35400 From: ericlonline Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 9:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Phantom Limbs give insight into Vedana/Feeling & Sensation... "mattroke" wrote: > > M> There are countless millions of concepts created by nama & rupa realities. None are real... E > > Indeed, but then how should we then take what you have > > said above? M> It is a concept about the nature of concepts and like all concepts it is not real. hmm, sounds like Santa Claus writing poems about the Easter Bunny then. :-) PEACE E 35401 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 10:53am Subject: Setting up foundation for jhana (02 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, The precepts are quite necessary. If possible the practitioner should wear clothings in unicolour from top to toes. He should clean his body properly not using strong perfume which might disturb later practice. The practice is a bit hard. So nutritional balance may become necessary. He should not smoke. Should have (eat) nutritious food but not in the manner of a glutton. Bowel should open regularly. Pure and clean water should be available to him. If possible take the precepts and these preparations for a long time. With a long practice of keeping the precepts, the practitioner's mind will become calm and peace even before the practice of jhana. So, setting up foundation for jhana is a preliminery requisites for further development of higher( great, noble, pure ) citta. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 35402 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 11:06am Subject: The Removal of distracting Thoughts, no 3. The Removal of distracting Thoughts, no 3. When the Bhikkhu has thoughts of delusion he should depend on five dhammas: 1. He should be together with a teacher, 2. he should study the Dhamma, 3. he should ask questions on the Dhamma, 4. he should listen to the Dhamma at a suitable time, 5. he should inquire into cause and effect. As to the first point, the Co. states that when he is together with a teacher he respects, the teacher can punish him with a task, such as making him dip up water to fill even a hundred pots. N: He has respect for the teacher and thus, he will do this with kusala citta. The bhikkhu should do all such tasks with mindfulness of nama and rupa. If he performs this task with aversion he will have more delusion. The teacher gives him this punishment in order to help him to have less delusion. The Co states as to the second point that the teacher will punish him when he does not study the Dhamma at the proper time, when he does not recite the texts well, or does not recite them at all. As to the third point, he should go to another bhikkhu he respects and he should asks questions concerning the meaning of the Dhamma. In this way his doubts will be allayed and he can abandon delusion. He should listen to the Dhamma at the appropriate time with respect and thus the meaning of what he hears will become clear to him. Thus he can abandon ignorance of the Dhamma. He should inquire as to the right cause that can bring the appropriate result. In this way he can abandon ignorance of the Dhamma. When the bhikkhu develops one of the thirtyeight subjects of meditation he can abandon wrong thoughts in the five ways that have been explained: the meditation on foulness, attention to impermanence, metta, attention to the elements and the five things to be observed when he is deluded. These things are diametrically opposed to the defilements and very effective. Sutta text: **** Co: The wholesome thoughts such as foulness, can be compared to the fine peg that removes the coarse peg, which are the unwholesome thoughts. **** Nina. 35403 From: icaro franca Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 11:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Setting up foundation for jhana (02 ) Hi Htoo! > The practice is a bit hard. So nutritional balance > may become > necessary. He should not smoke. Should have (eat) > nutritious food but > not in the manner of a glutton. Bowel should open > regularly. Pure and > clean water should be available to him. ------------------------------------------------------ Again, we find such kind of instructions about Jhana in many other cultures' sacred-texts . These remarks are very similar to Bhavagad Gita's. Mettaya, Ícaro ===== 35404 From: Herman Hofman Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 4:01pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Phantom Limbs give insight into Vedana/Feeling & Sensation... Hi Matt, Thank you for your considered replies. For someone with a poor command of English, you do very well :-) Unfortunately, these Internet groups rely on understanding each other's meaning, and to achieve this we have to go to school for many years and get beaten by the master sometimes, and by the other kids often. I apologise if my tone was harsh. I had enough of school and beatings after the first day :-). Kind Regards Herman 35405 From: Herman Hofman Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 5:08pm Subject: RE: [dsg]What is real (was Phantom Limbs) Hi Howard, Thank you *VERY VERY MUCH* for this. Some more comments below on some things you might shed more light on, if you feel inclined. =============== > > Hi Herman, > > >H: I wonder how the seeing came to be separated from the colour, and how > >the colour came to be separated into computer