did you know that "hidoi" - a catchphrase word for "terrible" - comes from hi- dou?i"ñ "¹?j , as in "not of the way?") 2) How would you say "mai pen rai" in Pali? Or what term or phrase in the canon would you say catches its meaning? I think "mai pen rai" is very helpful if we take it to mean not letting ourselves get caught up in worldly concerns. On the other hand, there is samvega, which means that we should have a sense of urgency. Maybe samvega for examining present realities, and mai pen rai for the eight worldly concerns. Metta, Phil 32710 From: Philip Date: Mon May 3, 2004 2:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cittas and cetasikas (basic question!) Hello Nina, and all My gosh! I just came across this. Somehow I missed it the first time. (I don't get the e-mails, only read at the board and sometimes miss things.) I will read it with great interest, but my apologies if it answers any questions I just asked in the "Frying pan" thread. And I will be more careful about checking for responses to my posts. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > 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. > > 32711 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon May 3, 2004 4:10am Subject: Re: Breathing Beings Hello Steve, and all, Thank you for this reference - that clears it up for me. So .. if I can't drag the eggs out of the dam to dry out on the bank before having a chance to hatch, I guess I'll keep on with my old method of catching them after birth and transporting them up the road to the street light at the church. Two are sleeping in the dog's dinner dish at the moment, and I don't want them poisoning his water. Happy Vesak tomorrow, enjoyed your contributions on the weekend,:-) metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bodhi2500" wrote: > Hi Christine and all, > Chris, during the weekend you wondered > if `breathing beings' included creatures still inside an egg, i.e.: > cane toad eggs. I found this in the Metta Sutta, Khuddakapatha and > its commentary, translation by Bhikkhu Nanamoli. > > Metta Sutta > > Whatever breathing beings there are, > No matter whether frail or firm, > With none excepted, long or big > Or middle-sized or short or small > Or thick, or those seen or unseen, > Or whether dwelling far or near, > That are or that yet seek to be, > Let every creature's heart rejoice. > > Commentary> > "That are or that yet seek to be" > Or alternatively, in the case of > the four kinds of womb generation, creatures that are egg-born or > uterus-born are called those `that yet seek to be' as long as they > have not broken the egg-membrane or the caul-membrane [respectively]; > but when they have broken the egg-membrane or the caul-membrane and > have come out, they are called those `that are'. > > Take care > Steve > > P.S. Thanks again Andrew and Sandra. 32712 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Mon May 3, 2004 3:25am Subject: Happy Vesak 4/5 2004! Friends: Happy Vesak tomorrow 4/5 2004! On this very day 2534 years ago on the fulmoon night of May, the Gotama Buddha was Perfectly Self-Awakened! Such was this mighty & quite rare event! The Great Enlightenment of the Buddha: At that time a girl named Sujata Senani lived in Uruvela. When adult she prayed before a certain Banyan tree, that she might get a husband equal to herself in caste and that her firstborn may be a son. If so, she promised to offer the perceived tree deity the value of 100.000 yearly. Her prayer was successful, since so indeed did it happen! Six years after the Buddha-to-be had started his severe asceticism, she desired to pay back the perceived tree deity on the full moon day of the month of Vesak. First she put 1000 cows on good grass in the forest. The milk from them, she fed to 500 cows and the milk from these 500 cows, she gave to 250 and so on down to feeding such ultra pure milk from 16 cows to 8 cows. This process called "Working the milk in & in" made the milk more sweet, thick, protein rich & nutritious. At the full moon day of the Vesak month, she rose at early dawn & made the 8 cows to be milked. As soon as new buckets were placed under the cows, their milk poured forth in streams spontaneously all by itself. Seeing this miracle Sujata collected the milk herself in a new pot and began to cook milk-rice (Kiribath). Seeing the milk boil immediately while rotating right with large bubbles, yet not spilling over & the fire burn without trace of smoke, she knew something special was going on. On this auspicious occasion the 4 guardian Kings stood guard, Maha Brahma held the white umbrella of state & Sakka tended the fire. Just a man squeezes honey out of a honeycomb, so did these deities by their superhuman power collect the vital nectar from all 4 great continents & their 2000 islands. They then infused this fine nutrient into the milk-rice. At other events deities infuse this nectar into each mouthful, but here on the day of Awakening to Buddhahood and on the day of Decease, they place it in the vessel itself. When Sujata saw so many miracles appear, she said to her servant girl Punna: "Punna, dear girl, the tree deity is very well disposed towards us today. Never have I seen so many wonders. Run quickly to the Holy tree and get everything clean, neat & ready. "Yes, my lady," answered the girl and ran in hot haste to the foot of the tree. Now at that very night the Future Buddha had 5 specific dreams that made him conclude after thorough consideration: "Certainly, without doubt, today is the very day, I will reach Enlightenment!" When the night had passed, he cleaned himself and came early before dawn to that very Bo tree and sat down facing east, to await the suitable time for going the begging round. His 5 colored radiance illuminated the whole tree. Then Punna came. When she saw the streaming radiance from his body lighting up the whole tree in a golden color, she became highly excited and said to herself: "Our deity, methinks, have come down from the tree and has seated himself in order to receive our offering with his own hands!". So she ran in great speed back to Sujata & told all about it. When Sujata heard this news, she became both thrilled & jubilant! So elated, she rewarded the slave Punna by saying: "From this very day you may be here as my eldest daughter," and gave Punna all such jewelry appropriate for that position. Since all Buddhas on the day of Buddhahood receive their food on a golden dish, the idea occurred to Sujata to put the milk-rice and a golden plate worth 100.000. The milk-rice poured out from the pot as water from a lotus leaf & filled exactly the golden dish. Covering it with another golden dish and wrapping it in a white cloth, she adorned herself with all her ornaments and proceeded with the dish on her head to the foot of the Banyan tree. As soon as she caught sight of the Future Buddha, she became exceedingly overjoyed & ecstatic. Expecting him to be the tree deity, she approached while constantly bowing. She took down the golden dish from her head & uncovered it. Advancing close to the Buddha-to-be she put down a golden vase with flower scented water. His long kept earthenware bowl given by Maha Brahma Ghatikara vanished at that moment, so when stretching down his hand attempting to find his bowl, he got hold of the golden vase. Sujata then placed the golden plate in the hands of the Great Being. He gazed at her & she perceived that he was a Holy Man. Doing a reverential obeisance she said: "Lord, please accept my donation & take it wherever you see fit." Adding "May your wishes come through like mine." she raised and departed as disinterested in her golden plate as had it been a withered leaf. The Future Buddha then raised and circulating the tree right-wise he proceeded down to the Neranjara river, and descended into its waters just as many thousands of Future Buddhas before him, had here bathed on the day of their complete enlightenment. This place is even today a pilgrimage called Suppatitthita. Coming out of the water, he dressed in the simple hempen dress of Saint-ship also common to all the Noble Bodhisattvas before him. Sitting down on the bank, he then rolled the entire dish of thick sweet milk-rice into 49 small pellets and ate them. Thereafter he took no further food in the 49 days of the 7 weeks he spent enraptured in the bliss of Awakening. During all that time the Buddha neither bathed, rinsed his mouth nor eased himself, but was fully absorbed into the ecstasy of the trance of Buddhahood. When he had consumed the milk-rice he took the golden dish and said: "If I am to become a Buddha today, let this golden dish go up-stream." He then threw it into the water, and cleaving the stream as a fleet horse it went up-stream in the middle of the river for 160 meters. Then it dived into a whirlpool & sank into the submerged palace of the black Snake King, where it hit "Click! Clack!" against the top of the stack of golden dishes, used by the 3 prior Buddhas of this Eon. When the black Snake King heard this particular sound he exclaimed: "Yesterday another Buddha lived. Today a new One has been born!" repeating several hundred admiring verses. As the time from yesterday did this immense time lapse between two Buddhas appear to him. At these rare occasions his body raised up into the air to several km. Then the Future Buddha rested at the riverbank between Sal trees in full bloom. At nightfall when the flowers closed, he raised like a lion & went towards the Bodhi Tree along a path prepared by the deities. The nagas, fairies, angels, deities, birds, & various other beings did the Seer homage with flowers, perfumes, & other splendid offerings. Divine music was heard, so that all of the ten thousand worlds were vibrantly excited with expectation & shouts of acclaim. Just then a grass-cutter came going with his harvest from the other side. He offered the Great Being 8 handfuls of Kusa grass, when he saw that this Sage was a Holy Man. The Future Buddha accepted the grass and proceeded to the foot of the Bodhi-tree. There, the Expert of worlds surveyed the site standing on the Southern side. This instantly sank down, while the opposite side raised up. "This cannot be the site for the attainment of supreme wisdom". So he went around the tree to the Western & Northern sides, but also there did the ground sink down. Reaching the imperturbable Eastern side, where all Buddhas take their seat, he sat down saying to himself: "This is indeed the immovable spot where all the Buddhas have seated themselves! This is the very place for destroying this net of passion!" Shaking out the grass it spontaneously arranged itself into a suitable & symmetric seat. Then the Future Buddha leaned his back against the trunk and was thus faced East. Right there he then made this mighty decision: "Let all blood & flesh of this body dry up & let just the skin & sinews fall from the bones. I will not leave this seat before having attained the absolute & supreme Freedom!" So determined, did he seat himself in this unconquerable seat, which not even a 100 strikes of lightning could make him waver from. At this very moment the rebel deity Mara -the Evil One- raised exclaiming: "Prince Siddhattha will pass beyond my power, but I will never allow it!" and sounding the Mara's war shout, he prepared his army & went out for battle. Mara's army extended 102 km in front & to the sides of him. Behind it extended to the limits of the world & it towered 77 km up high. The sound of it was like the rumbling roar of an earthquake. Mara mounted his mountain-like Elephant carrying a 1000 different weapons. Not two in his army carried the same weapon and this immense mass of warriors swept forward as a flood to overwhelm the Blessed Bhagava. There Deities of the 10 thousands worlds of this galaxy were singing the praises of the Great Being. Sakka - the King of the 33 gods - was blowing the conch horn, which could sound for four months after a single blow. The black Naga King was reciting the 100 laudatory verses & the mighty Maha-Brahma was holding the white umbrella aloft. But when Mara's army came close, no one dared stay put. They all fled, trembling like a caught rabbit. The black Naga King dived into the earth and reaching his submerged home, he covered his face with both hands & lay down. Sakka threw the conch right over his shoulder & took up a safe position at the rim of the world. Maha-Brahma left the white umbrella at the end of this world & fled into his fine-material plane. Not a single deity was able to stand his ground, so they all left the Great Being sitting cross-legged all alone only protected by the consummation of his perfections. Then Mara said to his militia: "This Siddhattha, son of king Suddhodana, is far greater than any other man, so we will never succeed to fight him up front. We will therefore attack him from behind." Looking towards the North the Kinsman of the sun perceived that Mara's Army was approaching like a great flood and noted: "Here come this mighty gang putting up all their forceful power against me alone. Neither my parents, family nor friends are here. But I have these great accumulated perfections at my side. These will be my shield and the force, that will crush this mighty evil & armed gathering. And so he remained all still inwardly focusing on the 10 great perfections. Wanting to drive away the Future Buddha Mara, then whirled up a great storm, which could tear away mountain peaks, uproot trees and pulverize entire cities into scattered powder. Yet, when this immense energy reached the Future Buddha, it could not even make the corner of his robe flutter. Such was the power of the Great Being's long accumulated merit. Intending then to drown this Bull among Seers Mara caused a great rain to pour down until the wild torrents of water flooded even the treetops. But on reaching the Future Buddha, this immense flood could not even wet his robe to the extent of a dewdrop. Infuriated, Mara, yielding power over even the creation of others, then caused a showering bombardment of flaming rocks & smoking boulders. Yet these turned into celestial flowers reaching the Great Being. So also did a veritable assault by a cascade of burning spears, swords, arrows & axes hurled through the air. Enraged, Mara then whirled forth an attack of burning red coals. These also, however, feel gently as flowers at the feet of the Foremost of all humans. Seething mad, Mara then tried white ashes & sand glowing like fire, but this fell as sandal wood powder at the feet of the Caravan leader. A shower of boiling mud became a delighting balm. Feverishly attempting to frighten the Great Seer, Mara then caused a dense fourfold darkness to spread out, but reaching the Dispeller of darkness it disappeared, like darkness is lighted up in the radiance of the sun. Frustrated, being unable even to touch the Wielder of Power with these nine mighty hurricanes of wind, rain, rocks, weapons, red coals, hot ashes, sand, mud, & darkness Mara somewhat in panic commanded his army: "Why do you stand still? Seize, kill & drive away this prince". Armed with a discus, he drew near the Future Buddha on his elephant & yelled: "Siddhattha, leave this seat. It is not yours, but mine!" Hearing this the Well-gone One replied: "Mara, neither have you fulfilled the 10 perfections to the third degree, nor have you given the 5 great donations. Neither has you striven for insight, for the welfare of the world, nor for enlightenment! Therefore does this seat not belong to you, but indeed to me." Unable to control his fury the enraged Mara hurled his discus, which could cut stone pillars like bamboo shoots. But as the Great Being reflected on the perfections, it changed into a canopy of flowers, which remained suspended over his head. Mara's army then threw enormous mountain like boulders saying: "This will make him get up & flee!" but they also fell to the ground as flowers. Meanwhile the gods were standing on the rim of the world & craning their necks to see, they mumbled: "Oohh what a day... This handsome prince will certainly be smashed! What will he do to save himself?" The Conqueror then confidently continued: "Mara, who is your witness to have given the great donations ?" Mara responded: "As many as you see here!" and instantly all in his army roared "I am his witness, I am his witness" as with one voice. Mara then asked the Great Being: "Siddhattha, who is your witness to have given the great donations ?" The Future Buddha answered: "You have alive witnesses at your side while I have none. However the great seven-hundred-fold donation, which I gave at my existence as Vessantara, shall now be testified by this great earth, how inanimate she may be. And at the exact moment he touched the earth with his hand, it erupted into a tremulous earthquake. When he gladdened remembered his prior great donation, Mara's elephant crouched down before him on its knees. Suddenly overpowered by fear Mara's followers fled helter-skelter in all directions. Not two went the same way, but leaving their weapons in a chaos all behind, they fled terrified by panic. Seeing them flee, the great assembly of deities triumphantly shouted: "Mara is defeated. Prince Siddhattha has conquered. Let us celebrate the Victory!" The snakes then urged the snakes, the birds urged the birds, the deities urged the deities, the Brahmas urged the brahmas and they all approached the great wisdom seat of the Supreme Teacher carrying perfumes, flowers, garlands, and offerings, while they sang: "The Victory has this illustrious Buddha Won. The Evil One, The End-maker is defeated & done. Thus they jubilantly circled the wisdom throne, the band of snakes singing their praises of the Seer, the flocks of birds singing their praises of the Sage, the assembly of Deities singing their praises of the Conqueror, the group of Brahmas singing their praises of the Worthy One." It was before the sun had set that the Tathagata thus conquered Mara & defeated his army. Then at the same night, while the Bo tree rained red sprigs on his robe, the Consummate One acquired knowledge of his previous existences in the first watch of the night: "With the mind thus concentrated, purified, bright, intact, unified, focused, tractable, compliant, steady & imperturbable, I directed it to remembrance of my past lives. I recollected numerous past lives, i.e., one birth, two...five, ten...fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many eons of cosmic contraction & expansion: There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan & species, had such a body. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There I had such name, belonged to such a sort & family, had such a form. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here. Thus I remembered my various past lives in all their various modes & details. This was the first knowledge I attained in the first watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose as happens in one who is mindful, keen, & determined... But the pleasant feeling, that arose in this way did not invade my mind nor remain. With the mind thus still, concentrated, purified, bright, intact, pliant, malleable, steady & imperturbable, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away & reappearance of beings. I saw by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human eye beings passing away & re-appearing, and I realized how & why they are high & low, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate, all in accordance with the kamma of their prior actions: These beings, who were endowed with bad behaviour of body, speech, & mind, who reviled the Noble Ones, held wrong views and acted under the influence of wrong views with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of misery, the bad destination, the lower realms, even in hell. But these beings, who were gifted with good behaviour of body, speech & mind, who did not revile the Noble Ones, who held right views and acted under the influence of right views with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in happy destinations, even in a divine world. Thus, by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human, I saw beings passing away & re-appearing and I could see directly, why they are high & low, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate all in accordance with their particular mixture of good & bad kamma. This was the second knowledge I attained in the second watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose as happens in one who is mindful, keen, & determined... But the satisfaction that arose in this way did not invade my mind nor remain. With the mind thus concentrated, absorped, bright, intact, purified, pliant, malleable, steady & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. I realized how it actually develops, that: Caused by Ignorance, Mental Construction emerges. Ceasing of Ignorance, therefore ceases Mental Construction. Caused by Mental Construction, Consciousness emerges. Ceasing of Mental Construction, therefore ceases Consciousness. Caused by Consciousness, Name-&-Form emerge. Ceasing of Consciousness, therefore ceases Name-&-Form. Caused by Name-&-Form, the Six Senses emerge. Ceasing of Name-&-Form, therefore ceases the Six Senses. Caused by The six Senses, Contact emerges. Ceasing of The six Senses, therefore ceases Contact. Caused by Contact, Feeling emerges. Ceasing of Contact, therefore ceases Feeling. Caused by Feeling, Craving emerges. Ceasing of Feeling, therefore ceases Craving. Caused by Craving, Clinging emerges. Ceasing of Craving, therefore ceases Clinging. Caused by Clinging, Becoming emerges. Ceasing of Clinging, therefore ceases Becoming. Caused by Becoming, Birth emerges. Ceasing of Becoming, therefore ceases Birth. Caused by Birth, Ageing, Sickness & Death emerge. Ceasing of Birth, therefore ceases Ageing, Sickness & Death. Caused by Ageing, Sickness & Death, Misery emerge. Ceasing of Ageing, Sickness & Death, therefore ceases all Misery! So seeing: Such is Misery... Such is the cause of Misery... Such is the end of Misery... Such is the way leading to the end of Misery... Such is mental fermentation... Such is the cause of fermentation... Such is the end of fermentation... Such is the way leading to the end of fermentation. When my mind saw that, realized that, it was freed of the fermentation of sensuality, released from the fermentation of becoming, unobstructed by the fermentation of ignorance. With that release, there was the knowledge; Released! I realized that: Birth is ended, this Holy life is fulfilled, this mission is completed. There is no further state in this or any other world... Such was the third knowledge, I attained in the third watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; certainty arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose as it happens to one who is mindful, keen, & determined... But the satisfaction that so arose, did not obsess my mind nor remain! At this very moment of attainment of Omniscience, the 10 thousand worlds quaked 12 times & became gloriously adorned. Throughout this galaxy flowering trees bloomed, lotuses blossomed, and wines & trees bore fruit, the dark spaces of the hells and between the worlds became illuminated by a flooding blitz of radiance surpassing even that of 7 suns!!! Fully & perfectly Enlightened - The Buddha - perceiving this immense glory spoke these solemn 2 verses, which never has been omitted by any of countless thousands of prior Buddhas: Through this round of countless existences have I searched yet failed to find the Creator who framed this formation: What Misery! - Endless Birth, Death & Pain ! Now I see that 'the Constructor' of this structure is Craving. Never shall this construction be build again as all the rafters are shattered and the main beam is both busted & broken. At the elimination of Craving, this mind is all Stilled… Then, friends, I myself a subject birth, ageing, sickness, death, pain, sorrow & mental degradation, having fully comprehended the danger in all what is subject to birth, ageing, sickness, death, pain, sorrow & mental degradation, searching the unborn, unageing, immune, deathless, unburning, happy, pleasant, pure & supreme security from the oppressing bondage of craving, of becoming, of views, and of ignorance, entered this unbecome, unborn, uncreated, unconstructed, undiverse, unformed, unchangeable, unconditional, unimaginable, undecaying, unageing, unending, undeceiving, universal unity, this supremely safe, immune, death & painless state called Nibbana. This vision of certainty arose in me: This release is irreversible, this is the last birth. This endless reappearance is finally ended... --oo0oo-- All yours in the Dhamma. Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.msn.com/DirectDhamma/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/TrueDhamma 32713 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 3, 2004 7:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati Sutta (again) Rob Ep This is just to say hello and welcome back. Great to see you on the list again, and thanks for coming in on this thread. By coincidence I started on a post to you last night, but was too tired to finish and post it. I'm afraid my mid-week posting time is severly limited, but I'll try to respond on this and your other post as soon as possible. Jon PS For some reason your other (longer) post has not come through to my inbox; probably just one of those glitches that seems to happen. --- Robert Epstein wrote: ... > Hi Jon. > Okay, here is Thich Nath Hanh's translation. Somebody ought to > sort > out who's got the literal meaning and who doesn't: > > 1. Breathing in a long breath, he knows, "I am breathing in a long > breath." Breathing out a long breath, he knows, "I am breathing > out a > long breath." > > 2. Breathing in a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing in a > short > breath." Breathing out a short breath, he knows, "I am breathing > out > a short breath." > > Jon, this is how the sutta starts, the first two stanzas. There is no > other substantive way to translate this, as there is no other > object > of mindfulness mentioned here other than the breath. So the breath is > indeed the object of discernment or contemplation here, what I > would call "meditation." ... 32714 From: Date: Mon May 3, 2004 4:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Frying pan sound and citta/cetasika Hi, Phil (and Rob) - In a message dated 5/3/04 5:09:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, plnao@j... writes: > > > Hello all > > With help from Rob M and Howard, I have been able to undestand > more clearly the difference between citta and cetasika, and why there > is more emphasis here on citta being kusala or akusala rather than > the cetasika, but I'll pose another question that will help me > continue to work it out. > > The other day I was sitting reading when my wife (I'll call her > Naomi from now on) started to cook something. I heard a sizzling of > something in the frying pan - rupa of sound followed by citta of > hearing consciousness - and a moment later smelled garlic - rupa of > small followed by citta of smelling-consciousness. At some point in > there, maybe even before I smelled the garlic, I guess an akusala > cetasika arose, because the sound of frying usually means the smell > of garlic is on its way in this house - or at least when I cook it > almost always is. I say akusala because garlic makes me greedy and I > overeat. > > Now according to Abhidhamma in Daily Life, when we hear something > pleasant or unpleasant it is the result of a wholesome or unwholesome > deed we performed. I have trouble understanding why Naomi's decision > to cook something is the result of my deed (certainly asking her to > cook when she doesn't want to doesn't work, so I don't see how my > khamma could do it ! :) ) but I'll leave that aside for now. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: If I may, I'd like to address this now, as I think it is important. Now, to some extent, volitional actions of yours in the past may well be conditions affecting the actions of others in the present, because we are not in this "game" alone - there is interaction among mindstreams, with many namarupic streams "reflected", as it were, in each other. Our "world" is a shared one by means of mutual reflection as I see it. More centrally, however, it is not so much that your past intentions and actions influenced the actions of another, but rather that they influenced the character of dhammas that arise in your mindstream. The rupa that is the odor of the saut'eing of oil and garlic that I experience is pleasant, whereas the rupa that arises in your mindstream is unpleasant. As I understand it, that distinction is a kammically determined. Whether it is that the rupas themselves that differ or that the rupas are the same but the vedanic responses alone differ has been an issue previously discussed on the list. I believe the Abhidhammic position is that it is the rupas themselves, each with their own associated vedana, that differ. Whether this is so or not doesn't strike me as being critically important. What is important, I think, is that prior kamma is a condition for the vedanic flavor of what arises in a namarupic stream. --------------------------------------------------- > My point is that it seems to me that it is not the citta that is > akusala here, but my greedy consumption of food in the past that > conditions lobha, an akusala cetasika, to arise. The citta (hearing > consciousness) just happened because it was supper time. It seems to > me that it is the cetasika that arose conditioned by past cetasika > that is where the real understanding needs to arise. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Calling a volitionally active mindstate wholesome or unwholesome is purely a commentary on its cetasikas, and calling a resultant mindstate wholesome or unwholesome is purely a commentary on the "moral" status (wholesome or unwholesome) of the volitionally active mindstates that were conditions for the arising of the resultant state. This is purely derivative and definitional. ------------------------------------------------- > > I wonder why I am insisting on this? Maybe there is something in me > that wants to insist on citta (e.g hearing consciousness) being > random, and cetasika being more our responsibility. But I guess it's > good that I am really trying to get my understanding of > citta/cetasika sorted out. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Nothing is random, though not everything must have a significant kammic origin within one's own mindstream. Whatever arises does so due to "causes and conditions", but it is possible in some cases that none of the more immediate of these conditions be one's prior kamma. (Of course, everything that arises in ones mindstream is affected by the fact that one is operating in a particular realm of experience, the "earth plane" for us, and that is a (favorable) kammic resultant.) -------------------------------------------------- > > I am posting this without having reread Rob M and Howards's posts > first. My apologies for that. I will go and reread them now. > > Metta, > Phil > =========================== 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) 32715 From: Date: Mon May 3, 2004 6:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Do or not do something > Yes, the Abhidhamma can be useful. But, millions of people through the > centuries have gotten value out of vipassana teachings and practices and > made > sense of > it without any knowledge of the Abhidhamma.<< ..... S: There may be some confusion over terms here. For example, when you talk about the elements or about any other realities which are being experienced now, it is Abhidhamma whether or not we" "ve ever opened an Abhidhamma text or not or whether or not we use this word. I don't think we'd be having the discussions we do unless you had quite some familiarity with 'Abhidhamma'. Similarly, vipassana refers to the development of wisdom or insight. Without any understanding of what there can be insight into, it can’t develop. Let me know if you disagree. jack: I believe the suttas are self-contained. Nothing else including the Abhidhamma is needed. Vipassana to me refers to the realization that all phenomena is transient, non-self and unsatisfactory. Teachings addressed those issues and putting forth techniques to train one's mind to experience these realities is contained in the suttas. I don't think experiencing realites is exclusively Abhidhamma. .... > I want to be clear on this. I am not degrading the beliefs of anyone > else. > There are many useful and valid paths in Buddhism. .... S: I’m not sure about this. I think there’s really only the path of satipatthana, however we dress it up. jack: I think we disagree on what the path of satipatthana is. jack>Abbidhamma, in my > opinion, is > useful and valid. I don't question that the interpretation of Abhidhamma > of > some on this list (which I don't consider a mainstream Abhidhamma view) > is a > valid and useful path to them. .... S: I’m not sure what a ‘mainstream Abhidhamma view’ would be, but I think it would be helpful to look at any aspects which seem to conflict and to check texts or discuss further. This is what I do with Htoo, RobM and others who have studied a lot of Abhidhamma and sometimes have different interpretations. I learn a lot from these discussions. Another friend wrote to me off-list wondering if there was anything in what Nina or some others of us write on Abhidhamma that ‘can be or has been refuted by Abhidhamma devotees who follow other approaches’. The friend gave kamma as an example that seems to be given different interpretations and also wondered if it’s taught differently in the suttas and the Abhidhamma. I think these are very valid questions - it’s easy to read the suttas to check for ourselves. It’s not at all easy to read the Abhidhamma texts. In response, I suggested that anyone should raise any comments or quotes that seem to give a different interpretation or understanding and then we can discuss and look at relevant texts further. Disagreements can lead to useful reflections. I haven’t come across anything on kamma or any other aspect that seems to conflict, but would be glad to look at any examples.I didn't know what was meant. jack: Many people read the Abhidhamma and come up with different interpretations. I think that is evident on this list. The majority of these people who study the Abhidhamma in my opinion believe in having a meditation practice, to take one example. That makes your view whether correct or incorrect in the minority and not mainstream. You bring up Htoo and RobM. I consider their views as mainstream in that they are shared by most who study the Abhidhamma. This isn't to say they are either correct or incorrect. Jack 32716 From: Date: Mon May 3, 2004 7:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do or not do something jack> You are making dualistic categories when you ask "who or what does this > selecting or choosing." There is just selecting and choosing without an > "I" as > subject or doer. An example that is often used to illustrate this point > is that > there is not the see-er and the seen. There is just seeing which is a > process. ... S: Would you agree that there is seeing consciousness and there is visible object which is seen? Sarah, I believe that there is just seeing. (I don't deny that there is something out there apart from us that is seen.) Seeing consciousness and visible object is a dualistic and useful way to break up this non-dualistic process. Another way of saying it is that if we don't have an "I" sense, there is no more subject (I) or object (that which is seen), there is just seeing. The Buddha, in my opinion, broke unified processes into many different categories as teaching tools. For instance, in some teachings he broke a person into 5 aggregates. This was arbitrary in the sense that a person could be broken into other categories. The Buddha used these dualistic concepts to communicate and teach. Sometimes he did not use concepts. s: By ‘selecting’ and ‘choosing ‘, then, are you referring to thinking or to intention (cetana) which arises with all cittas? Jack:> Deciding and choosing are also processes. Anatta does not preclude > selecting > and choosing. .... S: Certainly not. I think you’re referring to kinds of thinking which may or may not lead to the desired result. For example, there may be thinking and deciding to turn right, but by conditions we may turn left anyway. In other words, such thinking and choosing is conditioned and so are the subsequent moments of thinking, seeing, hearing and so on as well. Any disagreement? jack: No disagreement if there is also room for self determination, i.e., choices to be made. One can make decisions out of unconditioned mind. .... > I'm getting a little frustrated trying to make myself understood on this > > point. What I tried to say in my earlier response below is there is no > idea of > watching in the "second phase." Just sitting there and observing doesn't > imply my > making any decision or having attachment to sitting and observing. > just let > my mind and body do what they will without my telling them to do > anything. > There is no "I" selecting anything. Awareness, watching, arises by > itself. .... S: I apologise for causing any frustration - it’s not my intention. I think you see awareness and watching as being synonyms whereas I don’t. Watching suggests there is some intention or wishing to have awareness or some idea that this activity will be conducive. Otherwise, what is the purpose of ‘sitting and observing’? jack: I do use awareness and watching as synonyms. When one is "just sitting" without defilements, one is aware naturally and without purpose. One has to have a lot of practice under one's belt in order to "just sit" without defilements. >At > those moments when I become attached to a thought and lose awareness, > the > decision to bring my attention back is made by itself. .... S: I think decisions are always ‘made’ or brought about by conditions. jack: I think there is a personal responsibility and ability to make decisions. Throughout the suttas, the Buddha is talking about decisions and training one's mind. .... > This is different from the "first phase." (I feel uncomfortable making > this > distinction between training and not training phases. I hope it makes my > view > more understandable.) In the first phase I might be consciously making > the > decision to note hardness, for example. This is part of the process of > training > my mind. In the second phase I am not consciously making this decision. .... S: I think you are implying that the conscious training to note various realities or focus on them is necessary for the second phase when they are ‘noted’ without any special wish or intention. I may be wrong here, but it sounds a little like the argument we often hear that there has to be a self to bring about a non-self or something to that effect. I would say, the path has to begin with detachment from the beginning so that any conditioned dhamma can be known (i.e not just primary rupas) from the outset. jack: Yes I am saying there has to be conscious training/practice in order to reach a stage where there is no special wish or intention. I am clear what your position is. After all this, I hope you are clear on my position. S: Apologies again if my posts leave you feeling frustrated and misunderstood, Jack. I assure you that you have plenty of good company here in that regard, no doubt reflecting my lack of skill in communication;-). I usually always understand your posts. My frustration has been having to repeat my postion several times in order that it be understood. I must not be saying it very well. jack 32717 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon May 3, 2004 1:43pm Subject: Re: Happy Vesak 4/5 2004! Hello Ven. Samahita, All, I think there could be some confusion about Vesak. I also thought it was in May this year, but according to Accesstoinsight it is on June 2. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/uposatha.html metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Bhikkhu Samahita wrote: > > Friends: > > > Happy Vesak tomorrow 4/5 2004! > On this very day 2534 years ago on > the fulmoon night of May, the Gotama > Buddha was Perfectly Self-Awakened! > Such was this mighty & quite rare event! 32718 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon May 3, 2004 2:19pm Subject: Re: Happy Vesak 4/5 2004! Dear Bhikkhu Samahita, Christine and all, Now, I have checked what Vesak day means at the site Christine linked. In the calendar Vesak day is today 3.5.04. According to accesstoinsight Vesak day is The Buddha's birthday, day of enlightenment and day of Mahaparinibbana. It is full moon day of the second month in the calendar. According to Astrology, on 17 April the sun goes into Aries which is the first zodiac sign. Full moon day around that is the first month of the calendar. In the second month when the moon is full, it means that the sun is directly opposite to the moon. In that month when the moon is full it arises in parallel with nakkhatta called Visakha. Whether the year is a leap year or not, The Buddha birth day is always the same. But when there has to be corrected an extra month is added between 3rd and 4th month and this causes the day of The First Buddha Discourse moves a month away from Birth Day. The web site that Christine linked definitely shows Vesak is 2.6.04. It must be a wrong statement. With Metta, Htoo Naing PS: It is not 4th May but 3rd May today. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Ven. Samahita, All, > > I think there could be some confusion about Vesak. I also thought > it was in May this year, but according to Accesstoinsight it is on > June 2. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/uposatha.html > > metta and peace, > Christine > ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Bhikkhu Samahita > wrote: > > > > Friends: > > > > > > Happy Vesak tomorrow 4/5 2004! > > On this very day 2534 years ago on > > the fulmoon night of May, the Gotama > > Buddha was Perfectly Self-Awakened! > > Such was this mighty & quite rare event! 32719 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon May 3, 2004 2:47pm Subject: Re: Happy Vesak 4/5 2004! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: Dear Bhikkhu Samahita, Christine and all, > > Now, I have checked what Vesak day means at the site Christine linked. > > In the calendar Vesak day is today 3.5.04. > > According to accesstoinsight Vesak day is The Buddha's birthday, day > of enlightenment and day of Mahaparinibbana. > > It is full moon day of the second month in the calendar. > > According to Astrology, on 17 April the sun goes into Aries which is > the first zodiac sign. > > Full moon day around that is the first month of the calendar. In the > second month when the moon is full, it means that the sun is directly > opposite to the moon. In that month when the moon is full it arises > in parallel with nakkhatta called Visakha. Whether the year is a leap > year or not, The Buddha birth day is always the same. But when there > has to be corrected an extra month is added between 3rd and 4th month > and this causes the day of The First Buddha Discourse moves a month > away from Birth Day. > > The web site that Christine linked definitely shows Vesak is 2.6.04. > It must be a wrong statement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear All, 2.6.04 is Mahasamaya day. It is the day on which Mahasamaya Sutta was preached. Vesak day is today May the 3rd 2004 Monday. The day of The First Buddha Discourse will be on 31st July 2004 Saturday instead of 1st july 2004 Thursday because of leap year, when an extra month is added between the 3rd month and 4th month of the routine calendar months. With Metta, Htoo Naing PS: I have some knowledge of orbits of planets and astrology. The Buddha was born in the 2nd zodiac sign Taurus. When he was born, the moon was in the 8th house that is Scorpio. When the moon was in the Scorpio, the zenith was Leo the 4th zodiac sign. In that Leo, there is a stellar sign called Visakha. It can now be seen in the unobstructed sky. So today is Vesak day. 2nd June is Mahasamaya day. 1st July becomes null day while 31st July becomes the Day of The First Buddha Discourse. The statement 2.6.04 is Vesak day at the accesstoinsight must be a mistake. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > With Metta, > > Htoo Naing > > PS: It is not 4th May but 3rd May today. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 32720 From: Date: Mon May 3, 2004 3:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Happy Vesak 4/5 2004! Hi, Htoo, Jon and Sarah - In a message dated 5/3/2004 5:47:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, htootintnaing@y... writes: > PS: I have some knowledge of orbits of planets and > astrology. The > Buddha was born in the 2nd zodiac sign Taurus. ============================= Hey, Jon, that's good news for you and me! :-)) Is Sarah a Taurean also? [I don't follow this astrology stuff.] With astronomical metta, Howard 32721 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon May 3, 2004 3:42pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Happy Vesak 4/5 2004! Dear All, Astrology is not to follow. But from planetary calendars are calculated and leap years are made. And memory of our Great Teacher can be celebrated depending on calendar. This memory adds extra kusala. There is 365 days in a year. But to be exact, it is more than 365 days but less than 366 days. Lunar calendars are used by calculating the orbit of moon around the earth. It is roughly round about 27 day to 30 days. So leap years have to made after some 30 days were lept. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Htoo, Jon and Sarah - > > In a message dated 5/3/2004 5:47:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, htootintnaing@y... writes: > > > PS: I have some knowledge of orbits of planets and > > astrology. The > > Buddha was born in the 2nd zodiac sign Taurus. > ============================= > Hey, Jon, that's good news for you and me! :-)) Is Sarah a Taurean also? [I don't follow this astrology stuff.] > > With astronomical metta, > Howard 32722 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon May 3, 2004 3:52pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Happy Vesak 4/5 2004! Is it 3rd May 2004 Monday Dear All, As Buddhists, all Buddhists should have known when The Buddha was born, when He was enlightened, and when he did mahaparinibbana. 4th May is the first waning day and it is not Vesak day. 2nd June 2004 which is stated as Vesak day at accesstoinsight is a mistake. 2nd June 2004 is Mahasamaya day and it is not Vesak day. It is the day when Mahasamaya Sutta was preached. Some time people follow wrong track because of their interest or likeness or craving or clinging. May all being be free from suffering and see real things as real on The Buddha Day 3rd May 2004 Monday. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > Dear All, > > Astrology is not to follow. But from planetary calendars are > calculated and leap years are made. And memory of our Great Teacher > can be celebrated depending on calendar. This memory adds extra > kusala. > > There is 365 days in a year. But to be exact, it is more than 365 > days but less than 366 days. > > Lunar calendars are used by calculating the orbit of moon around the > earth. It is roughly round about 27 day to 30 days. So leap years > have to made after some 30 days were lept. > > With Metta, > > Htoo Naing 32723 From: Date: Mon May 3, 2004 4:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Sarah, What is dukkha? I would say dukkha is desire. As such the second noble truth is that suffering is the cause of suffering and this is equivalent to saying desire is the cause of desire. How can desire be kamma result? Larry 32724 From: Date: Mon May 3, 2004 3:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/3/04 7:32:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Sarah, > > What is dukkha? I would say dukkha is desire. As such the second noble > truth is that suffering is the cause of suffering and this is equivalent > to saying desire is the cause of desire. How can desire be kamma result? > > Larry > > ========================== As I see it, dukkha isn't desire. In the "person", dukkha is mental pain or suffering, and it is has desire as condition. With regard to dhammas, dukkha is their unsatisfactoriness - their inability to be sources of satisfaction. That is, dhammas do not satisfy desires, or at least not for long, resulting in dukkha in the first (personal) sense. With the ending of desire comes the ending of dukkha in both senses. 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) 32725 From: Date: Mon May 3, 2004 9:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Howard, If dukkha is mental unpleasant feeling how does that fit into dependent arising? Larry 32726 From: robmoult Date: Mon May 3, 2004 9:10pm Subject: Re: Frying pan sound and citta/cetasika Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Philip" wrote: > The other day I was sitting reading when my wife (I'll call her > Naomi from now on) started to cook something. I heard a sizzling of > something in the frying pan - rupa of sound followed by citta of > hearing consciousness - and a moment later smelled garlic - rupa of > small followed by citta of smelling-consciousness. At some point in > there, maybe even before I smelled the garlic, I guess an akusala > cetasika arose, because the sound of frying usually means the smell > of garlic is on its way in this house - or at least when I cook it > almost always is. I say akusala because garlic makes me greedy and I > overeat. > > Now according to Abhidhamma in Daily Life, when we hear something > pleasant or unpleasant it is the result of a wholesome or unwholesome > deed we performed. I have trouble understanding why Naomi's decision > to cook something is the result of my deed (certainly asking her to > cook when she doesn't want to doesn't work, so I don't see how my > khamma could do it ! :) ) but I'll leave that aside for now. > My point is that it seems to me that it is not the citta that is > akusala here, but my greedy consumption of food in the past that > conditions lobha, an akusala cetasika, to arise. The citta (hearing > consciousness) just happened because it was supper time. It seems to > me that it is the cetasika that arose conditioned by past cetasika > that is where the real understanding needs to arise. > > I wonder why I am insisting on this? Maybe there is something in me > that wants to insist on citta (e.g hearing consciousness) being > random, and cetasika being more our responsibility. But I guess it's > good that I am really trying to get my understanding of > citta/cetasika sorted out. ===== Let us go through this event and analyze what happened from an Abhidhamma perspective (in this sequence, I am using the term "billionth of a second" to represent the duration of a citta; in reality it is much faster than this). 1. A sound rupa (the amount of sound that might fit into seventeen billionths of a second) impinged upon the ear door. At this moment, the mind was in a bhavanga mental state. 2. A billionth of a second later, the bhavanga mental state was disturbed by this impingement. 3. A billionth of a second later, the flow of bhavanga mental states ended. 4. A billionth of a second later, the mind takes the sound rupa as its object. This is the adverting mental state. It is functional (kiriya); not producing kamma and not the result of kamma. At this point the sound has been taken as the object of the mental state but "hearing" has not taken place. 5. When the adverting mental state falls away, one of two possible "ear-consciousness" mental states will arise. If the sound rupa is inherently undesireable (anittha) then an ear-consciousness mental state which is the kammic result of past akusala kamma will arise (akusala vipaka). If the sound rupa is inherently desirable- neutral (itthamajjhatta) or if the sound rupa is inherently extremely desirable (ati-ittha) then an ear-consciousness mental state which is the kammic result of past kusala kamma will arise (kusala vipaka). Note that the "inherent quality" of the rupa is distinct from the mind's reaction to that rupa. I suspect that the sound rupa in question was inherently desirable-neutral and therefore a kusala vipaka ear-consciousness mental state will arise. If the sound rupa had come from fingernails on a blackboard, I suspect that the sound rupa would have been anittha. This ear-consciousness mental state performs the function of hearing. 6. The falling away of the kusala vipaka ear-consciousness mental state is a condition for the arising of a kusala receiving mental state. The falling away of the kusala receiving mental state is a condition for the arising of a kusala investigating mental state. In fact, there are two kusala investigating mental states, one for rupas that are inherently desirable-neutral (itthamajjhatta) and one for rupas that are inherently extremely desirable (ati-ittha). To keep this post short, I am skipping the details of these mental states. Please note that even though these mental states are called "kusala", this does not mean that they are wholesome themselves; they are the result of past wholesome actions. 7. The falling away of the investigating mental state is a condition for the arising of a determining mental state. It is functional (kiriya); not producing kamma and not the result of kamma. 8. The falling away of the determining mental state is one of the conditions supporting the arising of javana mental states (the mental states which create kamma). There is only one type of determining mental state but there are twenty kinds of javana mental states and each kind has multiple varieties. So which javana will arise? It depends on accumulations. Since you have not yet reached the third stage of sainthood (Anagami), you still have an accumulation of being attached to sensory data (this type of accumulation is called a defilement). This type of defilement will cause a mental state rooted in attachment to arise. Alternatively, conditions may be conducive for a mental state rooted in delusion associated with restlessness to arise. Accumulations will also act as conditions for the strength of the volition associated with the javana mental state (and thereby the strength of the kamma created). 9. The seven javana mental states will be followed by two registration mental sates. 10. After the ear-door process, there will be a few bhavanga mental states followed by a mind-door process taking the same rupa as object. 