screen and word? And where > >along the line did reality turn into unreality? > > When someone narrates a story, when do the words become the story? They > never do. Words are always words and they have their own meaning. When > strung together in different ways they create different stories. > > So, where along the line did reality turn into unreality? At no time. > Realities are always realities and they have their own unique characteristic > > that wisdom can know. And when wisdom dose not arise then there is concept > which is not real but is taken to be real. > > Just this one for now, must go. > > MattR > =========================== The mental compounds/constructs, specifically concepts, seem to point beyond themselves to "things" or entities. The mentally uncompounded experiences generally do not - hardnesses, sights, odors, itches, fears, etc are not referential or denotational - they are direct experiences, not pointing beyond themselves. ======================= The problem I have with "mentally uncompounded" is that there is no way of knowing "uncompounded" to be the case. Sure, I can logically dissect the past, and arrive at some substratum where an experience appears the same no matter how I look at it, and then call that uncompounded. What I am failing to recognize in that exercise is that I am limited by 1] my ability to dissect and by 2] my method. As in your reference to microscopically seeing, a more or less powerful microscope will give different results. People could be forgiven for assuming water to be uncompounded. Water is the same however and wherever one contacts it. Yet water is compounded, and the experience of its components is quite different to the experience of water. And the components of the components are different again. I posit that it is a basic flaw to assume one has hit the bedrock of indivisibility, or that such a thing exists. Sure enough, fear is fear, and it will be called fear as long as the experience is the same. But isn't it just possible that the difference between fear and love is the absence/presence of an unspecified component, common to both? You gave a very useful example the other day of experimenting with looking at a paper towel in different ways. I find myself doing those sorts of things as well, and to me they are a clear indication that an experience is coloured by the method used to experience it. But at no point does it become valid to say that what is experienced in one context is more uncompounded or more fundamentally real than another context. What is real in the 8th jhana is so because only those factors of the 8th jhana are in play, and other factors aren't. It doesn't make the factors of the 1st jhana unrealer when they come into play. Clearly the macroscopic conditions the microscopic and vice versa, and it is a basic flaw to assume one has hit the bedrock of indivisibility, or that there is such a thing. Now, none of this is much of a problem in itself. My "beef" arises with the school of thought, though it can't be a school of much careful thought, that holds that insight is only possible with an irreducible as an object. Bunkum! There are an infinite number of relations that obtain between the theoretical all and theoretical nothing. The drawing of 8, 31 or 53 lines in the ether with the statement "this is absolute and nothing else is" is a sure sign of ignorance, to me. I found the rest of your post priceless. Kind Regards Herman 35406 From: Herman Hofman Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 5:27pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Phantom Limbs give insight into Vedana/Feeling & Sensation... Hi Matt, Rereading my post to you, I realized that it could sound like I was saying you were beating me up. What I mean is that I'm sure you don't want to get beaten up by me, just like I don't want to get beaten up either :-) Kind Regards Herman PS You may have mentioned it before, in which case it is lost somewhere between my ears, but what part of the world are you from, if I may be so bold ? -----Original Message----- From: Herman Hofman [mailto:hhofman@t...] Sent: Saturday, 14 August 2004 9:02 AM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [dsg] Phantom Limbs give insight into Vedana/Feeling & Sensation... Hi Matt, Thank you for your considered replies. For someone with a poor command of English, you do very well :-) Unfortunately, these Internet groups rely on understanding each other's meaning, and to achieve this we have to go to school for many years and get beaten by the master sometimes, and by the other kids often. I apologise if my tone was harsh. I had enough of school and beatings after the first day :-). Kind Regards Herman 35407 From: connieparker Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:04pm Subject: trouble is... Hi, Christine. Just looked at the clock and realized I was more interested in counting down my last hours of "freedom" than I was in where the hands are. When my aunt asked me a few days ago if I'd like a job doing laundry, I thought it was just another of those do you want to housesit for the weekend or paint my shed kind of things so I said "sure", but it turns out she meant a legitimate, reported income, show up regularly and pay taxes thing. One of my first thoughts when I caught on was that my going back to the work force and being a semi-productive member of society after all this time would meet with your approval. I'll let you know if I still care what you think of me in another few weeks when I'm over my reading withdrawal... just when I got the CMA Jon and Sarah were nice enough to send, too! Gotta go while I've still got time! peace, connie 35408 From: Date: Fri Aug 13, 2004 6:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg]What is real (was Phantom Limbs) Hi, Herman - In a message dated 8/13/04 8:24:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofman@t... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Thank you *VERY VERY MUCH* for this. > > Some more comments below on some things you might shed more light on, if > you feel inclined. > > =============== > > > >Hi Herman, > > > >>H: I wonder how the seeing came to be separated from the colour, and > how > >>the colour came to be separated into computer screen and word? And > where > >>along the line did reality turn into unreality? > > > >When someone narrates a story, when do the words become the story? > They > >never do. Words are always words and they have their own meaning. When > > >strung together in different ways they create different stories. > > > >So, where along the line did reality turn into unreality? At no time. > >Realities are always realities and they have their own unique > characteristic > > > >that wisdom can know. And when wisdom dose not arise then there is > concept > >which is not real but is taken to be real. > > > >Just this one for now, must go. > > > >MattR > > > =========================== > The mental compounds/constructs, specifically concepts, seem to > point > beyond themselves to "things" or entities. The mentally uncompounded > experiences generally do not - hardnesses, sights, odors, itches, fears, > etc are not referential or denotational - they are direct experiences, > not pointing beyond themselves. > > ======================= > > The problem I have with "mentally uncompounded" is that there is no way > of knowing "uncompounded" to be the case. Sure, I can logically dissect > the past, and arrive at some substratum where an experience appears the > same no matter how I look at it, and then call that uncompounded. What I > am failing to recognize in that exercise is that I am limited by 1] my > ability to dissect and by 2] my method. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I follow you, and I can't disagree that there is no way, at least as I am now constituted, to be *certain* that hardness (for example) is not a construct. But if it is, it is certainly closer to being constructively irreducible than things like trees and houses. A tree, as I seem to observe it, is an amalgam of hardness, visual form, tactile roughness, etc, etc. But in hardness, for example, I find only hardness. In fact it seems to be much the case that what people typically think of as "properties" of "objects" are exactly what the Abhidhammikas think of as paramattha dhammas. Where the average person will say that hardness is a property of trees, I think it is a more correct statement that hardness is an experiential condition, and it and other experiential conditions are mentally assembled into percepts we call "trees" (and into the template-concept of "tree"). However, you are correct: I don't know that are are no phenomena of which hardness is a mental amalgam. But I am certainly unaware of any. --------------------------------------------------- > > As in your reference to microscopically seeing, a more or less powerful > microscope will give different results. People could be forgiven for > assuming water to be uncompounded. Water is the same however and > wherever one contacts it. Yet water is compounded, and the experience of > its components is quite different to the experience of water. And the > components of the components are different again. I posit that it is a > basic flaw to assume one has hit the bedrock of indivisibility, or that > such a thing exists. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, whether true "atoms" can be part of a workable predictive physical theory of external objects I have no idea. But I'm more interested in phenomenological events, and as far as they are concerned it does seem to me that it is possible to distinguish between the direct experience of simple conditions not apparently mentally constructed, and the indirect experience of mental constructs. ------------------------------------------------- Sure enough, fear is fear, and it will be called> > fear as long as the experience is the same. But isn't it just possible > that the difference between fear and love is the absence/presence of an > unspecified component, common to both? -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, anything that hasn't been proven impossible is presumably a logical possibility, but for me when there is no evidence for the existence of something (a soul, for example), there is no reason to assume it. Old man Occam had a good idea, I think. ;-) -------------------------------------------------- > > > You gave a very useful example the other day of experimenting with > looking at a paper towel in different ways. I find myself doing those > sorts of things as well, and to me they are a clear indication that an > experience is coloured by the method used to experience it. But at no > point does it become valid to say that what is experienced in one > context is more uncompounded or more fundamentally real than another > context. What is real in the 8th jhana is so because only those factors > of the 8th jhana are in play, and other factors aren't. It doesn't make > the factors of the 1st jhana unrealer when they come into play. Clearly > the macroscopic conditions the microscopic and vice versa, and it is a > basic flaw to assume one has hit the bedrock of indivisibility, or that > there is such a thing. > > Now, none of this is much of a problem in itself. My "beef" arises with > the school of thought, though it can't be a school of much careful > thought, that holds that insight is only possible with an irreducible as > an object. Bunkum! There are an infinite number of relations that obtain > between the theoretical all and theoretical nothing. The drawing of 8, > 31 or 53 lines in the ether with the statement "this is absolute and > nothing else is" is a sure sign of ignorance, to me. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I also question the idea that insight can apply only to "the momentary". Relations are not momentary, and they are not imagined. They are aspects of reality, important aspects. The Buddha came to the realization of conditionality, including temporal conditionality, and his realization, as I understand the matter, was not inferential, but direct - a bubbling forth of wisdom. For us, relations require inference for their grasping, but I suspect that is not so for an arahant. ----------------------------------------------- > > I found the rest of your post priceless. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I'm happy you found elements there that are useful to you. ------------------------------------------------ > > > Kind Regards > > > Herman > > ========================= 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) 35409 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 3:37am Subject: Dependent Origination and its origin Dear Dhamma Friends, The first five disciples all became arahats after the second discourse. So far there had not been anything related to paticcasamuppada or dependent origination preached to the first disciples. Even The Buddha Himself had to contemplate on paticcasamuppada after His attainment of Buddhahood. That is in His first week of Buddhahood that is pathama sattaha. There are 7 weeks. They are called satta sattaha. During that time The Buddha did not have any food for His physical wellbeing. How wide, deep, difficult is dhamma? Even The Buddha Himself had to contemplate on dhamma for 49 days without any physical food before He preached to anyone. There are Buddhavamsa but I did not notice that The Buddha mentioned about dependent origination while He was in His last night as a puthujanahood. In the first watch of the night which was the fullmoon day of the 2nd month, He attain pubbenivasa nana that is recollection of all past lives. Here I would say all past lives without any limitation. Other arahats do have limitation in recounting the past lives even aggasavakas cannot count back as many lives as The Buddha does. So far, The Buddha did not mention that He saw dependent origination while he attained pubbenivasa nana or recollection of all past lives. Then The Budhha continued His practice and in the middle watch of the night that is round about mid-night He attained dibbacakkhu nana or divine eyes. This nana helps Him to have a vision on anything near or far, revealed or concealed, apparent of inconspicuous, open or hidden or anything even what scientists cannot see, He can see with dibbacakkhu nana. This nana was attained in the middle watch of the fullmoon day which was His birthday. The Buddha continued His practice diligently and ardently. During the the last watch of the night that is the fullmoon day of the 2nd month of Buddha calendar, The Buddha attain asavakkhaya nana along with sabbannuta nana. So far there did not mention anything about dependent origination or paticcasamuppada. Here the point is sabbannuta nana. This can be learnt in Milinda Panna how sabbannuta nana works. It is impossible to contemplate on all dhamma over 2 or 3 hours. After dibbacakkhu nana was attained the 2nd watch of the night passed. It was the last watch of night that The Buddha became the first arahat and became Sammasambuddha. Paticcasamuppada was contemplated for the whole of first week. This is The Buddha contemplation and it was not like other arahats. The Buddha would not waste any time after His Buddhahood. During the first week He had to contemplate on dependent origination as ascending and descending of anuloma and patiloma. That is this dhamma arises because of this dhamma and that dhamma arises because of that dhamma. In patiloma, this dhamma ceases to exist because of cessation of this dhamma and that dhamma ceases to exist because of that dhamma. It is very clear that The Buddha became Sammasambuddha with mahasatipatthana that is The Buddha contemplated on first the body as He re-orientated to His breath while He remembered His first jhana which had been attained while He was a very young child under a tree when His father was ploughing in the peddy-field. He did have right amount of paramis or perfection just before The Buddhahood. Just before His attainment of asavakkhaya nana there did not mention anything related to dependent origination but He attained all knowledge and all nana possible as a Sammasambuddha. The Buddha was a Sammasambuddha. The difference between Sammasambuddha and Paccekabuddha is that all Sammasambuddhas preach dhamma and