11. After an ear-door process and its associated mind-door process, the mind may go and deal with other sense doors before coming back and grabbing another sound from the ear-door. 12. There is then a process of grasping the "sound as a whole" (samudayagahika) involving many mind-door processes. This process "glues together" many sound rupas (each sound rupa is seventeen billionths of a second) into what I will call a "whole sound". In your case, it is a "sizzle sound". There is then a process of grasping the "whole sound" (vatthugahika), grasping the name (namagahika) and recognizing the name (namasallakkhana). At this point, there is a name of "sizzle sound" in your mind. 13. So far, the kamma created by these mental processes is quite weak. We now reach the stage of "mental proliferation". This is when we associate the current "sizzle sound" with past "sizzle sounds". This is where the serious kamma is created because the level of attachment, both to the present and the past, is very great. You remember past meals that started with that sizzling sounds and you may even start salivating! Here is how the Buddha described it in the Honeyball Sutta (MN18): "What one names, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one mentally proliferates. Based on what a person mentally proliferates, the perceptions and categories of mental proliferation assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future rupas cognizable via the ear." 14. A similar sequence occurs when the smell of garlic presents itself at the nose door. Phil, does this make sense or does it confuse further? Metta, Rob M :-) 32727 From: Date: Mon May 3, 2004 6:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/4/04 12:02:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > If dukkha is mental unpleasant feeling how does that fit into dependent > arising? > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: It comes at the end. See for example the synoptic formulation in SamyuttaNikaya XII.2 (Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta/Analysis of 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. ******************************************** In any case, it appears to me that there is little question that the primary senses of 'dukkha' are that of being unsatisfied, this ranging from mild dissatisfaction to extreme emotional distress, for sentient beings, and in being unsatisfying for dhammas. This is made clear I think in the discussion of the four noble truths incorporated in the PTS dictionary's entry on dukkha as follows: "The first of the four gives certain universally recognised cases of it, & then sums them up in short. The five groups (of physical & mental qualities which make an individual) are accompanied by ill so far as those groups are fraught with asavas and grasping. (Panc' upadanakkhandha pi dukkha; cp. S III.47). The second Sacca gives the cause of this dukkha (see Tanha). The third enjoins the removal of this tanha. And the fourth shows the way, or method, of doing so (see Magga)." ************************************************** > > Larry > =============================== 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) 32728 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon May 3, 2004 10:08pm Subject: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi Rob, > Thank you for your very complete answer to my post. I appreciate all > your points, even those I have a different view about, and I am sorry > for repyling so many days later. Likewise, I appreciate your points too and the effort you put into replying. However, just thinking about responding to all your points is making me feel apprehensive :-(, and so I have decided to cop out. No, just kidding ;-). But I think it is better that we start from the beginning and go slowly, because I think I am being caught in a trap and we are both in a way, missing the point. I think there is no need to place `study' against `formal practice'. If we remember from the perspective of development of panna, that the path involves the relationship between pariyatti (intellectual understanding), patipatti (practice or satipatthana) and pativedha (realization), then placing `study' and `practice' against each other, is I think not right. I could start discussing what is meant by `patipatti' or practice, keeping in mind that your idea of it is different to mine. However as you state below: > > :-) 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 guess that goes to the point that we can't put too much stock in > views! : ) I think we have a different understanding also of what pariyatti means. And because of this difference, I think only one (or neither) of us can be said to be following the Teachings correctly. So I think we should carefully discuss this, so that any wrong understanding can be corrected. What do you think? And here I would like to invite other members to join in. So what is Pariyatti? From the Nyanatiloka Dictionary: pariyatti: 'learning the doctrine', the 'wording of the doctrine'. In the 'progress of the disciple' (q.v.), 3 stages may be distinguished: theory, practice, realization, i.e. (1) learning the wording of the doctrine (pariyatti), (2) practising it (patipatti), (3) penetrating it (pativedha) and realising its goal. (App.). The above does not say much. But what do you think? I think it refers to a level of understanding, that which at the very least appreciates the meaning of the words and the general thrust of the Teachings. This contrasts with not understanding and any appreciation at all, but instead being attracted to other philosophies and teachings. And this also the difference between Right and Wrong View. Hope you don't mind that I didn't respond point by point to your post which I think you must have put much thought into and taken the time to write. :-) Metta, Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > Hi Sukin. > Thank you for your very complete answer to my post. I appreciate all > your points, even those I have a different view about, and I am sorry > for repyling so many days later. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" > wrote: 32729 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon May 3, 2004 10:17pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Question Still Remains/Cooran Hi Sarah (and Rob M), Thanks for this message, which you began by suggesting topics for discussion at Cooran: ------------- > > On this note you may prompt Chris to talk more about when she bumped her knee. This was one of the first topics during our recent discussions in Bangkok. We tend to think that when we bump a knee on a table that the discomfort and anguish is a lot of akusala vipaka (unfortunate result of kamma). K.Sujin gave a good response. She said to `take all the names out, then it's realities'. ------------- Christine's trips to Bangkok certainly boost the quality of our discussions. I forgot to prompt her about the knee incident and, would you believe it, she hadn't written down her usual page of memory joggers. ---------- S: > In other words, when we think about knee and pain and coffee table and so on, these are terms and concepts which mask the realities. ------------------ I understand you to be saying; if, at the intellectual level, concepts aren't differentiated from realities, then, at the ultimate level, realities will not be known for what they are. That prompts me to ask, "What is meant by, `at the intellectual level?'" I think you and Nina would maintain that the intellectual level is not solely at the mind door with concepts as objects. There are a lot of sense-door and mind-door processes intermingled. Who knows, perhaps some of them have a little direct understanding of the very dhammas that are being conceptualised. ------------------- S: > In truth there are the briefest moments of akusala vipaka through the body sense, when hardness, heat or motion are experienced with unpleasant (bodily) feeling. Subsequently in the sense and mind door processes there is bound to be aversion and other unwholesome mental factors including unpleasant mental feeling accompanying the javana cittas over and over again . One moment of akusala vipaka and then so many moments of akusala cittas. In between these processes there are also bound to be other sense door processes when visible objects, sounds and so on are experienced as well. ------------ I think you are saying that our intellectual understanding should not overreach itself. Better to have a helpful, general idea than a misleading, specific asumption. ------------- S: > As I understand, papa~nca (proliferation or `diffuseness') extends to all sixfold sense-impressions through all doorways. In just the same way the vipallaasa (perversions) of sa~n~naa and citta vipallasa arise with each akusala citta (including the 5 sense- doors)- only eradicated by the arahant. We also read in the texts about visible object craving (ruupata.nhaa) being `craving in respect of a visible datum' and so on for the other sense objects. Too much speculation is not very helpful though, I find. > ------------ Thanks for that; there is obviously a lot of important activity at the sense-doors -- not just at the conceptualising mind-door. Thanks, also, for retyping your favourite quote about improper visitors in the eye-door process (partly snipped): --------------------- > "And as it is improper for a visitor who has entered another's house to ask for something, to give orders, when the owners of the home sit in silence, so lusting or hating or becoming deluded in the eye door which is the home of adverting, etc. is improper when adverting, etc. do not lust or hate or become deluded. Thus should `clear understanding through non-delusion' be understood by way of `visiting'." > -------------- So, even adverting consciousness can be trained. By conditions, of course. --------------- > I also agree with your comments on the description of visible objects (and sounds) and also find it more helpful just to describe them as `just that which appears through the eyes', > -------------- I have only quickly caught up with the weekend's posts: it seems Rob M has had a change of heart. (Or whoever it was started that `dot of light' rumour :-) ) ------------- S: > I also thought your comments on the `Illusion of Control' were pretty good ------------------------- Thank you, I won't snip that :-) It made me think; after spending so much time nutting-out posts for dsg, why should I double up with discussion papers for Cooran? So, I followed your advice and presented the `Illusion of Control' post. I think I got away with it. -------------------- S: > Look forward to the reports. ----------- So do I. The extra day made the weekend even better than usual. Sometimes, my insistence that everyone should agree with me got a little taxing, but the others were very tolerant. (That's Buddhists for you.) I think we all feel enlightened, but not quite to the extent advertised :-) Kind regards, Ken H 32730 From: Date: Mon May 3, 2004 6:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi again, Larry - In a message dated 5/4/04 12:02:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > If dukkha is mental unpleasant feeling how does that fit into dependent > arising? > > Larry > =========================== Please see the following sutta for an explanation of dukkha from the affective perspective. With metta, Howard ****************************************************************************** ********** Samyutta Nikaya XXXVI.6 Sallatha Sutta The Dart Translated from the Pali by Nyanaponika Thera. For free distribution only. Read an alternate translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu From Contemplation of Feeling: The Discourse-grouping on the Feelings (WH 303), translated from the Pali by Nyanaponika Thera (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1983). Copyright ©1983 Buddhist Publication Society. Used with permission. "An untaught worldling, O monks, experiences pleasant feelings, he experiences painful feelings and he experiences neutral feelings. A well-taught noble disciple likewise experiences pleasant, painful and neutral feelings. Now what is the distinction, the diversity, the difference that exists herein between a well-taught noble disciple and an untaught worldling? "When an untaught worldling is touched by a painful (bodily) feeling, he worries and grieves, he laments, beats his breast, weeps and is distraught. He thus experiences two kinds of feelings, a bodily and a mental feeling. It is as if a man were pierced by a dart and, following the first piercing, he is hit by a second dart. So that person will experience feelings caused by two darts. It is similar with an untaught worldling: when touched by a painful (bodily) feeling, he worries and grieves, he laments, beats his breast, weeps and is distraught. So he experiences two kinds of feeling: a bodily and a mental feeling. "Having been touched by that painful feeling, he resists (and resents) it. Then in him who so resists (and resents) that painful feeling, an underlying tendency of resistance against that painful feeling comes to underlie (his mind). Under the impact of that painful feeling he then proceeds to enjoy sensual happiness. And why does he do so? An untaught worldling, O monks, does not know of any other escape from painful feelings except the enjoyment of sensual happiness. Then in him who enjoys sensual happiness, an underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feelings comes to underlie (his mind). He does not know, according to facts, the arising and ending of these feelings, nor the gratification, the danger and the escape, connected with these feelings. In him who lacks that knowledge, an underlying tendency to ignorance as to neutral feelings comes to underlie (his mind). When he experiences a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling or a neutral feeling, he feels it as one fettered by it. Such a one, O monks, is called an untaught worldling who is fettered by birth, by old age, by death, by sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. He is fettered by suffering, this I declare. "But in the case of a well-taught noble disciple, O monks, when he is touched by a painful feeling, he will not worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught. It is one kind of feeling he experiences, a bodily one, but not a mental feeling. It is as if a man were pierced by a dart, but was not hit by a second dart following the first one. So this person experiences feelings caused by a single dart only. It is similar with a well-taught noble disciple: when touched by a painful feeling, he will no worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught. He experiences one single feeling, a bodily one. "Having been touched by that painful feeling, he does not resist (and resent) it. Hence, in him no underlying tendency of resistance against that painful feeling comes to underlie (his mind). Under the impact of that painful feeling he does not proceed to enjoy sensual happiness. And why not? As a well-taught noble disciple he knows of an escape from painful feelings other than by enjoying sensual happiness. Then in him who does not proceed to enjoy sensual happiness, no underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feelings comes to underlie (his mind). He knows, according to facts, the arising and ending of those feelings, and the gratification, the danger and the escape connected with these feelings. In him who knows thus, no underlying tendency to ignorance as to neutral feelings comes to underlie (his mind). When he experiences a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling or a neutral feeling, he feels it as one who is not fettered by it. Such a one, O monks, is called a well-taught noble disciple who is not fettered by birth, by old age, by death, by sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. He is not fettered to suffering, this I declare. "This, O monks, is the distinction, the diversity, the difference that exists between a well-taught noble disciple and an untaught worldling." Revised: Sun 19-Oct-2003 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn36-006a.html /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) 32731 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 4, 2004 2:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: <...> >To > summarize, so that we are both on the same page: The goal of > Buddhism is enlightenment, not knowing namas and rupas. Simply > understanding namas from rupas in everyday life is still mundane > knowledge. ... S: Yes. Mundane right knowledge/view which leads to supramundane right knowledge. See Mahaacattaariisaka Sutta, MN117 which describes right view with taints and right view which is noble and taintless. The satipatthana Sutta is also discussing the development of mundane knowledge and awareness and the namas and rupas to be known. ..... >Knowing namas and rupas as anatta won't occur until > enlightenment, which is of a supramundane consciousness. .... S: On the contrary, there will be no supramundane consciousness unless namas and rupas are clearly known as anatta first over and over again with more and more refined right view. By the time supramundane consciousness arises, the tendency to wrong view of self has been completely worn away. Chachakka Sutta, MN148, ~Naa.namoli & Bodhi transl: “...I shall teach you the Dhamma that is good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end......... that is the six sets of six..... “The six internal bases should be understood. The six external bases should be understood. The six classes of consciousness should be understood. the six classes of contact... six classes of feeling....six classes of craving....” The six sixes are then explained in detail as anatta to be understood. Then the way leading to the cessation of self-view and underlying tendencies (anusaya) is shown before these are eradicated and final knowledge and enlightenment occurs. ... > Additionally, this supramundane consciousness won't occur until the > defilements are eradicated. Am I the only one to see the necessity > for meditation practice to achieve this goal? (Don't answer that…I > already know your answer! ;-)) One must purify the mind and this > cannot be done (`that well'…I hate to give you even an inch! ;-)) in > this midst of defilements. .... S: No self to do it and nothing to be done. Right view (pa~n~naa) performs its task directly with the assistance of awareness which is aware of the distinct characteristics of different dhammas. Even defilements are anatta, to be seen with understanding and detachment for what they are. .... >It would be like trying to dry your > clothes in a rainstorm, it just can't be done. .... S: When pa~n~naa arises there is no doubt or concern about the rain storm. There are bound to be doubts and running for cover or looking for a short cut at other times because that’s how it’s always been. .... >It is incorrect to > say that meditation practice should not be practiced because of the > idea of self because even the knowing of namas and rupas in the > present moment has the idea of self present! .... S: We may have different understandings of what constitutes ‘meditation practice’ or how anything is ‘practiced’, that’s all. Any time there is the idea of self it (the erroneous thinking at that moment) can be understood too, regardless of the 'activity' at the time. It’s another conditioned dhamma to be known. In the Chachakka Sutta, the emphasis is just on the realities to be understood - no concern about getting out of the rain storm or finding a special place or occasion first. If there is the knowing of a nama or rupa now as it appears (not watching...), then there is no idea of self present at that moment of right view. The next moment there may again be attachment or clinging to self view. Gradually, right view can distinguish these different wholesome and unwholesome moments, even when we seem to be getting soaked. ..... >Your approach reminds > me of the Zen story ... S: I enjoyed the story and also your discussion with Philip;-). Metta, Sarah ==== 32732 From: Sarah Date: Tue May 4, 2004 2:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Happy Vesak 4/5 2004! Hi Howard, --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hey, Jon, that's good news for you and me! :-)) Is Sarah a Taurean > also? [I don't follow this astrology stuff.] ... S: Yes! James too, I believe;-). Best wishes in advance, James and many thanks for the good wishes I received from a few friends on and off-list. By the way, the birthday dana I gave for bhikkhus that Nina recalled so clearly was 27 years ago! Her memory is far better than mine;-). ... > > With astronomical metta, .... S: ;-) I'm a little curious about the discrepancy over the 3rd and 4th for Vesak and wonder if it may be related to different time zones, Htoo? Metta, Sarah ===== 32733 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue May 4, 2004 2:54am Subject: [dsg] Re: Happy Vesak 4/5 2004! Dear Sarah, May be. May well be. Buddha day is in the Southern Island. If time zone difference is more than 12 hours it may be significant. But I just looked at the Myanmar Calendar whose time zone is quite close to Nipal where The Buddha was born. Actually 100 % full moon is at a specific time around the calendar day of full moon day. If you see full moon on the calendar full moon day it may not be as that of 1st waning day if 100 % full takes place in the early hours like 00.00 hours to 6.00 hours. But 2004 calendar says 3rd May 2004 is full moon day, 2nd June is full moon day, 1st July is full moon day, 31st July is full moon day and so on. Time zone will only says the accurate state of fullness of the moon but not the calendar. I am a bit confused while such cases happened. First Bhikkhu Samahita with his Great Good Wish preached very attractive Dhamma with only dated 4th May 2004 Happy Wesak day. Second accesstoinsight which is my favourite site states 2nd June is Vesak day. I did not know Vesak day. At first, I thought 2 years ago it meant to be the full moon day of The First Buddha Discourse. But accesstoinsight states that Vesak day is The Buddha birthday, Enlightened day, and Mahaparinibbana day. Then 3rd May cannot be wrong. Soon after I saw Vesak 4/5/2004 I checked many calendars and they all say 3rd May. Again someone says at another discussion group that 2nd June is Thai Vesakha day. I do not know Visakha day. If it is the Enlightened day when Visakha offered food to The Live Buddha then 3rd May 2004 must be Visakha day. Just wondering. With Metta, Htoo Naing PS: 2nd June is Mahasamaya day when Mahasamaya Sutta was preached. If it is said that Visakha day it may be right. But The Enlighten day is on the full moon day when Visakha Nakkhatta ( constellation of stars ) sign in the sky at zenith which lies in the Leo. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Howard, > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > > Hey, Jon, that's good news for you and me! :-)) Is Sarah a Taurean > > also? [I don't follow this astrology stuff.] > ... > S: Yes! James too, I believe;-). Best wishes in advance, James and many > thanks for the good wishes I received from a few friends on and off- list. > > By the way, the birthday dana I gave for bhikkhus that Nina recalled so > clearly was 27 years ago! Her memory is far better than mine;-). > ... > > > > With astronomical metta, > .... > S: ;-) I'm a little curious about the discrepancy over the 3rd and 4th for > Vesak and wonder if it may be related to different time zones, Htoo? > > Metta, > > Sarah > ===== > > > 32734 From: Andrew Date: Tue May 4, 2004 3:37am Subject: Cooran Thanks Hello everyone at DSG A very useful weekend of discussion was had by myself, Christine, Steve (Bodhi2500), Reg, Ken H and some other Dhamma friends who were able to stop by briefly. Christine provided me with a copy of Nina's Conditions book donated by Betty. I thank Betty for her generosity and Nina for her work. I am already studying the book. May panna arise! We briefly reflected upon the impact of the internet on our Dhamma study - so different to the past when materials were not readily available. DSG itself is now a precious resource and place of good companionship. Thank you Jon and Sarah for moderating the list and sharing your insight so generously. Right Understanding was a major theme of the weekend's discussions but we also looked more closely at Stream-entry. My thoughts are still "churning" and I hope to write some more posts later with the benefit of time. In the interim, I think Christine may have jotted down some queries that arose in the discussions that list members may like to consider - I may be wrong there, though. To satisfy Sarah, I should point out that the frogs were few but Christine did have an encounter with a snake. And Ken H nearly froze when the temperature dropped to about 8 degrees centigrade overnight. These paramattha dhammas can be quite severe at times! My best wishes to all Andrew 32735 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue May 4, 2004 4:02am Subject: Re: Cooran Thanks Hello everyone, Many thanks to Andrew and Sandra for their generosity in inviting the Dhamma Discussion group to stay on their beautiful property, in various sheds, for their preparations that make us so comfortable, and for their companionship that makes us feel so welcome and supported. The Cooran meeting was the usual delightful experience. King Parrots raided the nectar from the flowering shrub next to the Discussion area, Paper Wasps built a nest in the Down Pipe, Whip birds called to each other down in the gully, Swamp Hens called in the evening when we were sitting around the camp-fire, and a quite confused Crow started caw-ing at two o'clock in the morning. Wending my way down for a shower one night, I stopped to let what (I hope) was a tree snake or small python undulate across the road in front of me. Perhaps that was what the crow was caw-ing about a few hours later. I had the honour of sharing the shed with the cats - one of whom is equivalent to a 90 year old human in age. She did two or three patrols up the stairs to the upper floor and round its perimeter - sounding like a soldier in army boots. In the darkness, with the sound of a rising westerly wind in the trees, and odd bumps in the night, I suppose I should have noted 'sound' 'sound' - instead, I was noting 'not Count Yorga', 'not Count Yorga'. There were a few questions - the oldies but goodies - Someone wondered how people can agree that there is no control over ultimate realities, but still think that there is control over concepts. e.g. "I am doing this", "You are doing that", and explained again how formal meditation is wrong view of a self that can sit and direct attention, a ritualised behaviour showing a belief in control. Yet others responded with the question, "If one gives up formal sitting and walking meditation to focus on Dhamma Study, isn't that the same type of mind state ... maybe with extra conceit added of "now I'm on the right track." One of us wondered, "Is Right View a synonym for Panna in ALL cases? What kind of Right View arises outside the Buddha's dispensation? e.g. in Jhana practitioners before the Buddha? There was a sidetrack into discussing whether people who had never heard of the Dhamma could realise the annata-ness of everything. A couple of people quoted books or conversations where individuals had suddenly lost all sense of self permanently and couldn't find anyone to explain within their own religious tradition what it meant. One lady was told by a Catholic priest "What you are telling me has happened to you is theologically impossible!". Some need information on where to find references: (i) When discussing the 'dispelling of three things' the term "Immobility of Mind" was mentioned. What does this mean? (ii) Has the proximate cause of Right Understanding been previously discussed? Can anyone point us to the past posts? (iii) According to the sutta discussing the 'factors for Stream Entry' - what is a Superior Person? (iv) Does Right View Affected By Taints mean Satipatthana? (hope that question is phrased correctly) There was some debate on how to have a Dhamma discussion with people of widely different levels of understanding. Do the 'just about perfected ones' :-) need to keep telling the 'sad examples to others' :-) that they have 'wrong understanding'? Shouldn't those who understand on 'less than a mundane level' be allowed to have a whole conversation, or present a paper, without someone pointing out their ignorance, or reducing everything to paramattha dhammas? What do you reckon, KenH? :-) Is a surfboard just a concept? All answers, question, comments will be very welcome. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" 32736 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue May 4, 2004 4:36am Subject: ** Nina - Ajahn Jose, Bkk, and dogs was(Re: to Christine) Dear Nina, Achaan Jose had his surgical operation on Monday 3rd May at John James Memorial Private Hospital in Canberra. Perhaps Suan will know more? I had an email from Ajahn Jose stating that he had enjoyed his most recent trip to Bangkok and would say more later. My dog was overjoyed to see me when I returned from Thailand - but certainly didn't appreciate returning to the kennels when I went to Cooran for a three day weekend. I may consider taking him next time ... all those cats! I have included a post below that I previously posted elsewhere on the Bangkok trip - KenH was correct, I didn't keep any notes this time. It is probably because I usually stay by myself out at the Mariott near the Foundation. When I am by myself, I consider and reflect on what I've heard, and write notes. This time I was at the Holiday Inn and five other Dhamma friends were staying there and for half the time, Azita and I shared a room - so discussions took the place of writing. Memory is such a fleeting thing, and when I got home I found I could recall very little of the discussions, mostly just sense impressions. ================================ THE POST: "On the last evening I was in Bangkok, watching the red sun set behind the surrounding buildings, I was conscious of a yearning that there be many more such nights. I'm always more conscious of such Lobha (attachment) [and its synonyms raga (lust, greed) tanha (craving) upaadaana (intensified craving, clinging), covetousness (abhijja)] when I'm in Thailand. It's not so much Thailand itself - although some of the experiences I have there, I don't have at home - e.g. standing on a street at 5.30 a.m. (perspiring in the heat) to watch and wait for monks on alms round. At this time, during Songkran, many young men still at school ordain for short periods. Drifts of six or eight with senior monks at head and tail came past and were invited (by a wei) to approach for alms. All had heads shaven and wore 'the banner of the arahants' with dignity. After they had all received alms from our group they stood in line, chanted in Pali, and departed. The occasional adult monk came past and the same procedure occurred (with much shorter chanting). Being included (caught up in) Thai festivals is another experience. Songkran Festival April 12-15, is the traditional Thai New Year (one of three New Years celebrated in Thailand). This is the time for Thais to pay homage to Buddha images, clean their houses, and sprinkle water on their elders in a show of respect. Anyone who ventures out on the streets is likely to get a thorough dousing of water, which can be quite welcome at the peak of the hot season. Buses, tuk-tuks, taxis, and any living creature was fair game. Mostly just good fun. But it has its down- side - I've since read news reports that because of drink driving, and the difficulty of controlling a motorcycle at speed when doused with buckets of water and white paste from roaming pickup trucks filled with revellers, a total of 579 people were killed throughout Thailand, and 40,000 were injured during those four days. One person coming back to the Hotel summed it up with 'Man, it's war out there!'. Makes New Years Eve in Oz seem quite tame. Still - the worst that happened to us was that we had to cross a road a couple of times when we saw a footpath suspiciously wet at the mouth of a Soi; and when a mob of eight year olds with water pistols looked ready to pounce on me, a twelve year old with the world's biggest water gun leapt out and deluged them amid shrieks and screams and a grateful smile and 'thank-you' from the farang. There were all the usual coarse attachments - to the flavours, smells (mostly), sights and sounds unique to Bangkok, and to being away from the daily grind and dynamics of the workplace - but there was also the subtle clinging to the contentment of discussing dhamma with those who understand the world in the same way. There was an attachment to feeling calm and supported; to the arising of mindfulness (sati) and the wishing for more. There was the wish that led to proliferations about 'somehow' finding a way to live and work in any place where I could continue to receive teaching and not have to go back to relying on occasional discussions, my own understandings and practice, and the internet. There was even awareness of yearning for a cool shower, soft towels, and a comfortable bed after being out in the 39C heat of Bangkok, and the wishing I had bought my mother just that silk cushion cover that a friend was displaying. Lobha appears in many and varied forms. Attachment and its synonyms like clinging, craving, desire, lust, greed, and covetousness occurs much more often than I used to realise. It doesn't arise with every mind moment but certainly with lots of them, and accumulates. We are told that so long as there is clinging there will be birth, old age, sickness and death. Desire is the second noble Truth, the origin of dukkha. In MN 141.21, it says: "And what, friends, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering? It is craving, which brings renewal of being, is accompanied by delight and lust, and delights in this and that; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for being, and craving for non-being. This is called the noble truth of the origin of suffering." metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Christine, > You are having your Cooran weekend and I hope to hear about it after one > week, since I am away. Perhaps Sarah will save it. > I wrote to you, but your computer broke down. Here it is: > 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. 32737 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Tue May 4, 2004 0:47am Subject: Beyond Being! Friends: What are You ? Seeing some strangely wheel-marked foot-prints in the dusty road deliberately left there by the Buddha, the Brahmin teacher Dona once approached & asked the Buddha: Sir, are you a God ? No ! replied the sitting Buddha. Sir, are you a Ghost ? No ! Sir, are you a Demon ? No ! Sir, are you a Human ? No ! Sir, What are you ? Enlightened ! 40 years later - after the Buddhas death - the same Brahmin Dona divided the bone relics remaining after the funeral fire & received the Buddha's begging bowl. The collar bone still is here on Sri Lanka in a mighty Stupa of the Holy ancient northern city Anuradhapura. Source: The Numerical Sayings of the Buddha; AN 37-30 All yours in the Dhamma. Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.msn.com/DirectDhamma/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/TrueDhamma 32738 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Tue May 4, 2004 2:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] The 6 Great Councils ! Dear Nina: > Thank you very much for the six Councils. Appreciated. Happy Vesak : - ] 32739 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Tue May 4, 2004 2:21am Subject: Vesakha dating... > but according to Accesstoinsight it is on June 2. The ancient Indian month Vesakha is in April/May. It ends on the fullmoon day of May. So Vesak can never ever be in June! Im aware of the ATI date, which may be either a mistake or a special Thai tradition. Both here on Sri Lanka, in Burma and in Malaysia Vesak falls around today. samahita 32740 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Tue May 4, 2004 2:55am Subject: Unborn & Traceless... Friends: Unconditional Independence: There is, friends, what is a unborn, unbecome, uncreated & unconstructed state... If, friends, there was not this unborn, unbecome, uncreated & unconstructed state, no escape from what is born, become, created & constructed, could ever be realized. But since there indeed is, what is unborn, unbecome, uncreated & unconstructed, the escape from this born, become, created & constructed state, is known... The Udana inspirations 83 Happy Vesak! bhikkhu samahita Sri Lanka. 32741 From: robmoult Date: Tue May 4, 2004 6:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Frying pan sound and citta/cetasika Hi Howard (and Phil), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Phil (and Rob) - > > In a message dated 5/3/04 5:09:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > plnao@j... writes: > > > > > > > Hello all > > > > With help from Rob M and Howard, I have been able to undestand > > more clearly the difference between citta and cetasika, and why there > > is more emphasis here on citta being kusala or akusala rather than > > the cetasika, but I'll pose another question that will help me > > continue to work it out. > > > > The other day I was sitting reading when my wife (I'll call her > > Naomi from now on) started to cook something. I heard a sizzling of > > something in the frying pan - rupa of sound followed by citta of > > hearing consciousness - and a moment later smelled garlic - rupa of > > small followed by citta of smelling-consciousness. At some point in > > there, maybe even before I smelled the garlic, I guess an akusala > > cetasika arose, because the sound of frying usually means the smell > > of garlic is on its way in this house - or at least when I cook it > > almost always is. I say akusala because garlic makes me greedy and I > > overeat. > > > > Now according to Abhidhamma in Daily Life, when we hear something > > pleasant or unpleasant it is the result of a wholesome or unwholesome > > deed we performed. I have trouble understanding why Naomi's decision > > to cook something is the result of my deed (certainly asking her to > > cook when she doesn't want to doesn't work, so I don't see how my > > khamma could do it ! :) ) but I'll leave that aside for now. > > > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > If I may, I'd like to address this now, as I think it is important. > Now, to some extent, volitional actions of yours in the past may well > be conditions affecting the actions of others in the present, because we are > not in this "game" alone - there is interaction among mindstreams, with many > namarupic streams "reflected", as it were, in each other. Our "world" is a > shared one by means of mutual reflection as I see it. ===== I'm still not comfortable with your "interacting namarupic streams" (we've had this discussion before). In my earlier reply to Phil, I went through a fairly detailed description of how the mental states flow according to my understanding of the Abhidhamma. You will note that Naomi's namarupic stream does not enter into the description. ===== > More centrally, however, it is not so much that your past intentions > and actions influenced the actions of another, but rather that they influenced > the character of dhammas that arise in your mindstream. The rupa that is the > odor of the saut'eing of oil and garlic that I experience is pleasant, whereas > the rupa that arises in your mindstream is unpleasant. As I understand it, > that distinction is a kammically determined. ===== The odour of garlic (rupa) frying in inherently itthamajjhatta (desireable-neutral), however the nature of the javana cittas (nama) that arise will be conditioned by accumulations (not kamma, but close). ===== > Whether it is that the rupas themselves that differ or that the rupas > are the same but the vedanic responses alone differ has been an issue > previously discussed on the list. I believe the Abhidhammic position is that it is the > rupas themselves, each with their own associated vedana, that differ. ===== Rupas are the same. Rupas do not have vedana, only nama has vedana. In almost all cases, the vedana that accompany the vipaka mental states that advert, sense, receive, investigate and determine will be neutral. The exceptions are when dealing with body sense or with an extremely desireable object (i.e. seeing a Buddha). It is important not to confuse the following (they are quite distinct): - Intrinsic nature of rupas (undesireable, desireable-neutral, extremely desirealble) - Types of vedana (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral) - Types of javana (desire/attachement, aversion, delusion, seeing things as they truly are) ===== > Whether > this is so or not doesn't strike me as being critically important. What is > important, I think, is that prior kamma is a condition for the vedanic flavor of > what arises in a namarupic stream. ===== Not sure about this... (see my earlier post for details) Metta, Rob M :-) 32742 From: Date: Tue May 4, 2004 3:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Frying pan sound and citta/cetasika Hi, Rob (and Phil) - In a message dated 5/4/04 9:23:28 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > >Howard: > > If I may, I'd like to address this now, as I think it is > important. > > Now, to some extent, volitional actions of yours in the past > may well > >be conditions affecting the actions of others in the present, > because we are > >not in this "game" alone - there is interaction among mindstreams, > with many > >namarupic streams "reflected", as it were, in each other. > Our "world" is a > >shared one by means of mutual reflection as I see it. > > ===== > > I'm still not comfortable with your "interacting namarupic streams" > (we've had this discussion before). In my earlier reply to Phil, I > went through a fairly detailed description of how the mental states > flow according to my understanding of the Abhidhamma. You will note > that Naomi's namarupic stream does not enter into the description. > =========================== Well, one thing that is certain is that conventional "beings", like you and I, and like Phil and his wife, interact and effect each other through their actions. People "appear in each other's world" as it were. One may choose to view the underlying facts of this in terms of an objective universe "out there" or in phenomenalist terms, but however it is viewed, it is clear that we are "in this together", that we interact, and that the actions of one are conditions that effect what arises in one's own namarupic stream. This is *not* a matter of separate, non-interacting, isolated, near-solipsistic, experiential streams. 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) 32743 From: Date: Tue May 4, 2004 6:06am Subject: An Interesting Pali Sutta Portion Hi, all - On another list, none of the three to which I'm posting this, a participant pointed out that in the Ekapuggalavaggo (AN I, 22), there can be found the following: ________________________________________ 170. Bhikkhus, a certain person is born in the world for the welfare and pleasantness of gods and men. Who is it? It is the Thus Gone One, worthy and rightfully enlightened, born out of compassion for the world. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The poster then noted that this could be seen to suggest a Buddha choosing to be born into the world out of compassion, which would fit well with the Mahayana perspective. I'm not maintaining that this is necessarily the proper way to interpret these words, but it is interesting at the very least as a possible source for the Mahayana perspective. 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) 32744 From: robmoult Date: Tue May 4, 2004 1:33pm Subject: Re: An Interesting Pali Sutta Portion Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, all - > > On another list, none of the three to which I'm posting this, ===== I really admire you, Howard. I barely have time to maintain a presence on DSG and I have never even looked at another list. You on the other hand, maintain a presence on THREE lists and still have time to read more postings on other lists. ===== > a > participant pointed out that in the Ekapuggalavaggo (AN I, 22), there can be found > the following: > ________________________________________ > 170. Bhikkhus, a certain person is born in the world for the welfare and > pleasantness of gods and men. Who is it? It is the Thus Gone One, worthy > and rightfully enlightened, born out of compassion for the world. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- --- > > The poster then noted that this could be seen to suggest a Buddha > choosing to be born into the world out of compassion, which would fit well with > the Mahayana perspective. I'm not maintaining that this is necessarily the > proper way to interpret these words, but it is interesting at the very least as a > possible source for the Mahayana perspective. Here are some "Theravada" quotes which touch upong compassion: At the time of the Dipankara Buddha, Sumedha the Hermit realized that if he were to become a monk that he would become an Arahant in that life. Sumedha the Hermit also realized that his spiritual faculties (faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration and wisdom) were very strong. Out of compassion for mankind, Sumedha the Hermit decided not to become an Arahant but rather he decided to develop the ten perfections (paramis) so that he could be reborn as a Buddha and spread the Dhamma in a future life. Sumedha the Hermit committed himself to countless rebirths and suffering and he eventually became our Lord Buddha. Once He achieved enlightenment, the Buddha could have spent the rest of His life enjoying Nibbana, but out of compassion, the Buddha embarked on a long and difficult life of teaching. It is the Buddha's greatest deed of compassion to teach Dhamma since in this way beings' greatest suffering, their being in the cycle of birth and death, can be overcome. It is due to the Buddha's great compassion that we today can develop the way leading to the end of suffering. There are six kinds of knowledge that can only be achieved by a Buddha and not Arahants: 1. Knowledge of the great compassion induced by ecstatic meditation (Mahakarunasamapatti-nana): this is the great compassion for beings in the heart of a Buddha who fully understands the conditions to which beings are subjected 2. All knowing wisdom 3. Wisdom that dispels all obstructions in the way of "all knowing wisdom" 4. Understanding the "depth of knowledge" of other beings 5. Understanding the accumulations of other beings 6. Power to create the double miracle (simultaneously create flame from one part of the body and water from another part of the body) Compassion is one of the four brahma-viharas. It seems to me that compassion is also a part of the Theravada tradition but receives less emphasis than it does in the Mahayana tradition. Metta, Rob M :-) 32745 From: Date: Tue May 4, 2004 10:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: An Interesting Pali Sutta Portion Hi, Rob - In a message dated 5/4/04 4:35:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > It seems to me that compassion is also a part of the Theravada > tradition but receives less emphasis than it does in the Mahayana > tradition. > ====================== Yes, there are some differences in emphasis, particularly as regards compassion and emptiness, though Theravada is quite strong on each of these. But a distinct doctrinal difference exists as well: The Mahayanists accept the possibility of a Buddha-to-be holding off on complete enlightenment virtually indefinitely - more than seven lifetimes - for the purpose of compassionately helping sentient beings, whereas Theravada seems to accept seven lifetimes as a maximum for any stream enterer, including a bodhisatta. There is even the implication of Mahayana accepting the possibility of a Buddha choosing further births, even births in hell realms, impelled not by desire, but by compassion. It is that notion that, with a big stretch, one might see as being suggested in the sutta portion that says "Bhikkhus, a certain person is born in the world for the welfare and pleasantness of gods and men. Who is it? It is the Thus Gone One, worthy and rightfully enlightened, born out of compassion for the world." 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 ph antom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 32746 From: Date: Tue May 4, 2004 3:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Howard, You wrote, "In any case, it appears to me that there is little question that the primary senses of 'dukkha' are that of being unsatisfied, this ranging from mild dissatisfaction to extreme emotional distress, for sentient beings, and in being unsatisfying for dhammas." L: Dukkha is caused so dukkha must be a reality. What reality is "unsatisfactoriness"? Also, you said dukkha comes at the end of dependent arising. Nowhere else? Desire is the cause of dukkha and desire arises three times, as formations (sankhara), craving (tanha), and clinging (upadana). Does desire not directly cause dukkha? Also, what about mental unpleasant feeling? Are you withdrawing that as dukkha? Larry 32747 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue May 4, 2004 3:59pm Subject: Betty's Books Dear Betty, Christine has handed me two Dhamma books courtesy of your good self. Thank you, you are very kind. They happen to be very appropriate choices: my Buddhist Dictionary, to which I refer every other day, has recently fallen to bits and I was wondering where to find a replacement. Also, Nina's "Conditions" has become increasingly relevant to me. I have been reading it on-line, of course, but this hardcopy makes it much more accessible. Thanks again. Kind regards, Ken H 32748 From: icarofranca Date: Tue May 4, 2004 6:07pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Dear Larry: > > L: Dukkha is caused so dukkha must be a reality. What reality is > "unsatisfactoriness"? > > Also, you said dukkha comes at the end of dependent arising. Nowhere > else? Desire is the cause of dukkha and desire arises three times, as > formations (sankhara), craving (tanha), and clinging (upadana). Does > desire not directly cause dukkha? Sometimes one ought to step threadly on these labyrinthic remarks on Abhidhamma! The very core of ALL buddhistic doctrine lays on the Four Noble Truths: Dukkha, Sammudha, Niroddha and Magga. All lives, feelings, vedanas, javanas, cittas, Dhammas, Paccayas, etc that are raised up on desire (Tanha) ARE DUKKHA. It´s because the origin of all dukkha lays on desire, as one can see. Even when one keep your personall affairs, feelings, realities as a thought subject inside his skull - as a Balzac´s bourgeois that keeps his family, friends and affairs as a "Thought Private Property" as real and objective as his business - even at these realm Dukkha has the rule. > > Also, what about mental unpleasant feeling? Are you withdrawing that as > dukkha? IMHO, I think so. Mettaya, Ícaro 32749 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue May 4, 2004 6:27pm Subject: Re: Cooran Thanks Hi Christine, Good to see you in person again on the weekend. Hope you're settling in well with your new position at work. You wrote: --------------------- > There was some debate on how to have a Dhamma discussion with people of widely different levels of understanding. --------------------- Oh yes, I seem to remember some pointed looks in my direction. :-) ---------------------- C: > Do the 'just about perfected ones' :-) --------------------- Your words, not mine, but who am I to argue? :-) -------------------- C: > need to keep telling the 'sad examples to others' :-) ----------------- :-) Now I'm sure I didn't say that! ------------------- C: > that they have 'wrong understanding'? ------------------ Might have said that. :-( --------------------- C: > Shouldn't those who understand on 'less than a mundane level' be allowed to have a whole conversation, or present a paper, without someone pointing out their ignorance, or reducing everything to paramattha dhammas? What do you reckon, KenH? :-) -------------------- You're right, of course, and I do try, but what stumps me is the assertion (implied or explicit) that the Middle Way is easy – that anyone can follow it. When people say this, it is because they have attached their own, simplistic beliefs to the Dhamma. I've done the same and probably still do. Given a chance to speak at a Dhamma meeting, many of us will ramble on as if we're on a psychiatrist's couch: "Sometimes, I sit quietly and let all this monkey mind come to the fore and I see what a load of garbage it is and I realise that the same stuff is happening all day at the office and it helps me that I realise this and (so on and so forth)." This is well and good – good therapy for most people and I wish them well with it -- BUT the problem comes when they get to the end: "And so, that is what the Buddha taught us to do." The Buddha taught nothing of the sort! Usually (sometimes), I can discuss this calmly without becoming an overbearing pain in the neck, but when people stick to their guns – insisting the Buddha taught the same, commonsense philosophy everyone else teaches – then who is going to back down first? Not me! ----------------------- C: > Is a surfboard just a concept? ------------- :-) Well, all right, maybe one day I'll have to admit that it is. But we're only human; we all need something to cling to. Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello everyone, > > Many thanks to Andrew and Sandra for their generosity in inviting > the Dhamma Discussion group to stay on their beautiful property, 32750 From: Philip Date: Tue May 4, 2004 6:30pm Subject: Appreciating Abhidhamma (was abhidhamma and citta #2206) Hello all I am working my way through some files I filled with posts gleaned from Useful Posts and in order to firm up my understanding of them, I'll be sharing some of them with you, with my questions and/or comments. It's a way of exploring my beginner's appreciation of Abhidhamma. This is from #2206, from Kom in an exchange with Michael Olds. This is a section in which Kom lays down an interesting argument about the benefits of Abhidhamma and why it's important to understand it in order to better appreciate sutta. I have inserted my own questions/comments. *** Kom: I think we are in agreement here that knowing the fundamentals about dhammas is the only way to proceed. I think the difference here is whether the Sutta and the Abhidhammas are "better" ways to know the fundamentals. I would like to present the following comments based on my understandings: 1) The suttas are concise teachings exactly fitting the accumulations/outlooks of the recipient. It is deep, profound, intricate, and subtle, as all the Master's teachings are. The receiver that became an ariya disciple succeeded not because of that teaching alone, but because of the dhamma/panna accumulations done in countless previous lives. The Buddha himself had accumulations for the englightenment for 4 asangayas (sp?) 100,000 kappa. Maha-mogalana and Sali-puttra each accumulated for 1 asangayas, 100,000 kappa. Ph: I'd assumed that the suttas were taught by the Buddha to a variety of people, including "beginners". That probably comes from my short interest in the Christian Gospel, in which Christ teaches the masses, so to speak, without any consideration of whether or not they have sufficient accumulations. Of course in Buddhism there are no beginners, because of accumulations from countless past lives. So if the Buddha were to teach a shepherd, or a prince, there would be no inherent distinction between their ability to understand based on their social rank in that one lifetime, is that right? On the other hand, the Buddha surely used technical language that only those trained in certain meditation etc practices at that time could understand. Did the Buddha tailor his language in some suttas in a way that they could be appreciated by people who had the right accumulations to understand, but no knowledge of the necessary technical terms in that lifetime? I think of the AN sutta about "letters written in water" as an example of a sutta that would help anyone to get rid of anger, and is not really open to dispute as it its true meaning. I mean, I think there are some suttas that can be understand easily by anyone, without a knowledge of Abhidhamma, but I don't know what percentage of the canon falls into that "easy to be understood, and understood properly, by anyone" category. Kom: 2) Without the needed accumulations, just a few short and medium teaching alone cannot get a person to become an ariya disciple. 3) The abhidhammas are the books where all the deep, profound, intricate, and subtle details are expounded upon. This is for the venuyasatta (slow learner, one who needs lengthy study) and other people with no hope to become enlightend in this life, who, without the explicit details, cannot grasp even the most fundamentals of dhammas. The abhidhammas are thus for the persons who did not have enough accumulations to understand the truth based on the short teachings, without the explicit details, alone. In this sense, people who need to study abhidhammas to correctly understand dhammas have in fact "inferior" accumulations than the people who can understand it based on the suttas alone. Ph: I am feeling this is true these days. I printed out the entire Anguttara Nikaya with its numerical lists, and read through them, and was profoundly inspired by some of them – and some of them are indisputably clear, such as the one about "letters written in water" – but I always felt aware that I was kind of trying to amass "my" wisdom by beginning to have a lot of knowledge of suttas that I could impress people with by referring to at just the right point in a discussion to prove my point. I was never grabbed at the root of my mind the way I was when I came across the Abhidhamma. I never became feverish the way I did when I came across the Abhidhamma. I never woke up in the middle of the night eager to read more like I did with "Abhidhamma in Daily Life." I don't know why that is but I think the idea of "inferior accumulations" that made it necessary for me to read Abhidhamma in order to begin to have understanding of dhammas is very interesting. Kom: 4) Because of the explicitness of the abhidhammas, there are less leeway to interpret dhammas as one pleases. Because of this reason, if the abhidhammas in fact teach the truth, it may lead a person with certain kind of accumultations less astrayed from the truth. Because the suttra is not as explicit, we have more tendency to interpret it anyway we like. Ph: I am still fighting a tendency to want to interpret Abhidhamma the way I like, thus my questions (complaints?) about citta being not considered more random/by chance. Also, since Abhidhamma and practice based on understanding dhammas in the present is new to me, I have some resistance, and will continue to have some resistance. For example, I will wonder why NAG denies the value of meditation. It's sensible for me to resist at this point. But I suspect that the more I learn about understanding rupa and nama, and the more experience I have in examining them, the less room there will be for interpretation of their nature. The interpretation/creativity will come from finding daily life examples of the received abhidhamma truths arise rather than studying abhidhamma on paper and trying to decipher it in a way that fits with my theories. Kom: 5) The elements of abhidhammas are in fact within the sutta itself. I have only personally seen a section of the sutta which explicitly mentions the dhammas in the abhidhammas manner. However, I have heard that the abhidhammas are in fact, extracts from the suttas. Ph: I would like to know more about this. The passage from the Honeyball Sutta that Rob M shared a couple of weeks back seems to be an example of this. If anyone could provide more passages/links, I'd be grateful. It's probably not something that can be boiled down to a few references or links, of course. 6) The main teacher from whom we quote frequently, Tan A. Sujin, repeated time and time again that what we must compare the teachings from all the three tipitikas: the meanings of the teachings must match in order for us to have any kind of confidence that what we understand is the truth. We, as somebody who studies abhidhammas, do not hold abhidhammas to be the ultimate authority: we hold all three tipitikas to be the authority. Ph: Thus when I read Nina's books, there are helpful sutta references. I appreciate that. I would appreciate more of them, if I speak honestly off the top of my head. Would they distract from the flow of the books? Maybe. Her books have a rhythm that urge us again and again to begin to try to understand nama and rupa in the moment. The steady flow of her insistence on that point is one reason I enjoy reading her books so much. Abhidhamma brainwashing? Nah. Kom :7) Hence, I think the main argument for studying the Abhidhammas first, is to make sure that we correctly grasp the fundamentals of buddhism (anicca, dukkha, and perhaps most importantly, anatta) before we wander on from there. Ph: I feel this way too, especially with result to annata. I feel the Abhidhamma lays out a detailed roadmap to understanding annata. In my opinion, annica is easy to understand by looking at our daily experience, and dukkha is easier than annata. But beginning to undertand annata needs an analytical approach, in my opinion. Kom: 8) I agree with you that learning and understanding the intricate details of the teachings alone doesn't allow one to progress toward becoming enlightened. In fact, I am sure other people in this group agreed to this as well. Only directly knowing the truth can one progress. A. Sujin said as much. However, we still need to differentiate what is the truth and what isn't. (snip a question from Michael olds) I have neither mastered the vinaya, the sutta, nor the abhidhamma. I am actively engaging in the studies of both the sutta and the abhidhammas. In fact, I totally agree that if I can master the teachings based on the sutta alone, there is no need for me to study abhidhammas. Ph : I am looking forward to ordering (still haven't got around to it!) my Bkihhku Bodhi MN anthology and I anticipate "mind gripping" enthusiasm when I get my hands on it. I'm very grateful that I had the good fortune to come across the Abhidhamma before getting deeper into sutta study. I am confident my beginner's knowledge of Abhidhamma will make my future sutta study more rewarding. Thank you, Kom, wherever you are, for your helpful post. Metta, Phil 32751 From: Ken O Date: Tue May 4, 2004 6:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Do or not do something Hi Jack and Sarah > .... J: Yes, the Abhidhamma can be useful. But, millions of people > through the centuries have gotten value out of vipassana teachings and practices and made sense of it without any knowledge of the Abhidhamma.<< > ..... > S: There may be some confusion over terms here. For example, when > you talk about the elements or about any other realities which are being experienced now, it is Abhidhamma whether or not we’ve ever opened an Abhidhamma text or not or whether or not we use this word. I don't think we'd be having the discussions we do unless you had quite some familiarity with 'Abhidhamma'. Similarly, vipassana refers to the development of wisdom or insight. Without any understanding of what there can be insight into, it can’t develop. Let me know if you disagree. k: When Buddha talk abouts about five aggregates, Dependent Origination and Eye and form, eye consciouness arise, Anatta etc - all these are also Abhidhamma. Many people are doing it without realising it. In fact, IMHO without Abhidhamma or commentaries, no scholar would have been able to translate the words correctly as in the sutta. Ken O 32752 From: m. nease Date: Tue May 4, 2004 7:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cittas and cetasikas (basic question!) Hi Nina, This is a great example of bits of Dhamma I can hear again and again and still be struck by their relevance. Also a great example of the way the Abhidhamma illuminates the other pi.takas. Thanks again. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "nina van gorkom" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 9:16 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cittas and cetasikas (basic question!) > Hi Howard, > When citta is akusala, all cetasikas are also akusala. Remember: citta and > cetasika are of the same jati (kusala akusala, vipaka or kiriya), arise at > the same base, experience the same object and fall away together. Some > cetasikas, the universals, accompany each citta, some, the particulars, > accompany cittas of the four jatis but not all of them. Now, when they > accompany akusala citta, all of them are akusala. They do everything in the > wrong way. 32753 From: Date: Tue May 4, 2004 3:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/4/04 6:39:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > You wrote, "In any case, it appears to me that there is little question > that the primary senses of 'dukkha' are that of being unsatisfied, this > ranging from mild dissatisfaction to extreme emotional distress, for > sentient beings, and in being unsatisfying > for dhammas." > > L: Dukkha is caused so dukkha must be a reality. What reality is > "unsatisfactoriness"? > ------------------------------------------ Howard: Dhammas don't satisfy. Satisfaction, except of the most temporary sort, is not to be found in them. This, I suppose, is a matter of relation as opposed to a property. As far as reality or not, I admit straight out, Larry, I don't know what's real. But I'll let you know when I do! ;-)) ------------------------------------------- > > Also, you said dukkha comes at the end of dependent arising. Nowhere > else? > ------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, it probably occurs at more places, but most people describe the wheel of dependent origination as explaining the arising (and cessation) of dukkha, and that is *explicitly* mentioned at the end. However, there is much repetition in the cyclic scheme. For example I see the sankhara link and the bhava link as repetition, and I wouldn't argue with the idea of dukkha appearing at two or three places. I'll say a bit more about this later on in this post. ------------------------------------------- Desire is the cause of dukkha and desire arises three times, as > > formations (sankhara), craving (tanha), and clinging (upadana). Does > desire not directly cause dukkha? > ------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes - desire causes it. That is, it is the main cause. As we know, nothing arises from a single condition. But suffering is not the same thing as desire. Suffering is mental pain. -------------------------------------------- > > Also, what about mental unpleasant feeling? Are you withdrawing that as > dukkha? > --------------------------------------------- Howard: If mental unpleasant feeling is the same thing as mental pain - which I do think is basically so - then I am not withdrawing it. That is exactly what I think suffering is - mental pain. It is the second, unnecessary, dart. I do think that one could make a fair argument that suffering/mental pain includes not only mental unpleasant feeling (which has a rather weak sound to it in English), but also the negative emotional reaction growing out of that feeling, an emotive, sankharic embellishment (papa~nca) of that feeling. On this basis, we see dukkha occuring not only at the end of the dependent-arising chain/cycle, but also within vedana and, more so, within sankhara. --------------------------------------------- > > Larry > ========================= 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) 32754 From: Date: Tue May 4, 2004 7:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Icarro, Long time no see. Where have you been? What is dukkha ultimately? How is it conditioned by desire in dependent arising? Larry 32755 From: Date: Tue May 4, 2004 7:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Howard, I don't want to pick at your reply so let's leave it for now. I would like a clearer picture of what is dukkha and how dukkha and desire work in dependent arising. Larry 32756 From: Date: Tue May 4, 2004 3:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi again, Larry - Thinking further on this topic, I do see that it is a subtle one. I do agree that dukkha is very close to craving. Dukkha in the "person" is very close to dissatisfaction. Now what is dissatisfaction? Well, as I consider it, it seems that it is *wanting* things to be other than the way they are, that is - desiring presence of what is absent or absence of what is present or both (replacement). Yet I don't think that this dissatisfaction, itself, is dukkha. I think that dukkha is the unhappiness or distress resulting from, and usually immediately following upon, that dissatisfaction. They are certainly close. 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) 32757 From: Date: Tue May 4, 2004 3:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/4/04 10:40:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I don't want to pick at your reply so let's leave it for now. I would > like a clearer picture of what is dukkha and how dukkha and desire work > in dependent arising. > > Larry > ======================= I just sent another post on this thread that I think may clarify my thoughts on this matter. At least I hope so. 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) 32758 From: abhidhammika Date: Tue May 4, 2004 8:00pm Subject: Good News : Ajahn Jose Update ** Nina - Ajahn Jose, Chris Dear Nina, Chris, Sarah and all How are you? I have good news update regarding Ajahn Jose. I had a telephone chat with Ajahn Jose a few minutes ago (around 12.50 p.m in Canberra). He is feeling very well, and going home tomorrow to his monastery. I believe he will fill in more soon. With regards, Suan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: Dear Nina, Achaan Jose had his surgical operation on Monday 3rd May at John James Memorial Private Hospital in Canberra. Perhaps Suan will know more? I had an email from Ajahn Jose stating that he had enjoyed his most recent trip to Bangkok and would say more later. My dog was overjoyed to see me when I returned from Thailand - but certainly didn't appreciate returning to the kennels when I went to Cooran for a three day weekend. I may consider taking him next time ... all those cats! I have included a post below that I previously posted elsewhere on the Bangkok trip - KenH was correct, I didn't keep any notes this time. It is probably because I usually stay by myself out at the Mariott near the Foundation. When I am by myself, I consider and reflect on what I've heard, and write notes. This time I was at the Holiday Inn and five other Dhamma friends were staying there and for half the time, Azita and I shared a room - so discussions took the place of writing. Memory is such a fleeting thing, and when I got home I found I could recall very little of the discussions, mostly just sense impressions. ================================ THE POST: "On the last evening I was in Bangkok, watching the red sun set behind the surrounding buildings, I was conscious of a yearning that there be many more such nights. I'm always more conscious of such Lobha (attachment) [and its synonyms raga (lust, greed) tanha (craving) upaadaana (intensified craving, clinging), covetousness (abhijja)] when I'm in Thailand. It's not so much Thailand itself - although some of the experiences I have there, I don't have at home - e.g. standing on a street at 5.30 a.m. (perspiring in the heat) to watch and wait for monks on alms round. At this time, during Songkran, many young men still at school ordain for short periods. Drifts of six or eight with senior monks at head and tail came past and were invited (by a wei) to approach for alms. All had heads shaven and wore 'the banner of the arahants' with dignity. After they had all received alms from our group they stood in line, chanted in Pali, and departed. The occasional adult monk came past and the same procedure occurred (with much shorter chanting). Being included (caught up in) Thai festivals is another experience. Songkran Festival April 12-15, is the traditional Thai New Year (one of three New Years celebrated in Thailand). This is the time for Thais to pay homage to Buddha images, clean their houses, and sprinkle water on their elders in a show of respect. Anyone who ventures out on the streets is likely to get a thorough dousing of water, which can be quite welcome at the peak of the hot season. Buses, tuk-tuks, taxis, and any living creature was fair game. Mostly just good fun. But it has its down- side - I've since read news reports that because of drink driving, and the difficulty of controlling a motorcycle at speed when doused with buckets of water and white paste from roaming pickup trucks filled with revellers, a total of 579 people were killed throughout Thailand, and 40,000 were injured during those four days. One person coming back to the Hotel summed it up with 'Man, it's war out there!'. Makes New Years Eve in Oz seem quite tame. Still - the worst that happened to us was that we had to cross a road a couple of times when we saw a footpath suspiciously wet at the mouth of a Soi; and when a mob of eight year olds with water pistols looked ready to pounce on me, a twelve year old with the world's biggest water gun leapt out and deluged them amid shrieks and screams and a grateful smile and 'thank-you' from the farang. There were all the usual coarse attachments - to the flavours, smells (mostly), sights and sounds unique to Bangkok, and to being away from the daily grind and dynamics of the workplace - but there was also the subtle clinging to the contentment of discussing dhamma with those who understand the world in the same way. There was an attachment to feeling calm and supported; to the arising of mindfulness (sati) and the wishing for more. There was the wish that led to proliferations about 'somehow' finding a way to live and work in any place where I could continue to receive teaching and not have to go back to relying on occasional discussions, my own understandings and practice, and the internet. There was even awareness of yearning for a cool shower, soft towels, and a comfortable bed after being out in the 39C heat of Bangkok, and the wishing I had bought my mother just that silk cushion cover that a friend was displaying. Lobha appears in many and varied forms. Attachment and its synonyms like clinging, craving, desire, lust, greed, and covetousness occurs much more often than I used to realise. It doesn't arise with every mind moment but certainly with lots of them, and accumulates. We are told that so long as there is clinging there will be birth, old age, sickness and death. Desire is the second noble Truth, the origin of dukkha. In MN 141.21, it says: "And what, friends, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering? It is craving, which brings renewal of being, is accompanied by delight and lust, and delights in this and that; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for being, and craving for non-being. This is called the noble truth of the origin of suffering." metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Christine, > You are having your Cooran weekend and I hope to hear about it after one > week, since I am away. Perhaps Sarah will save it. > I wrote to you, but your computer broke down. Here it is: > 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. 32759 From: Date: Tue May 4, 2004 9:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Howard, I agree with what you wrote (below) but the problem is that feeling doesn't seem to be conditioned by desire in dependent arising. I don't have a good answer to this question so I can't take this discussion much further. Here are a few sketchy thoughts: what is desire? a dualistic imbalance, a sense of incompleteness...? dukkha is kamma result (result of desire). what is kamma result? identity...? identity is an ongoing formation never complete. incomplete = dukkha, incomplete = desire...??? Larry ------------------ H: Hi again, Larry - Thinking further on this topic, I do see that it is a subtle one. I do agree that dukkha is very close to craving. Dukkha in the "person" is very close to dissatisfaction. Now what is dissatisfaction? Well, as I consider it, it seems that it is *wanting* things to be other than the way they are, that is - desiring presence of what is absent or absence of what is present or both (replacement). Yet I don't think that this dissatisfaction, itself, is dukkha. I think that dukkha is the unhappiness or distress resulting from, and usually immediately following upon, that dissatisfaction. They are certainly close. 32760 From: Ken O Date: Tue May 4, 2004 9:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Do or not do something Hi Jack > I believe that there is just seeing. (I don't deny that there is > something out there apart from us that is seen.) Seeing consciousness and visible object is a dualistic and useful way to break up this non-dualistic process. k: Could u kindly explain what do you mean by dualistic and non dualistic and how is this teach in the sutta? Ken O 32761 From: Ken O Date: Tue May 4, 2004 9:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cooran Thanks Hi Christine > There was a sidetrack into discussing whether people who had never > heard of the Dhamma could realise the annata-ness of everything. A > couple of people quoted books or conversations where individuals > had suddenly lost all sense of self permanently and couldn't find > anyone to explain within their own religious tradition what it meant. One lady was told by a Catholic priest "What you are telling me has happened to you is theologically impossible!". k: I read it (i think Dispeller of Declusion), only Buddha is able to realise anatta and teach it. No other beings can do it. the rest of your questions will be usually answer by our wonderful moderator ;-) Ken O 32762 From: gazita2002 Date: Tue May 4, 2004 10:09pm Subject: Re: Happy Vesak 4/5 2004! To Bhikkhu Samahita, thank you so much for this timely post. I have read it with much joy, it has given me a 'spiritual lift'. "Through this round of countless existences have I searched yet failed to find the Creator who framed this formation. 'What misery - endless birth, death and pain.' Now I see that 'the constructor ' of this structure is Craving." This passage esp. emphasises the uncontrollability of life. Craving is there before 'we' even recognise it. Happy Vesak to you also, altho. it is now 5/5 - May we all have patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. p.s. I can imagine how great the Buddha's patience must have been to withstand Mara's onslaught! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Bhikkhu Samahita wrote: > > Friends: > > > Happy Vesak tomorrow 4/5 2004! > On this very day 2534 years ago on > the fulmoon night of May, the Gotama > Buddha was Perfectly Self-Awakened! > Such was this mighty & quite rare event! > The Great Enlightenment of the Buddha: > > > At that time a girl named Sujata Senani lived in Uruvela. ......... 