show up the way to nibbana while paccekabuddhas do not. This is the main difference. To teach very unintelligent beings as compared to His nana, The Buddha had to contemplate on all dhamma which is much much more than great oceans before He preach dhamma. Paticcasamuppada is the first dhamma that the Buddha contemplated during His first week. I do not say dependent origination is not important. It is very very important. Another dhamma which is much more difficult is patthana dhamma. This dhamma was contemplated during the 4th week of His Buddhahood. Only after this contemplation, The Buddha-rays had to arise and passed through the whole universe without any obstruction, which excels laser light. It can be considered that whether dependent origination is needed or not to contemplate just before magga citta arises after which the practitioner will definitely change his status. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 35410 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 3:47am Subject: Setting up foundation for jhana ( 03 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, After along time's keeping of the precepts, the jhana practitioner will feel a bit calm. He will be in peace in doing of his keeping precepts. He will be in a well-relaxed state. His mind is facilitated to ascend up to do everything good. He will be ready to do meritorious deeds and good actions. He will be able to response very quickly in cases of good things. Moreover, his mind will become hearty, tender and kind. He will be able to stabilize his mind even before acquisition of Jhana. He will be in a good stamina. This is becase as he is practising kusala dhamma there arise kusala cetasikas and these make him calm even before jhanas arise. All he does will be in place and in order. He will be able to perform all his tasks with a great deal of fidelity, tidiness and accuracy. He will not deceit himself and his mind. He will definitely become sincere, righteous and noble. After all these features in his mind are evidently working well in their essence, the practitioner is quite ready to step forward and ascend up the next step. First, physical matters should be fulfiled. Then mental faculties should be evidently working hand in hand with good moral foundation. The practitioner has now started the journey. That is the journey of jhana. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 35411 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 4:26am Subject: [dsg] Re: Pariyatti/pattipatti Hi Herman, Sorry for the delay in responding. Comments interspersed. > H:>The thought occurred to me that there is disagreement because there is > studying of different objects, while thinking they are the same or > somehow related. S: I think only Ariyans can be said to be talking to one another about the same thing. ;-) The worldling's position is not so certain. However since we have the Tipitaka with us and can always consult it, it is worth putting effort to discuss with one another. Besides if indeed we are aware of our limited understanding and the vipallasa involved in `thinking', it might be better that we don't make any judgement about whether our object of study for instance, is so different. We are groping in the dark, but maybe we are both walking in the same direction? ;-) > H:>It appears that you are treating of Buddhism as what is taught in the > Abhidhamma and by Buddhagosa. And I take Buddhism as what is > consistently taught in the suttas. And when a consistent red thread in > the suttas turns to green in a later work, then the thread is neither > red nor green, is it? S: I can't state that about myself since my influence has been K. Sujin and DSG, and I don't study the Abhidhamma or the Vis. And from these influence I constantly hear that ultimately, there is no difference in what is taught in the Abhidhamma, Vinaya and Suttas and that commentaries complement these. > H:>Keeping this in mind will make it unnecessary and even foolish to > disagree with you, because we are never talking about the same thing, > even though the same word is used to describe it. S: :-) I often have a similar impression too, but when others are taking part in discussions. When one person states that he agrees with another and I recall other more basic disagreements, I wonder if one or both of them have any correct understanding of the concepts used. But there must be some value in what is generally discussed here on DSG no? And there must be a few things where we are quite close, otherwise why are both of us still here and willing to read one another's posts? ;-) >H:> It must be great being able to believe from time to time that those > children are not real :-) S: ?? Please explain. >H:> Have a great time with Num and RobK S: It was good. > Cheers > > Herman Metta, Sukin. 35412 From: Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 3:14am Subject: So Called Momentariness [Re: [dsg]What is real (was Phantom Limbs)] Hi again, Herman (and all) - Our discussion of alternative senses of "real" and of the matter of "compounds" vs "irreducibles" has led me to some further thinking. I had pointed to relation as something going beyond the moment. But there is a question, for that matter, of even what one shall take to mean "the moment". It was you, I believe, who raised the issue of whether all "mind moments" have the same duration. I've been thinking a bit about this, and I think it quite likely that the question is properly answered in the negative, with a mindstate not being a simple, instantaneous event, but, rather, an event with some structure to it and occurring over a period of time. What I specifically have in mind - and here I hope that Nina and others knowledgeable about Abhidhamma are reading this and can provide their perspective - is the following specific matter: Not all visual rupas are identical. We can and do distinguish them. How do they differ? Well, it seems that they differ in that one has various colors and shades in particular "locational" relation to each other, and another visual rupa has different colors and shades in different locations. A visual rupa is not monolithic, and we do distinguish visual rupas all the time. How is the distinguishing done? It must be by a (rapid) pattern matching "compare and contrast" operation; i.e., it must consist of sa~n~nic functioning that involves a complex operation of pattern recognition and memory. Now surely such sa~n~na is enormously complicated and sophisticated, and must occur over time. Moreover, the more complex the rupic pattern, the more time the sa~n~na must take. So, it seems to me that a mindstate with visual form as content must be anything but instantaneous, and different mindstates must have different durations. I would very much like to hear the Abhidhammic understanding of this issue. One thing that occurs to me as possible answer is that the operation of sa~n~na extends over a rupic *process*, involving a long series of mindstates with the same visual arammana, but changing sa~n~na, with a new sa~n~na for each new citta. But I find such an explanation strained. Why the need to take a sa~n~nic process that may be quite continuous "in reality" and break it up conceptually into static "citta frames"? Why the need to take what may well be continuous and view it as discrete? I question the discrete vs continuous distinction as a basis for distinguishing "real" from "unreal". I think that with regard to experience, the "direct vs indirect" distinction would be more relevant. 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) 35413 From: Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 4:30am Subject: Re: So Called Momentariness [Re: [dsg]What is real (was Phantom Limbs)] Hi again, Herman and all - The following are some thoughts of mine on distinguishing paramattha dhammas from pa~n~natti. I believe that both of these are dependent on mental processing. But paramattha dhammas depend only on sa~n~na, whereas pa~n~natti depend on both sa~n~na, and, most characteristically, on sankhara. San~n~na is an analytical operation (albeit based on mempry and comparison), whereas sankhara/fabrication is synthetic. Sankhara constructs by putting together, and often it puts together dhammas experienced via different sense doors. So distinction between the two seems possible on that basis. One question that I have is whether we *ever* experience a dhamma - say, a rupa - without sa~n~na having operated. That is not clear to me. I suspect not. 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) 35414 From: Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 5:58am Subject: Re: So Called Momentariness [Re: [dsg]What is real (was Phantom Limbs)] Hi again, Herman, Nina, and all - In a message dated 8/14/04 12:12:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > One question that I have is whether we *ever* experience a dhamma - > say, a rupa - without sa~n~na having operated. That is not clear to me. I > suspect not. > ========================== On second thought, I'm not so sure that "I suspect not". ;-) The matter is not all that clear to me. It seems just as plausible that for a non-arahant an observed but unrecognized dhamma arises at some time, for example a visual form, accompanied by vedanic taste, neutral in the case of visual form, and then an interval of sa~n~nic processing commences, culminating in perception/recognition. (For an arahant, I suspect that it is a whole different matter. I would imagine that pa~n~na is constantly operative in an arahant, so that there is no experience unaccompanied by clear comprehension.) 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) 35415 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is one quality when developed, brings all others to culmination? Dear John, op 12-08-2004 20:07 schreef john duncan op bluescatplayah@y...: . Also, I wanted to ask if there was an available translation of the > Abhidhamma in English, N: Most of the Books of the Abhidhamma are translated into English, and also a number of the commentaries to them. A Catalogue of the Pali Text Society is useful. The Visuddhimagga (Larry posts every week a section) is an old Encyclopedia of the Dhamma, and contains a great deal of Abhidhamma. We are studying now the cittas, and also Htoo's Thread deals with them. Reading these and asking Q. is a way of study, that is, if you have time. Success with your study, Nina. 35416 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] on dhammanupassana by Nyanaponika Dear Antony, op 13-08-2004 12:11 schreef Antony Woods op antony272b@h...: > The thought-forms of the Dhamma presumably consist of the five > hindrances, the five aggregates of clinging, the six internal and > external sense-bases and the fetters arising dependent on both, > the seven factors of enlightenment and the four noble truths. > > and: > "They should be absorbed as much