32763 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue May 4, 2004 10:21pm Subject: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi Sukin. I am deeply disappointed that you did not respond to each of my specific points at length ;-( but what can I do? Conditions portend against it.... Seriously though, I think you have a worthwhile point and your question is a valid one. A couple of general responses: 1/ I think it is important not to confuse the nature of activities with our concepts about them. It may be that in the theoretical scheme of things that contemplating sutta is not a "practice," but in the ordinary sense of the word, it is. It is an activity, a task, with a specific purpose. That is how I would define practice. In a sense, I think you are confusing two different meanings of the same word, one a technical term in the Buddhist path, distinguishing between intellectual study and the accomplishment or presence of full mindfulness, which you are calling the "practice;" and the ordinary sense in which "practice" merely means a directed activity. Surely, in that sense, both intellectual study of sutta and meditation are "practices." At the same time, you do have a valid point in that you are saying that meditation purports to grant direct insight, which pariyatti does not. You could say that pariyatti is a preliminary practice, while paripatti is the actual practice. In that sense, what is the preliminary practice prior to meditation, if meditation is the practice? What is the preparation, which would be the meditator's equivalent of pariyatti? I suppose it would also be the basic comprehension of sutta or appropriate scripture. And then putting it into practice through mindfulness meditation. In that sense the paths seem somewhat similar. I am still confused however, if paripatti is your equivalent of meditation in our comparison, what exactly does paripatti entail as a practice? If one does not meditate, what exactly is the practice of satipatthana? I suppose it is the discernment of arising moments of everyday life, which to me is basically the same thing as meditation, except that you have the stipulation that one must not do it as a specific purposeful practice, as one does in meditation. But this too is confusing: If one practices mindfulness as a stage following pariyatti, then it seems like it really is a purposeful practice to gain the result of full mindfulness of the object, and so it is just as intentional as meditation. And the distinction seems even more artificial when you imagine that the only real difference between paripatti and meditation is that the meditator is "assuming a sitting position," while the practitioner of paripatti practices his "meditation" wherever and under whatever conditions happen to arise. Surely, the physical positioning of the practitioner cannot create such a great theoretical rift? Even more confusing is the fact that every meditation practice includes both walking meditation, and the admonition that the practice of mindfulness should be extended into a 24-hour a day operation, where one is always conscious of both the breath and whatever is arising for consciousness. In many ways, both paths seem to come around to the same place by a different route. So what exactly does paripatti entail? And if it is indeed a practice, how is this not a "doing" with a doer involved? I am sincerely interested in the answer to this. Well that's all point #1. Here's 2: 2/ I do not believe that anyone practices the path in a purely linear fashion, accomplishing full intellectual understanding through pariyatti and then neatly moving on to full time paripatti, leading to realization. Obviously one reads and understands; has moments of discernment of one level or another; goes back to read again, informed by these experiences; perhaps has new insights into sutta; then goes off and has new moments of discernment, perhaps more clear, more frequent kusula moments; then more reading; etc. Human life and practice is cyclical, not linear, so one cannot really, except theoretically for purposes of understanding, separate pariyatti and paripatti. Perhaps one can separate them by result: if the understanding is intellectual concept or direct insight into the arising moment of rupa or nama. So the path is a bit more complex and "sloppy" then the three stages would have it seem. In meditation also, one reads and cognizes about it, goes out and looks at the arising moment through the lens of sutta or scripture; goes to sit in meditation and continues the process; reads and reflects, goes into life, meditates, etc. They are not really separate activities either. My point: the path is the path. Once one is committed to discernment and awakening, the path manifests and it manifests in the way that it does. If conditions allow for reading sutta, one reads; for meditation, or for discernment of the moment. Why make the distinction? To me all of the above is "the practice." Now if one is *not* discerning, but hallucinating, and going down an akusala path without knowing it, well, that's a big problem. But I would like to know, Sukin, how is one to know this anyway, if one does not trust his own sense of whether detachment, insight, clarity of discernment, etc. are developing? Who do you trust to tell you you are seeing the real moment arising, if you yourself are not training your own citta to do this? I think without development of faith in one's own evaluation of what is occurring on the path, the path must be lost. I will appreciate your response, hoping that these points are not also too far flung to give the basis for a good exchange. : ) Best, Robert Ep. ============================== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Rob, > > > Thank you for your very complete answer to my post. I appreciate all > > your points, even those I have a different view about, and I am sorry > > for repyling so many days later. > > Likewise, I appreciate your points too and the effort you put into > replying. > However, just thinking about responding to all your points is making me > feel apprehensive :-(, and so I have decided to cop out. No, just > kidding ;-). But I think it is better that we start from the beginning and > go slowly, because I think I am being caught in a trap and we are both > in a way, missing the point. > I think there is no need to place `study' against `formal practice'. If we > remember from the perspective of development of panna, that the path > involves the relationship between pariyatti (intellectual understanding), > patipatti (practice or satipatthana) and pativedha (realization), then > placing `study' and `practice' against each other, is I think not right. > I could start discussing what is meant by `patipatti' or practice, keeping > in mind that your idea of it is different to mine. ... 32764 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue May 4, 2004 10:25pm Subject: Re: Video Games? Hi Sarah, Thank you for the post. I won't go into a detailed analysis because, really, we are starting to rehash old issues. Your view of Buddhism supposes that people don't really exist because of the teaching of anatta and, thus, people are not an ultimate reality. I find this to be a radical position that isn't very useful to Buddhist practice. I believe that people exist and other living beings exist. I believe that they suffer, that their suffering is real, and that they should receive compassion—from one living being to another. Therefore, we aren't really going to see eye-to-eye on this issue. Let me ask you some questions: When you look in the mirror, do you think "I exist" or "I don't exist"? When you have a feeling do you think "I am having this feeling" or "I am not having this feeling"? Do you view the universe as impersonal namas and rupas or as beings with kamma traveling through samsara? You write, "No self to do it and nothing to be done." Honestly, and I am not judging you negatively, but I find your view of Buddhism rather depressing and hopeless. Nothing can be done? No one exists? Then what's the point? Sarah, I want you to know that I think you do exist and I think you are a lovely person. I wish you all the world has to offer. I hope that you think I exist also and that you wish me well. ;-) Metta, James 32765 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue May 4, 2004 11:13pm Subject: Re: Video Games? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Thank you for the post. I won't go into a detailed analysis > because, really, we are starting to rehash old issues. Your view of > Buddhism supposes that people don't really exist because of the > teaching of anatta and, thus, people are not an ultimate reality. Friend Sarah, I wanted to add one more thing: I am not saying that your view of Buddhism is wrong and that mine is right. Actually, I struggle everyday to have the `right view' of Buddhism...and of life. I don't believe that this is an easy task which should be taken for granted. And then, occasionally, when I think I do have the `right view', it will quickly slip away because of pride and arrogance. ;- )) It is very difficult to be selfless; especially in a world that doesn't value selflessness. But, even if I do have the wrong view, I am going to continue to proceed to have it. Why? Because it makes me happy and gives me hope. Maybe that is the difference in our approaches: I emphasize happiness and contentment while you emphasize wisdom. Maybe your approach is superior to mine? Maybe one is not superior to the other, they are just different approaches? If your approach works for you, I think that is great!! But we will find it difficult to discuss what is important in Buddhism when we are both coming from different angles. Okay, I have rambled on enough… ;-) Metta, James 32766 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 5, 2004 1:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cooran Thanks Hi Christine and all Cooranites, Good to read all the reports and also your beautifully written piece on lobha in Thailand. (I’ll make sure Nina sees any posts addressed to her on her return). --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hello everyone, >In the > darkness, with the sound of a rising westerly wind in the trees, and > odd bumps in the night, I suppose I should have > noted 'sound' 'sound' - instead, I was noting 'not Count > Yorga', 'not Count Yorga'. .... S: I asked my Aussie translator for help but he was just as stumped as I was. Maybe a new kind of yoga done in one’s sleep without a need to count breaths? .... > There were a few questions - the oldies but goodies - .... S: A few off the cuff comments to start the ball rolling only - .... >Someone > wondered how people can agree that there is no control over ultimate > realities, but still think that there is control over concepts. > e.g. "I am doing this", "You are doing that", .... S: Anatta - anyone (or those pesky cittas rather ) can believe anything! .... ,>and explained again > how formal meditation is wrong view of a self that can sit and > direct attention, a ritualised behaviour showing a belief in > control. Yet others responded with the question, "If one gives up > formal sitting and walking meditation to focus on Dhamma Study, > isn't that the same type of mind state ... maybe with extra conceit > added of "now I'm on the right track." .... S: It may well be (the same type of mind state) if it also becomes a ritualised behaviour with an idea of control and self. Only panna can know whether there is understanding, conceit, attachment or any other reality at such times. If panna knows what is right, there is no conceit at such moments. .... > One of us wondered, "Is Right View a synonym for Panna in ALL > cases? What kind of Right View arises outside the Buddha's > dispensation? e.g. in Jhana practitioners before the Buddha? .... S: Good qu! Usually Right View is a transl of sammaa-di.t.thi (pa~n~naa), the first factor of the 8FP. Panna then has a wider meaning to refer to right understanding not just in the development of satipatthana but also the development of samatha. So panna arises outside the B’s dispensation as you suggest. It could be translated as R.V. but we need to be careful here. ... > > There was a sidetrack into discussing whether people who had never > heard of the Dhamma could realise the annata-ness of everything. ... S: No - see Ken O’s post. From: The Dispeller of Delusion(Sammohavinodani),Classification of Bases, 242f: "The characteristics of impermanence and pain are made known with or without the arising of the Tathagatas. The characteristic of no-self is not made known without the arising of the Englightened Ones; it is made known only on the arising of the Enlightened ones. For such wanderers and ascetics (taapasa) as the master Sarabhanga are mighty and powerful and are able to express "the impermanent and painful": (but) they are unable to express "no-self". For if they were able to express "no-self" in a present assembly there would be penetration of path and fruition in the present assembly. For the making known of the characteristic of no-self is not the province of anyone else; it is the province of the Fully Enlightened Ones only. ... >A > couple of people quoted books or conversations where individuals had > suddenly lost all sense of self permanently and couldn't find anyone > to explain within their own religious tradition what it meant. One > lady was told by a Catholic priest "What you are telling me has > happened to you is theologically impossible!". .... S: This a different (conventional) meaning of ‘loss of sense of self’. No understanding of namas and rupas. ... > Some need information on where to find references: > (i) When discussing the 'dispelling of three things' the > term "Immobility of Mind" was mentioned. What does this mean? .... S: ?? .... > (ii) Has the proximate cause of Right Understanding been previously > discussed? Can anyone point us to the past posts? .... S: Discussed at length. Rt concentration as prox cause for rt understanding and vice versa, arising together. Jim found an error in the translation of Atthasalini referred to erroneously as a result in CMA & Cetasikas as wise attention. http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m20948.html Also see proximate cause in UP. ..... > (iii) According to the sutta discussing the 'factors for Stream > Entry' - what is a Superior Person? .... Sappurisa - lit. good or great person, i.e Buddhas & Ariyans. Does this mean one has to ‘meet’ and ‘hear’ an ariyan or the Buddha face to face? No. “Dogs and jackals,etc., see Ariyans by the eye, but are not perceivers of the Ariyans.” (Expositor, The Triplets). I’d like to write more on this and will do so separately when I have time. it always come down to understanding and appreciating and considering the truth and noble qualities. .... > (iv) Does Right View Affected By Taints mean Satipatthana? (hope > that question is phrased correctly) ... S: Yes, mundane R.V./understanding. The latent tendencies (anusaya) are still ‘carried’ with the cittas. .... > There was some debate on how to have a Dhamma discussion with people > of widely different levels of understanding. Do the 'just about > perfected ones' :-) need to keep telling the 'sad examples to > others' :-) that they have 'wrong understanding'? Shouldn't those > who understand on 'less than a mundane level' be allowed to have a > whole conversation, or present a paper, without someone pointing out > their ignorance, or reducing everything to paramattha dhammas? ... S: ;-). Just thank your paramattha stars to have friends who’re not afraid to point out the truth! Azita asked a qu in Bkk about hearing wrong view and whether there must be conceit involved or sth along those lines. The answer was that when panna has developed, sanna still knows who is who and what is what. So the Buddha and ariyans (with no self view) still know when someone speaks with wrong view etc, just no taking for self. We know conceit slips in easily, but not necessarily at such times. Knowing the right time to speak, patience, compassion and so on - well it all depends on accumulations. Let’s just appreciate the good intentions and reflect on the good qualities of those ‘just about perfected ones’....;-). .... What > do you reckon, KenH? :-) Is a surfboard just a concept? ... S: See Ken H’s reply;-). Even ‘just abouts’ have their weak spots, especially when longboarders are involved or forgetting conceptual common-sense such as needing blankets and a hat at Cooran;-). Excellent questions. I’m hoping to add more on sappurisa today or tomorrow. There’s a good passage in the Atthasalini. Metta, Sarah p.s Chris, hope you were able to retrieve your material from your old computer?? ====== 32767 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed May 5, 2004 2:14am Subject: Not Count Yorga, Not Count Yorga ([dsg] Re: Cooran Thanks) Hello Sarah (and Jon), Clearly, thirty years ago, you didn't have a predilection for Midnight Horror Movies at the Drive-in on long summer weekends. 'Count Yorga, Vampire' was a dreadfully weak movie that scarred my consciousness way back when... I only remember it when I'm alone at night in a strange place. And then it doesn't seem so dreadfully weak at all - it seems quite possible ... even probable. :-) I guess when we're unsettled in the dark we can regress - therefore the noting 'not Count Yorga' 'not Count Yorga'. A synopsis of the movie is - 'Count Yorga Vampire is a film about a Bulgarian vampire who departs the old world for sunny southern California. He settles in suburbia, in a stone and cobweb gothic mansion, and starts biting the local wives. This new-born blood sisterhood quickly loses all interest in bridge, spouts fangs and sucks blood from dead cats.' You may well heap scorn on me, but, as I remember, the boyfriend at the time found a number of reasons to convince my mother that he should sleep-over on the couch rather than go home in the dark. :-) metta and peace, Christine --- The trouble is that you think you have time --- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Christine and all Cooranites, > > Good to read all the reports and also your beautifully written piece on > lobha in Thailand. (I'll make sure Nina sees any posts addressed to her on > her return). > > --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hello everyone, > >In the > > darkness, with the sound of a rising westerly wind in the trees, and > > odd bumps in the night, I suppose I should have > > noted 'sound' 'sound' - instead, I was noting 'not Count > > Yorga', 'not Count Yorga'. > .... > S: I asked my Aussie translator for help but he was just as stumped as I > was. Maybe a new kind of yoga done in one's sleep without a need to count > breaths? > .... 32768 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 5, 2004 2:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Video Games? Hi James (& Phil - see*), You raise many important and helpful points for consideration. Thank you. --- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Sarah, >I believe that people exist and other living > beings exist. >I believe that they suffer, that their suffering is > real, and that they should receive compassion—from one living being > to another. ... S: Understanding dhammas as dhammas (i.e anatta) does not preclude having compassion for living beings. Quite the opposite. .... >Therefore, we aren't really going to see eye-to-eye on > this issue. Let me ask you some questions: When you look in the > mirror, do you think "I exist" or "I don't exist"? .... S: It depends on any right or wrong view at the time of looking;-) Usually there’s no thought about it either way. .... >When you have a > feeling do you think "I am having this feeling" or "I am not having > this feeling"? .... S: Even if there’s a thought about ‘my feeling’, it doesn’t necessarily mean there is wrong view at the time. An arahant may think about ‘his feeling’ as opposed to another’s, but no idea that in reality there is anything other than a feeling, a dhamma, not a person, at such times. Life continues as normal. .... >Do you view the universe as impersonal namas and > rupas or as beings with kamma traveling through samsara? .... S: It’s beginning to sound like one of those impossible quizes. I’ll opt for a). b) is O.K. if we know we’re just talking about beings conventionally. .... > You write, "No self to do it and nothing to be done." Honestly, and > I am not judging you negatively, but I find your view of Buddhism > rather depressing and hopeless. Nothing can be done? No one > exists? Then what's the point? .... S: The point is to understand these conditioned dhammas for what they are and develop detachment from the idea of self. Not ‘depressing and hopeless’ but ‘inspiring’ and eventually ‘enlightening’ as such understanding develops. Nothing that can be done by a self, I should add, but plenty that can be done by undestanding or seeing those objects in the lake clearly for what they are. .... >Sarah, I want you to know that I > think you do exist and I think you are a lovely person. I wish you > all the world has to offer. I hope that you think I exist also and > that you wish me well. ;-) ... S: Thanks, James. I wish you very well indeed as you know. I don’t explain things very well, but it’s very obvious to me that understanding and detachment lead to more wholesome states such as metta and compassion for others, rather than the reverse. For a start, we are less likely to be fooled by the near and far enemies as these states are seen for what they are and it’s not ‘my’ kindness or caring, but conditioned dhammas that again are not worthy of being clung to or conceited about at all. 2] > Friend Sarah, > > I wanted to add one more thing: I am not saying that your view of > Buddhism is wrong and that mine is right. Actually, I struggle > everyday to have the `right view' of Buddhism...and of life. I > don't believe that this is an easy task which should be taken for > granted. .... S: James, I fully agree with you....it’s not an easy task at all and I think these words of yours reflect your deep commitment and honesty. What is ‘right’ is ‘right’ and doesn’t belong to anyone at all. .... >And then, occasionally, when I think I do have the `right > view', it will quickly slip away because of pride and arrogance. ;- > )) It is very difficult to be selfless; especially in a world that > doesn't value selflessness. ... S: Again, we’re all in the same boat so to speak and these are fine words. It’s not easy at all and ‘right view’ will only arise momentarily. It’s not the world that’s the problem (*take note Phil;-)), but ‘our’ accumulated ignorance. .... >But, even if I do have the wrong view, > I am going to continue to proceed to have it. Why? Because it > makes me happy and gives me hope. .... S: Exactly! Well said. It arises with attachment and has no wish or intention to see things any other way. It grasps at false straws seeing happiness in them. Like in the sutta about the darts which Howard quoted, even when the going is tough and we’re being pierced by the darts, there is the idea that pleasant experiences and feelings is the solution to our problems. .... >Maybe that is the difference in > our approaches: I emphasize happiness and contentment while you > emphasize wisdom. Maybe your approach is superior to mine? ... S: There doesn’t need to be a conflict. There are different kinds of happiness and contentment. But it has to be a path of detachment from what is experienced, slowly and gradually. Not easy. ..... >Maybe > one is not superior to the other, they are just different > approaches? If your approach works for you, I think that is > great!! But we will find it difficult to discuss what is important > in Buddhism when we are both coming from different angles. Okay, I > have rambled on enough… ;-) .... S: I know you’re considering, reading and reflecting a lot. The path of understanding doesn’t mean the path of misery. It doesn’t mean one has to change one’s lifestyle or try to be ‘selfless’ in anyway. It just means seeing those shells and pebbles a little more clearly for what they are. Thank you for these fine and honest comments, James. Metta, Sarah ====== 32769 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 5, 2004 2:43am Subject: Re: Not Count Yorga, Not Count Yorga ([dsg] Re: Cooran Thanks) Hi Chris, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hello Sarah (and Jon), > > Clearly, thirty years ago, you didn't have a predilection for > Midnight Horror Movies at the Drive-in on long summer > weekends. .... Thanks for filling in the blanks....we did try but were way off;-) Let's see - 30 yrs ago, I was travelling overland to India and Jon was already living in Thailand after a year of so in Indonesia so that may explain his cultural ignorance Down Under at the time too. (Reminds me of clients/students brought up during the cultural revolution in China who emerged totally ignorant of anything that had happened in the world outside for that period). What other wonders have we missed, I wonder? Now attachment to horror movies is one I've never been able to appreciate;-) Hope that last sentence on attachment to fear is enough to justify posting this reply. Metta, Sarah ======= 32770 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed May 5, 2004 2:51am Subject: Chittapala Hello Azita,Jon, Sarah, Chittapala has a mention on Buddhistnews.tv http://www.buddhistnews.tv/current/au-vesak-040504.php cheers, Chris 32771 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Wed May 5, 2004 0:59am Subject: Representation without Observer ! Friends: Neither 'in' nor 'by' experience is any "experiencer" per se created: 'Here, friend, regarding things seen, heard, sensed or conceived: Within the seen is only the seen.. Within the heard is only the heard.. Within the sensed is only the sensed.. Within the conceived is only the conceived.. When you, friend, regard the seen as merely seeing, regard the heard as merely hearing, regard the sensed as merely sensing, regard the conceived as just conception, then friend, you will not be or exist 'by that' ... When not being 'by that', you will neither be 'therein' ... When not being 'therein', you will neither be 'here' nor 'there', nor 'beyond' nor 'in between' ... This itself is the End of Suffering ...' --oo0oo-- The grouped sayings of the Buddha: Samyutta Nikaya IV 73 Comments: Detached, quite aware & clearly comprehending, seeing a form with the eye creates a momentary sensation, but do not thereby fabricate, conceive or construct neither an ego, observer, subject nor any external substance! Only this fact of a passing visual experience is noted: 'There arised & ceased another experience!' This radical empiricism...: Only the directly observed experience itself is granted transient existence. One cannot conclude that any subject or 'Me' is created, just because there is an object projected! Exactly like one cannot conclude that any photographer exists, just because a photo is taken (ex. a space-telescope is without any Ego!) When experience is rightly known & seen as just this flux of discrete impersonal momentary sensing, it just passes, without inducing any craving nor clinging. If all perceivable objects pass thus just mindfully noticed, without provoking any flaming lust nor any aversive disgust, no suffering is accumulated. Thereby frustration is gradually exhausted. The mental freedom of Nibbana is thus close by ... All yours in the Dhamma. Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. http://groups.msn.com/DirectDhamma/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Buddha-Direct/ http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/TrueDhamma 32772 From: Date: Wed May 5, 2004 1:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/5/04 12:08:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I agree with what you wrote (below) but the problem is that feeling > doesn't seem to be conditioned by desire in dependent arising. I don't > have a good answer to this question so I can't take this discussion much > further. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Let me interject a couple thoughts here in reply to the foregoing, and in anticipation of the following of yours. It seems to me that desire falls under sankharakkhandha, which puts it into the second link (after ignorance), and vedana follows later in the cycle. It seems to me that dependent origination is extraordinarily complex, involving cycles within cycles at several levels, and tanha actually occurs at several points besides the point at which it is explicitly mentioned. The becoming link at the end involves craving once again, which leads to rebirth (physical and rebirth of sense of self), which then leads back to ignorance restarting the cycle and, in a bit, to vedana again. The entire scheme can be correctly (I believe) looked at on many levels including the three-lifetime level, various shorter duration levels multiply repeated, and even at the level of dukkha arising in the moment, which is perhaps the most important of all. I suspect that the scheme of dependent origination contains amazing depths within it that elude us, and that were we to truly and directly see the fullness of it we might have to be even more than arahants. It seems to me that dependent origination in its fullness is the purview of Buddhas. ----------------------------------------------- > > Here are a few sketchy thoughts: what is desire? a dualistic imbalance, > a sense of incompleteness...? dukkha is kamma result (result of desire). > what is kamma result? identity...? identity is an ongoing formation > never complete. incomplete = dukkha, incomplete = desire...??? > > Larry > ========================== With metta, Howard > ------------------ > H: Hi again, Larry - > Thinking further on this > topic, I do see that it is a subtle one. I do agree that dukkha is very > close to craving. Dukkha in the "person" is very close to > dissatisfaction. Now what is dissatisfaction? Well, as I consider it, it > seems that it is *wanting* things to be other than the way they are, > that is > - desiring presence of what is absent or absence of what is present or > both (replacement). Yet I don't think that this dissatisfaction, itself, > is dukkha. I think that dukkha is the unhappiness or distress resulting > from, and usually immediately following upon, that dissatisfaction. They > are certainly close. > /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) 32773 From: Philip Date: Wed May 5, 2004 6:50am Subject: Global chaos or a cup of tea? HI Sarah, and all. S: >It's >not the world that's the problem (*take note Phil;-)), but `our >accumulated ignorance. Ph: I guess this would be referring to my confession at letting hostility run amok because of global events. This hostility is a very gross, crude defilement, but one that can be handled on the surface, at least, by cutting off the source. I'm back off the news for the last two days, and hopefully for days to come, and feeling much less troubled. Funny Sarah, but I receive Chinese characters on occasion in your messages, typos, that I've seen elsewhere on Yahoo. (For example, an apostrophe "s" becomes the character that's used in Japaense to refer to psychotic disorders! And the word in front of "accumulated" is partially blocked. It could be either "your" or "our" - but of course there's no difference there. There's an interesting proverb in Japanese. "Shiranu wa hotoke" which literally means "not knowing is the Buddha" - ie "Ignorance is bliss." We know that isn't true. The ignorance on the part of certain world leaders is on clear display, and my ignorance is allowing it in. What happens when lobha forms in response to dosa? Attachment to aversion is very unskilful indeed! I have a question related to panna and what comes next. If I feel the urge to check the internet news to get my morbid thrill from global chaos, but panna - if that's what plain old common sense could be called in this case - arises to remind me that it would be a very grossly unwholesome thing to do, what would the next part of the process be? What is it that gives me the strength to choose a cup of tea on the balcony instead? (It would seem like an easy choice to have the cup of tea, but addiction to unwholesome things can obviously be very strong.) Does panna have in itself a motivating energy to take that basic wisdom and carry through in a skillful action, or is there another kusala cetasika that activates will power? Something to do with virya (energy)? Thanks in advance for your feedback on this, Sarah or anyone else. I was going to write a "Dear Abbydhamma" about my morbid interest in the news, and lack of compassion for the people I see suffering in news reports on TV. I will continue to reflect on my gross lack of compassion for people I see on TV, which is peculiar because I am sometimes moved to tears by the sight of a stranger's hands folded on his or her lap while napping on the train and little things like that. I have such tender feelings for people in my immediate evironment, but am often quite unfeeling about people in the news. I guess it's the numbing effect of TV or something like that. Metta, Phil 32774 From: Date: Wed May 5, 2004 3:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Global chaos or a cup of tea? Hi, Phil - In a message dated 5/5/04 9:55:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, plnao@j... writes: > There's an interesting proverb in Japanese. "Shiranu wa hotoke" > which literally means "not knowing is the Buddha" - ie "Ignorance is > bliss." We know that isn't true. > ======================== Is another possible translation be "No-thought [Howard: meaning, perhaps, nonconceptualizing] is the Buddha"? 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) 32775 From: Date: Wed May 5, 2004 3:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) In a message dated 5/5/04 5:33:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: evels, and tanha actually occurs at several points besides the point at which it is explicitly mentioned. The becoming link at the end involves craving once again, which leads to rebirth (physical and rebirth of sense of self), which then leads back to ignorance restarting the cycle and, in a bit, to vedana again. The entire scheme can be correctly (I believe) looked at on many levels including the three-lifetime level, various shorter duration levels multiply repeated, and even at the level of dukkha arising in the moment, which is perhaps the most important of all. I suspect that the scheme of dependent origination contains amazing depths within it that elude us, and that were we to truly and directly see the fullness of it we might have to be even more than arahants. It seems to me that dependent origination in its fullness is the purview of Buddhas. Howard, As you probably know, some teachers use the short form of Dependent Origination (DO) which starts with an event (phassa) and ends with rebirth. (Since it is a cycle, it doesn't really end anywhere.) They simplify DO into a very workable formula to guide one's daily life. In my opinion, this simple version is very powerful and doesn't deviate from the Buddha's intent. jack 32776 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed May 5, 2004 7:59am Subject: Re: Vesakha dating... Dear Bhikkhu Samahita, It is true that Vesak is not 2nd June. I have discussed at dhamma- list about this. Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Bhikkhu Samahita" wrote: > > but according to Accesstoinsight it is on June 2. > > The ancient Indian month Vesakha is in April/May. > It ends on the fullmoon day of May. > So Vesak can never ever be in June! > > Im aware of the ATI date, which may be either > a mistake or a special Thai tradition. > > Both here on Sri Lanka, in Burma and > in Malaysia Vesak falls around today. > > samahita 32777 From: icarofranca Date: Wed May 5, 2004 8:45am Subject: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Dear Larry > Long time no see. Where have you been? As the usual japanese clerk could say at these occasions:"Issogashii...issogashii...", that means: "God in heavens! I have got a feel that I suddenly catch up a glimpse of a mind concerning about the fact that I am really very busy on these days!" Japanese is a very very hard language to tame up! > > What is dukkha ultimately? How is it conditioned by desire in dependent > arising? Following the newest reports on reality around me, Dukkha is not dwelling today at the Edinburgh Station or at the Firth of Forth, but only Buddha knows where is it just now! Mettaya, Ícaro 32778 From: robmoult Date: Wed May 5, 2004 9:01am Subject: Reverse Word Index to the Visuddhimagga Hi all, Today, I got an email from the Pali Text Society announcing: New Publication by the Pali Text Society: Index to the Visuddhimagga compiled by Professors Y. Ousaka and M. Yamazaki. ISBN 0 86013 414 8 26.50 pounds vi + 505 pp. I went to the website to get a better description but found none. I then did a Google search and discovered the following website: http://www.sendai-ct.ac.jp/~ousaka/1109F/RevWordVisud.pdf I opened up this .PDF document and it appears as though they have extracted every Pali word from the Visuddhimagga and sorted them in order of the last letters (i.e. it starts with words ending with " ' " followed by words ending in "a", followed by words ending in "a with an accent", followed by letters ending in "i"; in other words, it follows the Pali alphabet order of letters). For each word, it gives one or more (usually many more) references where this word appears in the Visuddhimagga in an unusual format. For example, the first two entries in the 500+ page list are: katthamukh' 367-32 nasikagg' 273-22 I have no idea why somebody would compile such a list in this order or how to interpret the references. Can one of our resident Pali scholars shed some light on this? Metta, Rob M :-) 32779 From: vellin michelle Date: Wed May 5, 2004 5:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hello, I'm a new member and intersting in answering your question. Dukkha is suffering. It is a state of mind. When your mind is attached to something, and if you can't achieve those things, it will cause suffering to yourself. Attachment here can also mean dependent. To eliminate the dukkha in ourself, we have to unattached to the things. I hope this brief explanation can help. Maybe others want to add... --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Icarro, > > Long time no see. Where have you been? > > What is dukkha ultimately? How is it conditioned by > desire in dependent > arising? > > Larry 32780 From: Date: Wed May 5, 2004 3:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Howard, One thought that occurred to me is that "formations" (sankhara) not only conditions consciousness (rebirth) but also contact. Contact is kamma resultant and so the feeling that arises with it is also kamma resultant. Hence, feeling is conditioned by desire and can therefore be included in dukkha. I would count both kinds of feeling, bodily and mental. Also, we could say the namarupa link is conditioned by sankhara since it arises together with the "consciousness" link. However, this doesn't single-out feeling as dukkha. I think we are still searching for clarity on what is dukkha in an ultimate sense and exactly how desire conditions dukkha. Larry ps: there is a problem with drawing a parallel between sankhara and becoming; that would make tanha conditioning upadana conditioning sankhara, 3 desires in a row. it might be better to parallelize consciousness/namarupa and becoming. 32781 From: Date: Wed May 5, 2004 4:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Michelle, Welcome to the group and thanks for coming in on this question of what is dukkha and how does it arise. "Attachment" is an interesting word. Is it real or imaginary? Larry ------------------------ M: "Hello, I'm a new member and intersting in answering your question. Dukkha is suffering. It is a state of mind. When your mind is attached to something, and if you can't achieve those things, it will cause suffering to yourself. Attachment here can also mean dependent. To eliminate the dukkha in ourself, we have to unattached to the things. I hope this brief explanation can help. Maybe others want to add..." 32782 From: Date: Wed May 5, 2004 4:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/5/2004 6:55:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > One thought that occurred to me is that "formations" (sankhara) not only > conditions consciousness (rebirth) but also contact. Contact is kamma > resultant and so the feeling that arises with it is also kamma > resultant. Hence, feeling is conditioned by desire and can therefore be > included in dukkha. I would count both kinds of feeling, bodily and > mental. Also, we could say the namarupa link is conditioned by sankhara > since it arises together with the "consciousness" link. -------------------------------- Howard: I agree completely with the foregoing. -------------------------------- However, this > doesn't single-out feeling as dukkha. I think we are still searching for > clarity on what is dukkha in an ultimate sense and exactly how desire > conditions dukkha. ------------------------------- Howard: No, it doesn't. But I think that is nonetheless exactly what 'dukkha' means: unhappiness, displeasure, mental unpleasant feeling. It is the opposite of sukkha. But to be dukkha in the "spiritual" sense, it must be specifically *mental* unpleasant feeling. The unpleasantness of a throbbing ache somewhere in the body is not dukkha in the spiritual sense. But the mental unpleasantness/suffering resulting from the aversion to that ache *is* dukkha in the spiritual sense. Experiencing the ache as unpleasant will occur even for a Buddha, but in a Buddha (or any other arahant) there will not be any *second* dart - there will not be the unhappiness resulting from aversion, for there will not be any aversion. It will be "just an ache" - impersonal, impermanent, insubstantial, not a problem. --------------------------- > > Larry > ps: there is a problem with drawing a parallel between sankhara and > becoming; that would make tanha conditioning upadana conditioning > sankhara, 3 desires in a row. it might be better to > parallelize > consciousness/namarupa and becoming. ----------------------------- Howard: You may be right. However, bhava may be an unfolding of fabrications other than desire. Bhava, it seems to me, represents a "gestation period". In the three-lives interpretation, it is determining (fabricating) the "choice" of realm of rebirth. In the momentary interpretation it is determining (fabricating) the nature of reconstituted self-sense or identity in the wake of the conditioning upadana. ============================= With metta, Howard 32783 From: Philip Date: Wed May 5, 2004 6:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Global chaos or a cup of tea? Hi Howard, and all Phil : > > There's an interesting proverb in Japanese. "Shiranu wa hotoke" > > which literally means "not knowing is the Buddha" - ie "Ignorance is > > bliss." We know that isn't true. Howard: > Is another possible translation be "No-thought [Howard: meaning, > perhaps, nonconceptualizing] is the Buddha"? Phil: Certainly when it's used by people in a colloquial way, it simply means if you don't know about something, it won't cause you any grief, so the ignorance is bliss meaning is the way it should be translated now. For example, a woman who doesn't want to know if her husband is being unfaithful might say "shiranu wa hotoke" - that's an example of how I heard it used in a TV drama. But it's interesting to think about the origin of the term, and how it was once, if ever, used in a stricter Buddhist sense. The folk religion aspects of Buddhism in Japan have dominated for a long time, I think and given a new twist to a lot of terms that originally had a stricter Buddhist meaning. I think your translation is very interesting and has provided me with a new angle on the very familiar expression. Thanks! I'm sure I'll eb thinking more about it, especially since I am holding on to a belief in the value of consciously generating wholesome concepts. But certainly your translation sounds correct from a Zen point of view with all their "Mu" (not, nothingness?) An alternative version of the proverb is "Mu chi wa hotoke", which is just as you said. "not - knowing" (And in passing, thanks for your and Rob's feedback on my "frying pan sound" question - I have printed it out and will be feeding it into the processor that is helping me to understand citta and cetasikas.) Metta, Phil 32784 From: Philip Date: Wed May 5, 2004 6:45pm Subject: Root cetasikas and minor cetasikas Hello all We have the (root) hetu cetasikas (formations), 3 kusala (wholesome) and 3 akusala (unwholesome.) The former are lobha (attachment), dosa (aversion) and moha (ignorance). The latter are alobha (generosity) adosa (non hate or loving kindness) and amoha (panna, or wisdom.) Are these called "root" because they give rise to variations? Can we think of cetasikas as a kind of family tree in reverse with minor cetasikas arising from the root cetasikas? (Come to think of it, I wonder why geneological family trees start from the top....) For example, conceit arising from ingorance? Or do they arise from a kind of parenting, for example attachment and ignorance giving birth to conceit. Or do all cetasikas contain either all three wholesome roots or all three unwholesome roots? Or do all cetasikas contains all 6? I will have to go back and look at Rob's diagrams again. I wonder if there is a kind of family tree of cetasikas in there... And does the fact that they are "root" mean that they are the primary ones that we should be looking at, and perhaps by looking at them and understanding them, the minor branches will be understood and pruned as a natural result? ie we don't have to work on them as long as we get at the root? I'm thinking more of the akusala cetasikas now - I think beginning to understanding them and working to remove defilements - I know that sounds too self-centred and self- active for some people! - is where that's where the progress lies for me now. Thanks in advance for any feedback on the importance of root cetasikas. Metta, Phil 32785 From: Philip Date: Wed May 5, 2004 6:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Global chaos or a cup of tea? Hi again Howard. Phil: > An alternative version >of the proverb is "Mu chi wa hotoke", which is just as you >said. "not - knowing is the Buddha" Oops. That's not what you said, that's what I said. You said "no thought", which is not the same thing. Funny how the mind (self?) works and leaps to confirm what it wants to believe is true. Metta, Phil 32786 From: Date: Wed May 5, 2004 3:30pm Subject: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hi, Larry and all - I have defined dukkha in the "person", and in the spiritual sense, to be unpleasant mental feeling, and I think that is correct. On the other hand, the second of the tilakkhana is that all conditioned phenomena are dukkha. In particular, since pleasant feeling is a conditioned phenomenon, an instance of the second of the tilakkhana is that all pleasant feelings are dukkha!! So, we have the paradox: "All pleasant feelings are dukkha." How is this to be explained? I think there are these two senses of (spiritual) dukkha: 1) Dukkha as unpleasant mental feeling, or distress, and 2) Dukkha as the characteristic of phenomena to produce dukkha in the first sense (i.e., distress) when accompanied by clinging. All conditioned dhammas, when afflicted by clinging, produce distress. This includes pleasant feeling!! When pleasant feeling is clung to, unpleasant mental feeling is produced. ;-) With metta (which is mahasukkha), Howard P.S. Can one cling to metta? I suppose so! ;-)) /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) 32787 From: Philip Date: Wed May 5, 2004 11:19pm Subject: Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha HI Howard, and all Please allow me to slip in a beginner's pov on this. > All conditioned dhammas, when > afflicted by clinging, produce distress. This includes pleasant feeling!! When > pleasant feeling is clung to, unpleasant mental feeling is produced. ;-) Isn't it that "separation from the loved" is conditioned by the pleasant feeling, dissatisfcation from not having it next time? Or is the passage you quoted pointing at a much more immediate response? That would be a bit of a bummmer. If I'm going to feel dissatisfied I expect it to take a few hours at least! ;) I've become aware these days when I'm enjoying the sun (I'm a sun worshipper) that I'm planting the seed for feeling dissatisfaction on cloudy days, for example. > P.S. Can one cling to metta? I suppose so! ;-)) This is an interesting one! I was clinging to what I called "metta" and using it as a conceptual tool to try to paint "my" world in rosy colours and mmake it a cozier place to be, but now I am beginning to see- just beginning to see - metta as a dhamma that arises more as a result of defilements being cleared out of the way rather than intention to have it arise on my part. Eager to read what others will have to say about this. Metta (for want of a better word) Phil 32788 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 5, 2004 11:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Good News : Ajahn Jose Update ** Nina - Ajahn Jose, Chris Dear Suan & Chris, --- abhidhammika wrote: > > > Dear Nina, Chris, Sarah and all > > How are you? I have good news update regarding Ajahn Jose. I had a > telephone chat with Ajahn Jose a few minutes ago (around 12.50 p.m in > Canberra). > > He is feeling very well, and going home tomorrow to his monastery. > > I believe he will fill in more soon. .... Thank you for keeping us updated and it's very good news that the surgery seems to have gone well. Pls keep us informed and wish him a good rest and recovery from us all. I've f/w your messages and any others addressed to Nina for her to see on return. Metta, Sarah ======= 32789 From: Sarah Date: Wed May 5, 2004 11:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Reverse Word Index to the Visuddhimagga Hi RobM, --- robmoult wrote: > For each word, it gives one or more (usually many more) references > where this word appears in the Visuddhimagga in an unusual format. > For example, the first two entries in the 500+ page list are: > > katthamukh' 367-32 > nasikagg' 273-22 > > I have no idea why somebody would compile such a list in this order > or how to interpret the references. .... I'm lost too. It doesn't seem helpful to me and I'm not sure who'd use it. Presumably the refs are to the Pali. It sounds bizarre, but maybe I'm missing something. Metta, Sarah ====== 32790 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu May 6, 2004 0:13am Subject: Formal Sitting or Natural Arising? (was: Re: Video Games?) Hi Rob (and * for Ken H.), > A couple of general responses: > > 1/ I think it is important not to confuse the nature of activities > with our concepts about them. It may be that in the theoretical > scheme of things that contemplating sutta is not a "practice," but in > the ordinary sense of the word, it is. It is an activity, a task, > with a specific purpose. Sukin: I think this is why we must differentiate and come to determine exactly what the reality is and what we mean by them in the conventional sense. I don't think we can rely on the latter, since it is based on the idea of `self', `situations' and `activity', none of which have any ultimate status and all of which are infused with our personal and distorted understandings. > That is how I would define practice. In a > sense, I think you are confusing two different meanings of the same > word, one a technical term in the Buddhist path, distinguishing > between intellectual study and the accomplishment or presence of full > mindfulness, which you are calling the "practice;" and the ordinary > sense in which "practice" merely means a directed activity. Surely, > in that sense, both intellectual study of sutta and meditation are > "practices." Whatever it means by `practice' in the conventional sense, and how we ever create situations out of our experience through the six doorways, through ignorance or through panna, in the end if we are to come to appreciate the Buddha's teachings, we must be able to determine what behind all this, the `ultimate realities' are. I believe otherwise, we will not make any progress. > At the same time, you do have a valid point in that you are saying > that meditation purports to grant direct insight, which pariyatti does > not. You could say that pariyatti is a preliminary practice, while > paripatti is the actual practice. I think both pariyatti and patipatti must always go hand in hand. There must be I believe, moments of direct experience, though they may be too little to be noticed, otherwise I think, there cannot be the confidence in and to continue with pariyatti. [*Ken H. is this what you are referring to on another thread? I have always wondered about this, but never asked anyone.] So I don't think that pariyatti is preliminary and patipatti is the subsequent step, as in one following the other. I think we do have a tendency to draw lines and in the process take what is not real to be real, namely the conventional activities. Dhammas arise and fall by conditions, and none of us have directly seen enough of this to go beyond doubt that this is quite different from what we usually think. Attachment to our conventional view can only make it harder to appreciate this fact, I think. This is why I wanted us to be clear from the very beginning what pariyatti is, and how it relates to patipatti. I wanted to show you in the last post, that `study' is not the matter of accumulation of words, but the `understanding' which is something that arises because of conditions and cannot be willed. Of course it does involve `words' on one level, whether this is apprehended through the eye door, the ear door or the mind. And each time there is any understanding, it is `verbalized' mentally. But note that this does not happen automatically when one reads or hears the teachings, it must depend on other conditions as well, the primary of which is the accumulated panna, from hearing and reflecting in the past. > In that sense, what is the > preliminary practice prior to meditation, if meditation is the > practice? What is the preparation, which would be the meditator's > equivalent of pariyatti? I suppose it would also be the basic > comprehension of sutta or appropriate scripture. And then putting it > into practice through mindfulness meditation. In that sense the paths > seem somewhat similar. Again, I don't think that they should be compared. And just as it requires panna to `understand' the meaning of the words, it is panna which is involved in `patipatti'. No `self' can intend to have satipatthana, if conditions are right, it will happen. Just as one cannot will `understanding' while reading, listening or thinking over the words, similarly one cannot will satipatthana by `intending to apply'. Sati, just like panna, depends on conditions from past accumulations; `intention' is not one of the factors to condition it. Rather, the primary conditions would be, having heard about the Teachings in the past, particularly about the objects of sati, which is the paramattha dhammas. And because so much wrong view and other akusala have been accumulated from the past, that we need to be reminded again and again through pariyatti about realities and their conditioned nature. If we forget that sati and panna arises due to conditions other than intention, then wrong view will make us believe that we can `do' something to condition sati. Rob, when you decide to "apply" the theory, how sure are you that at that instant, that there is panna which makes the decision? If you agree that it is not panna, then what is the reality of the moment? Is it kusala, or is it desire? And if it is the latter, then by what miracle do you think that satipatthana can ever be conditioned to arise later on, except probably, a highly developed panna accumulated from the past. In which case I think, it would realize the futility of deliberate practice, because it would at that time see that conditions other than the sitting, caused it to arise. And once this happens, you will also see that the so called sati apparent during formal practice is not in fact satipatthana as taught by the Buddha, the characteristic being quite different. > I am still confused however, if paripatti is your equivalent of > meditation in our comparison, what exactly does paripatti entail as a > practice? If one does not meditate, what exactly is the practice of > satipatthana? I suppose it is the discernment of arising moments of > everyday life, which to me is basically the same thing as meditation, > except that you have the stipulation that one must not do it as a > specific purposeful practice, as one does in meditation. And everyday life may include `sitting', if that is our normal activity! However, we can't decide to `discern the arising moments in daily life' any more than we can do it during `formal sitting'. The main problem is `wrong view', and this can believe that there is a `self' who can apply either in `normal everyday activity' or `formal sitting' or even this very moment "now". This is the `self' which Sarah and others so often talk about, and is not bringing in a dualistic category, but is a reality of the moment, in this case `lobha mula citta accompanied by wrong view'. > But this too is confusing: If one practices mindfulness as a stage > following pariyatti, then it seems like it really is a purposeful > practice to gain the result of full mindfulness of the object, and so > it is just as intentional as meditation. And the distinction seems > even more artificial when you imagine that the only real difference > between paripatti and meditation is that the meditator is "assuming a > sitting position," while the practitioner of paripatti practices his > "meditation" wherever and under whatever conditions happen to arise. > Surely, the physical positioning of the practitioner cannot create > such a great theoretical rift? I hope you now understand that the core matter is Right / Wrong View. Sitting and not sitting is just side issues, though reflective of this primary one. And this is why on DSG so much emphasis is on Rt. View. > Even more confusing is the fact that every meditation practice > includes both walking meditation, and the admonition that the practice > of mindfulness should be extended into a 24-hour a day operation, > where one is always conscious of both the breath and whatever is > arising for consciousness. In many ways, both paths seem to come > around to the same place by a different route. Why the `breath' when we know that we have so much ignorance and wrong view regarding it? Why would any serious practitioner want to give importance to that which only conditions more akusala? Anything at all that we as worldlings give special importance to, that becomes immediately an object of clinging. And no matter how we rationalize about `breath' being neutral and so on, the clinging is there and becomes in fact, an object of `wrong view' when associated with right practice. > So what exactly does paripatti entail? And if it is indeed a > practice, how is this not a "doing" with a doer involved? I am > sincerely interested in the answer to this. Any moment of satipatthana is a moment of patipatti. So, just as one cannot will satipatthana because it will arise when the conditions are right, there is no one who `practices'. > > To me all of the above is "the practice." Now if one is *not* > discerning, but hallucinating, and going down an akusala path without > knowing it, well, that's a big problem. But I would like to know, > Sukin, how is one to know this anyway, if one does not trust his own > sense of whether detachment, insight, clarity of discernment, etc. are > developing? Who do you trust to tell you you are seeing the real > moment arising, if you yourself are not training your own citta to do > this? I think without development of faith in one's own evaluation of > what is occurring on the path, the path must be lost. Sanna, citta and ditthi vipallasa is the norm for most of us. We may believe that a certain characteristic trait qualifies as `hallucination' etc. However anytime there is attachment to result which motivates a measuring of one's progress along the path, and involving hindsight, how can we be certain that we are not hallucinating? I don't put much faith in my own evaluation based on the past, but there are moments of faith based on understanding the meaning of the Buddha's teachings and what can be verified in the moment. This keeps me going, at least more confident in the particular interpretation as taught by K. Sujin and expressed by many members of this list. But have I gone beyond doubt? Surely a big NO!! > I will appreciate your response, hoping that these points are not also > too far flung to give the basis for a good exchange. : ) Hope you are not disappointed. ;-) Metta, Sukin. 