as possible into the thought-patterns of > daily life, and should replace those concepts which cannot stand the > scrutiny of Right Understanding, and are too closely associated with > notions and purposes alien to the Way of Mindfulness." (page 73) > > Can you think of some examples of such concepts to be replaced? N: It is not a matter of replacing thinking of concepts by thinking of the five khandhas, etc. Then there will be only thinking. But thinking can be realized as a kind of nama, not self. There are conditions for thinking. When the hindrances arise they can be understood as conditioned namas. Any object, also the objects that are grouped as dhammas among the four satipatthanas, can be object of awareness and right understanding. > A: An example I've used might be with the Four Noble Truths. Instead > of thinking "I'm such a bad person" I thought "This is dukkha" N: That is again thinking. The thinking itself is dukkha, it is impermanent. But before the three characteristics can be understood nama has to known as nama and rupa as rupa, when they appear. Nina. 35417 From: Herman Hofman Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 5:34pm Subject: RE: So Called Momentariness [Re: [dsg]What is real (was Phantom Limbs)] Hi Howard, Sukin and all, Your posts are deserving of more than a one-liner or two, and that is all I have time for at the moment. I'll be able to put fingers to keyboard again tonight (it's morning here). Have a great day/night Herman 35418 From: Andrew Levin Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 9:06pm Subject: Re: repulsiveness of the body meditation (was forests/etc) Sarah I've been waiting for your reply anxiously but don't take this as me rushing you. I just wanted to make a few of my points clearer directly, instead of responding line by line to your post. Re: the 'system' Life is practise, practise is life. This is how it should be. When the law interferes with my practise, my life, for committing no crime at all, ([and there is a massive denial in this system about medications and their 'drugness'], if not among society, i don't know) there is only a certain amount a person is going to take. Practising the four foundations of mindfulness on the streets is _EXTREMELY_ different from the net result of one attending a day hospital treatment facility for mental illness. Forced interaction with doctors and patients makes it difficult to keep from transgressing the dharma and speaking unwholesome kinds of speech leading to decline and suffering. One is inclined to take naps and fall into the enjoyment of food and women. Yes, one could undertake trying to identify cittas while eating bagels and so forth if he were so inclined, but the environment does not conduce to the holy life. How does the saying go? "The household life is a trap, a road of dust for the passions, but the life gone forth is free, like the open air of heaven" I may have butchered it, but nonetheless, applying it here to the hospital vs the streets... practising in the open air is how I've been doing it. Compare that to a hospital environment of overly socialized mental patients eating snacks and smoking cigarettes. It's difference between being a slave, or taking one's destiny into one's own hands walking down a path one has chosen and keeping on it at all costs. And it would be one thing if this were only a matter of a few months or years, but as they want to keep one moving in whatever direction it is that they want to push you to, whether it's through vocational training or something else, it's a process that would undoubtedly last a lifetime. That is, they will not allow me to be released to 'practise dharma' as it were. Now with the occurrence of rising above one of the states of woe where beings are exposed to the elements, or tormented with hunger and thirst, or in constant aggression with one another, or having various physical tortures extended on them till death only to have to reappear and undergo the same for as close to eternity as you can get without it *being* eternity, being on the order of one in a trillion, this is not an "OK I'll try identifying some cittas over bagels with the patients" type of matter. This is beyond life and death. This is all or nothing. That is the picture I am trying to paint here. [dramatic pause, and bringing it down some to..] repulsiveness of the body meditation _____________________________________________________ You may be right about the extra mental qualities needed for the definition of seclusion, but as I read it, the words from the Buddha still say, "gone to the shade of a tree, a rock, a glen clove, or a secluded place," mean a physically secluded spot, not necessarily a mental state such as one described in the commentaries for an ascetic forest dweller or what have you. These meditations are doable by anyone with limbs and senses intact and without any major abnormalities. That is still my position. What do you think? I think my biggest obstacle here is avoiding mischief, either idleness or being slow in doing anything, positive or neutral (such as reading, which if not done properly can be mischeivous for me, yes, I can even turn reading into mischief, that is how playfully mischievous I am), and developing a mind of good will. I think the two are possible to come in time, neither something I can really force. Carrying on with you is never mischief, Sarah, but starting a "Can you help me" thread when