32791 From: robmoult Date: Thu May 6, 2004 0:25am Subject: Re: Root cetasikas and minor cetasikas Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Philip" wrote: > We have the (root) hetu cetasikas (formations), 3 kusala > (wholesome) and 3 akusala (unwholesome.) The former are lobha > (attachment), dosa (aversion) and moha (ignorance). The latter are > alobha (generosity) adosa (non hate or loving kindness) and amoha > (panna, or wisdom.) > > Are these called "root" because they give rise to variations? Can > we think of cetasikas as a kind of family tree in reverse with minor > cetasikas arising from the root cetasikas? (Come to think of it, I > wonder why geneological family trees start from the top....) For > example, conceit arising from ingorance? Or do they arise from a kind > of parenting, for example attachment and ignorance giving birth to > conceit. Or do all cetasikas contain either all three wholesome roots > or all three unwholesome roots? Or do all cetasikas contains all 6? > I will have to go back and look at Rob's diagrams again. I wonder if > there is a kind of family tree of cetasikas in there... > > And does the fact that they are "root" mean that they are the > primary ones that we should be looking at, and perhaps by looking at > them and understanding them, the minor branches will be understood > and pruned as a natural result? ie we don't have to work on them as > long as we get at the root? I'm thinking more of the akusala > cetasikas now - I think beginning to understanding them and working > to remove defilements - I know that sounds too self-centred and self- > active for some people! - is where that's where the progress lies for > me now. > > Thanks in advance for any feedback on the importance of root > cetasikas. The roots are the core, the heart of the mental state. Just as the roots form the foundation for a tree, so too the root cetasikas are the fundamental character, the base of the mental state. When an idea of conceit (mana) arises, this idea is built on a base of moha (not seeing things as they truly are) and lobha (attachment to self). Moha are lobha are the roots supporting every mental state with conceit. Hope this helps. Metta, Rob M :-) 32792 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 6, 2004 0:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Do or not do something Hi Jack, (Phil & All), --- Jackhat1@a... wrote: > jack: I believe the suttas are self-contained. Nothing else including > the > Abhidhamma is needed. .... S: For Sariputta only a couple of lines were needed. For others a single sutta was enough. Philip mentioned a sutta in AN which seems to have an obvious meaning about the danger of anger I think. Even suttas like this which may seem obvious can easily be taken for ‘self’ or self ‘that can do’ if enough understanding hasn’t been developed. Can we really understand the depth of meaning without hearing more details? Even though disciples like Sariputta could understand the full meaning from a few lines, they’d continue to listen to all the details to help others and develop even greater wisdom. Those who became enlightened to the first 3 stages needed to continue as trainees, listening and considering further as well. It’s never enough. Pls allow a short commentary quote. I’ve been meaning to give a quote from the Netti, 53 (The Guide, PTS, attributed to Maha-Kaccaana, the great disciple who often elaborated on the Buddha’s words -- as encouraged to do so by the Buddha -- and to whom many of the early commentaries are attributed): “*How the Teaching is variously presented* 53. Herein. the Blessed One explains by letters, displays by terms, divulges by phrases, analyses by moods, exhibits by linguistics, and describes by demonstrations. Herein, the Blessed One condenses (uggha.teti) by letters and terms, he expands (vipa~ncayati) by phrases and moods, he details by linguistics and demonstations. Herein, condensing is the beginning, expanding is the middle, and detailing is the end. This True Idea and Outguiding (Discipline), when it is condensed, guides out (disciplines) the [type of] person who gains knowledge by what is condensed; hence ‘good in the beginning’ is said. When expanded it guides out (disciplines) the [type of] person who gains knowledge by what is expanded; hence ‘good in the middle’ is said. When detailed it guides out (disciplines) the [type of] person who is guidable; hence ‘good in the end’ is said. <...> “That is why the Blessed One said ” ... >Vipassana to me refers to the realization that all > phenomena is transient, non-self and unsatisfactory. Teachings addressed > those issues > and putting forth techniques to train one's mind to experience these > realities > is contained in the suttas. I don't think experiencing realites is > exclusively Abhidhamma. .... S: I agree, not at all. However, how many people reading the suttas alone have a clear understanding of the distinction between concepts and realities and appreciate that the tri-lakkhana are the characteristics of paramattha dhammas (realities) only? As I see it, they can never be realized without clearly understanding these namas and rupas and the clear distinction between them first. Without this understanding, it will be a conceptual idea of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and non-self only and be easy to fool ourselves about realizations of these characteristics, I think. .... > jack: I think we disagree on what the path of satipatthana is. ... S: Yes. I would say that what is done is usually done by ignorance. Occasionally, it may be done by wisdom, but this is the momentary understanding of a dhamma that is conditioned, not the ‘putting forth’ or doing of a technique with any idea of self, free-will or control, even in the beginning as a preparatory stage. .... > jack: Many people read the Abhidhamma and come up with different > interpretations. I think that is evident on this list. The majority of > these people who > study the Abhidhamma in my opinion believe in having a meditation > practice, to > take one example. That makes your view whether correct or incorrect in > the > minority and not mainstream. .... S: Thank you for the clarification. Either way (minority or mainstream), the practice has to be in accordance with the theory. There’s no use it teaching one theory about conditioned dhammas and then clinging to a practice based on something else. Metta, Sarah ===== 32793 From: abhidhammika Date: Thu May 6, 2004 0:57am Subject: Re: Reverse Word Index to the Visuddhimagga Dear Rob M, Sarah, Chris, Nina and all How are you? Rob M wrote: "I opened up this .PDF document and it appears as though they have extracted every Pali word from the Visuddhimagga and sorted them in order of the last letters (i.e. it starts with words ending with " ' " followed by words ending in "a", followed by words ending in "a with an accent", followed by letters ending in "i"; in other words, it follows the Pali alphabet order of letters)." And Sarah also wrote: "I'm lost too. It doesn't seem helpful to me and I'm not sure who'd use it. Presumably the refs are to the Pali. It sounds bizarre, but maybe I'm missing something." The reason for arranging the Pali words in the last letters is that this index follows the format of traditional Pali dictionaries or glossaries such as Mahaa Saddaniiti Dhaatumaalaa. And, why would the traditional Pali dictionaries or glossaries arrange Pali words according to the last letters? This is because the last latters are where the operations of the Pali grammar mainly happen. In the case of Pali nouns, the last letters show their different genders such as masculine, neuter, and femenine. Thus, we know instantly the noun "naasikaggam" , (nasikagg' 273-22) given by Rob as an example, to be a neuter noun because it ends in "-m" (niggahita kaaranta, it is not the consonant "m"). In the case of Pali verbs, the verbal suffixes also need to blend in with the last letters of Pali verbs. Therefore, the index has obviously been prepared by the two Japanese scholars keeping the Pali scholars and students in their minds. I haven't read the pdf document from the link posted by Rob, but what few clues he gave about this index gave me the impression that it would be very useful and handy for the Pali scholars and students. I have translated the line from Visuddhimaggo with the term "naasikaggam" for your convenient reading. 224 ."Bahinikkhamanavaatassa hi naabhi aadi, hadayam majjham, naasikaggam pariyosaanam." 224. "The start of the exhaled air is the navel, the middle of it the heart, and the end of it the tip of the nose." Bahinikkhamanavaata - literally means the air that goes outside. The above Pali line can be found in Section 224 on Aanaapaanassatikathaa, in Chapter 8, Visuddhimaggo Vol 1. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: Hi all, Today, I got an email from the Pali Text Society announcing: New Publication by the Pali Text Society: Index to the Visuddhimagga compiled by Professors Y. Ousaka and M. Yamazaki. ISBN 0 86013 414 8 26.50 pounds vi + 505 pp. Metta, Rob M :-) 32794 From: robmoult Date: Thu May 6, 2004 1:45am Subject: Re: Reverse Word Index to the Visuddhimagga Hi Suan, Thanks for the clarification. Clearly there are other books from PTS that are higher on my Christmas wish list. I genuinely hope that some day, I can Pali-literate enough to feel the need for this type of reference text. Metta, Rob M :-) 32795 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu May 6, 2004 1:46am Subject: Re: A Paradox Pertaining to Dukkha Hello Howard, Philip, and all, "Friend Saariputta, it is said, 'suffering, suffering.' What now is suffering?" There are, friend, these three kinds of suffering: the suffering due to pain, the suffering due to formations, the suffering due to change. These are the three kinds of suffering." [note 274] Samyutta Nikaya The Book of the Six Sense Bases (Salaayatanavagga) 38 Jambukhaadakasamyutta 14 Suffering (p. 1299 Bhikkhu Bodhi) Note 274: The three types are explained at Vism 499, 14-21 (Ppn. 16:34-35). Briefly, suffering due to pain (dukkha-dukkhataa) is painful bodily and mental feeling; suffering due to the formations (sankhaaradukkhataa) is all conditioned phenomena of the three planes, because they are oppressed by rise and fall; and suffering due to change (viparinaamadukkhataa) is pleasant feeling, which brings suffering when it comes to an end. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Philip" wrote: > > HI Howard, and all > > Please allow me to slip in a beginner's pov on this. > > > All conditioned dhammas, when > > afflicted by clinging, produce distress. This includes pleasant > feeling!! When > > pleasant feeling is clung to, unpleasant mental feeling is > produced. ;-) > > Isn't it that "separation from the loved" is conditioned by the > pleasant feeling, dissatisfcation from not having it next time? Or is > the passage you quoted pointing at a much more immediate response? > That would be a bit of a bummmer. > If I'm going to feel dissatisfied I expect it to take a few hours > at least! ;) I've become aware these days when I'm enjoying the sun > (I'm a sun worshipper) that I'm planting the seed for feeling > dissatisfaction on cloudy days, for example. > > > P.S. Can one cling to metta? I suppose so! ;-)) > > This is an interesting one! I was clinging to what I > called "metta" and using it as a conceptual tool to try to paint "my" > world in rosy colours and mmake it a cozier place to be, but now I am > beginning to see- just beginning to see - metta as a dhamma that > arises more as a result of defilements being cleared out of the way > rather than intention to have it arise on my part. > Eager to read what others will have to say about this. > > Metta (for want of a better word) > Phil 32796 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 6, 2004 1:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do or not do something Hi Jack again;-), --- Jackhat1@a... wrote: > I believe that there is just seeing. (I don't deny that there is > something > out there apart from us that is seen.) Seeing consciousness and visible > object > is a dualistic and useful way to break up this non-dualistic process. > Another > way of saying it is that if we don't have an "I" sense, there is no more > > subject (I) or object (that which is seen), there is just seeing. .... S: So when we read about visible objects, sounds etc as the external ayatanas (sense fields), experienced by seeing consciousness etc to be clearly understood, do you take these merely as references to a ‘dualistic and useful way to break up this non-dualistic process’? SN35:4 “ ‘Bhikkhus, forms are impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering (*Note Howard and Larry - all realities except nibbana as dukkha). What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self.’ ‘Sounds...Odours...Tastes....Tactile objects....Mental phenomena (dhammaayatana) are impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘this is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ “ Seeing and visible objects have their own distinct characteristics. The former is a nama and the latter is a rupa. They have to be clearly distinguished and known. When we read in other suttas, like the Bahiya sutta, Udana 1:10, expresions such as: “There, Baahiya, you should so train yourself that with respect to the seen there will be merely the seen...”, it means that with regard to the visible object appearing at that time, there should be awareness and guarding of the sense doors rather than attachment or other kilesa arrising. .... > The Buddha, in my opinion, broke unified processes into many different > categories as teaching tools. For instance, in some teachings he broke a > person into > 5 aggregates. This was arbitrary in the sense that a person could be > broken > into other categories. The Buddha used these dualistic concepts to > communicate > and teach. Sometimes he did not use concepts. .... S: It seems that when I read the Buddha to be talking about realities - seeing, visible object, the aggregates, for example, you read him to be talking about concepts. Do you read ‘unified processes’ or ‘wholes’ such as the ‘non-dualistic’ combination of seeing and seen or person here as realities or concepts? I’d like to understand more clearly what you see as each. When the Buddha talks about the impermanence of visible objects and sounds (above), can there be impermanence of concepts? .... > jack: No disagreement if there is also room for self determination, > i.e., > choices to be made. One can make decisions out of unconditioned mind. ... S: What is the unconditioned mind and what is this self-determination? .... > jack: I do use awareness and watching as synonyms. When one is "just > sitting" > without defilements, one is aware naturally and without purpose. One has > to > have a lot of practice under one's belt in order to "just sit" without > defilements. .... S: Even for one second! ... > jack: I think there is a personal responsibility and ability to make > decisions. Throughout the suttas, the Buddha is talking about decisions > and training > one's mind. .... S: I’m sorry, but when I read about ‘watching’, ‘personal responsibility’ or self to bring about non-self, it sounds as if you or others are agreeing that there are conditions and causes but initially there’s a self to do something. We know that whether or not we ever hear of the Buddha’s teachings, there is never a self in truth, merely a wrong idea that there is. .... > jack: Yes I am saying there has to be conscious training/practice in > order to > reach a stage where there is no special wish or intention. I am clear > what > your position is. After all this, I hope you are clear on my position. .... S: Yes. Actually I haven’t had any difficulty understanding your position -- it's very familiar -- but I’m trying to find ways to discuss it in order to find some agreement;-).In other words, I’m just exploring our positions further, especially in the light of the teaching on anatta. I'll look forward to any of your further comments. Hope this one is not too frustrating. Metta, Sarah ====== 32797 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 6, 2004 2:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Question Still Remains/Cooran Hi KenH (& Rob Ep*), --- kenhowardau wrote: > S: > In other words, when we think about knee and pain and coffee > table and so on, these are terms and concepts which mask the > realities. > ------------------ > > I understand you to be saying; if, at the intellectual level, > concepts aren't differentiated from realities, then, at the ultimate > level, realities will not be known for what they are. ... S: Good summary. ... >That > prompts me to ask, "What is meant by, `at the intellectual level?'" > I think you and Nina would maintain that the intellectual level is > not solely at the mind door with concepts as objects. ... S: It is, but just momentary panna again with concepts (or realities) as objects, eg thinking now with panna about how seeing, no self, experiences visible object. .. >There are a > lot of sense-door and mind-door processes intermingled. Who knows, > perhaps some of them have a little direct understanding of the very > dhammas that are being conceptualised. .... S: Yes. Different moments..... .... > I think you are saying that our intellectual understanding should > not overreach itself. Better to have a helpful, general idea than a > misleading, specific asumption. ... S: I’ve forgotten but this sounds good;-) Pls clarify what I’m saying more often.....sometimes you know better than I do what it is;-). I could do with some pithy tips too. .... > Thanks for that; there is obviously a lot of important activity at > the sense-doors -- not just at the conceptualising mind-door. > Thanks, also, for retyping your favourite quote about improper > visitors in the eye-door process (partly snipped): > --------------------- > > "And as it is improper for a visitor who has entered another's > house to ask for something, to give orders, when the owners of the > home sit in silence, so lusting or hating or becoming deluded in the > eye door which is the home of adverting, etc. is improper when > adverting, etc. do not lust or hate or become deluded. Thus > should `clear understanding through non-delusion' be understood by > way of `visiting'." > > -------------- > > So, even adverting consciousness can be trained. By conditions, of > course. .... S: I don’t read it like that. We know that there is a series of cittas arising in the eye door process, starting with sense-door adverting consciousness after the bhavanga cittas (‘adverting, etc). These cittas starting with ‘adverting, etc’ don’t lust or hate (lust or hate can only arise with the javana cittas), so it is improper for these subsequent javana cittas in the same process to lust or hate like improper visitors. So it is the javana cittas that need to be trained or rather ‘clear understanding through non-delusion’ should be encouraged to visit. Reminds me of the luminosity thread and the commentary explanation about the ‘naughty children’[i.e akusala javana cittas] spoiling the reputation of the ‘pure’ parents [i.e the previous bhavanga cittas]. <*I just put that in to see if Rob Ep is reading all mails as I’m not sure if he saw my earlier one;-)> .... > ------------- > S: > I also thought your comments on the `Illusion of Control' were > pretty good > ------------------------- > > Thank you, I won't snip that :-) It made me think; after spending > so much time nutting-out posts for dsg, why should I double up with > discussion papers for Cooran? So, I followed your advice and > presented the `Illusion of Control' post. I think I got away with > it. > -------------------- ... ;-) Ah, but did the others agree with that conclusion or just keep quiet? .... > So do I. The extra day made the weekend even better than usual. > Sometimes, my insistence that everyone should agree with me got a > little taxing, but the others were very tolerant. (That's Buddhists > for you.) I think we all feel enlightened, but not quite to the > extent advertised :-) .... S: ;-) Sounds like you get away with far more than you do here.....;-) We have the idea that it’s good to be well and truly challenged. I’m enjoying all the enlightened posts.....maybe they’re tolerant because they’re afraid that otherwise you’ll set your eyes on one of those sheds and they’ll be left exposed in the freezing paramatthic rupas?? A little tolerance sounds like a good price for a shelter and blanket or two. Metta, Sarah ===== 32798 From: Sarah Date: Thu May 6, 2004 2:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Back to D.O. - sankhaara (formations) Hi Michelle, I was glad to read your comments on dukkha and I'd like to welcome you here to DSG! Please share a little about yourself, your background in Buddhism or where you live. Let us know if you need any help here. The posts can also be read or searched at this link: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/ Metta, Sarah --- vellin michelle wrote: > Hello, > > I'm a new member and intersting in answering your > question. > Dukkha is suffering. It is a state of mind. When your > mind is attached to something, and if you can't > achieve those things, it will cause suffering to > yourself. Attachment here can also mean dependent. To > eliminate the dukkha in ourself, we have to unattached > to the things. 32799 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu May 6, 2004 3:00am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Question Still Remains/Cooran Dear KenH, (Sarah), and all, My dear sir, you got away with absolutely 'nothing' ... we simply allowed you to 'think' that you had. (smile) There is a large ledger in the cattery with all the debits and credits listed. (Especially the staggering 'taking my turn at washing up' deficit, plus the list of excuses like ''why I was too busy defending the beach against longboarders to write a paper''). On one of the next weekends, we may arrange an 'intervention' - be prepared to find yourself the sole cook and dish washer, bed assembler, table setter, campfire convenor, paper presenter, compost collator, water bucket replenisher and discussion leader. Now is the time to start digging out recipes, lifting weights, collecting wood, and typing your insights. And ... how is it possible that you could have mistaken the exclamations "Yeah, Right!" and "Oh, Duh!" and "Sure, KenH, sure!" as agreement? (smile) Ah well - moha, moha and more moha .... cheers, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah > > after spending > > so much time nutting-out posts for dsg, why should I double up with > > discussion papers for Cooran? So, I followed your advice and > > presented the `Illusion of Control' post. I think I got away with > > it. > > -------------------- > ... > ;-) Ah, but did the others agree with that conclusion or just keep quiet? > .... > > So do I. The extra day made the weekend even better than usual. > > Sometimes, my insistence that everyone should agree with me got a > > little taxing, but the others were very tolerant. (That's Buddhists > > for you.) I think we all feel enlightened, but not quite to the > > extent advertised :-) > .... > S: ;-) Sounds like you get away with far more than you do here.....;-) We > have the idea that it's good to be well and truly challenged. I'm enjoying > all the enlightened posts.....maybe they're tolerant because they're > afraid that otherwise you'll set your eyes on one of those sheds and > they'll be left exposed in the freezing paramatthic rupas?? A little > tolerance sounds like a good price for a shelter and blanket or two. > > Metta, > > Sarah > =====