I could most certainly either be helping myself or doing *something* positive is indeed mischief. A mind of good-will would do well to hinder the effects of past negative karma and for being good in general. That's really all I've got to say for now. If you could try to keep the posts on the major points instead of digressing into sub-topics, that would be cool, otherwise I'll just go back and check my old posts for reference before composing my new reply. Peace. al 35419 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: repulsiveness of the body meditation (was forests/etc) Hi Andrew L, --- Andrew Levin wrote: > Sarah I've been waiting for your reply anxiously but don't take this > as me rushing you. I just wanted to make a few of my points clearer > directly, instead of responding line by line to your post. .... S: I was very glad to read your other detailed comments - I'm very impressed with your replies and keen interest in the Dhamma. Will read these extra ones too and will happily get back to you tomorrow, hopefully (Monday's usu. a good posting day for me). It's a pleasure talking to you. As I mentioned, I'm usually a bit slow, but do get back. Also to a few from others like Herman - apologies for any delays and assume any qus or comments have been greatly appreciated. Just stepped in from the beach and needing to attend to a few household and office chores for now which got a bit behind hand while I was sick. Metta, Sarah ===== 35420 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bagels, Forests & Happy Walks (was: Repulsiveness of the body meditation) Hi Andrew L. OK - the housework can wait -- I’ve got your posts out instead - I think I’ll have to split my response into two posts this time;-) Proceeding ========= The most important point to understand is that there is no ‘me’ or ‘you’ that can ever proceed. If you’re sitting at your computer now or in the day centre or eating bagels even, it’s by conditions and there are only ever the presently arising dhammas -- the namas and rupass -- at these times which can be known. Thinking that it would be better somewhere else or proceeding in a different manner or having a particular focus is merely that -- thinking. 4 Foundations ============ With this -- anatta -- in mind, the 4 foundations are descriptions of the various namas and rupas which can be the objects of sati and panna (awareness and wisdom) and accompanying wholesome mental states just when they arise, having heard and considered what their nature or characteristics are. Satipatthana only has namas and rupas as objects, so that when we talk about mindfulness of breathing and posture, for example, we should realise that these are concepts and in fact the only rupas experienced through the body are solidity, temperature and motion/pressure. Bodily feelings (a rather confusing label) refers to the mental feelings accompanying body consciousness which experiences hardness/softness, heat/cold and pressure. You asked a good question about ‘how do we know the consciousness experiencing rupa at each of the sense doors is separate from the rupa itself?’. When there is awareness of seeing, for example, there is no doubt that it is the consciousness which experiences visible object. Likewise, when there is awareness of visible object, no doubt that it is seen and doesn’t experience anything. Noting/Labelling and Watching ======================== Sati is not about noting or labelling or watching elements or feelings. Noting or labelling is a kind of thinking or concentrating or trying to catch a particular dhamma. In truth namas and rapas arise and fall away far too frequently. By the time there is any noting of ‘heat’, the rupa has long since fallen away and successive mind door and sense door processes have followed.The labelling or watching is also initiated by attachment to ‘trying to catch’ a reality or having awareness arise. As I said, understanding has to develop with detachment from what is conditioned. Considering carefully now as you are, reading, reflecting on dhammas as anatta and so on, will be the conditions for sati and panna to arise of their own accord. Kurus and New Yorkers ==================== http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html#comment From the comy to the Satipatthana Sutta: “Ekayano ayam bhikkhave maggo = "This is the only way, O bhikkhus." Why did the Blessed One teach this Discourse? Because of the ability of the people of the Kurus to take in deep doctrine. The inhabitants of the Kuru country -- bhikkhus, bhikkhunis, upasakas, upasikas -- by reason of their country being blessed with a perfect climate, and through their enjoyment of other comfortable conditions, were always healthy in body and in mind. They, happy with healthy minds and bodies, and having the power of knowledge, were capable of receiving deep teachings. Therefore, the Blessed One, perceiving their ability to appreciate this profound instruction, proclaimed to them this Discourse on the Arousing of Mindfulness, which is deep in meaning, having set up the subject of meditation, in Arahantship, in twenty-one places. For even as a man, having got a golden basket should fill it with divers flowers, or indeed having got a golden casket should fill it with precious jewels of the seven kinds, the Blessed One, having got a following of the Kuru-land people, dispensed, it is said, deep doctrine. Likewise, on that very account, there, in the Kurus, the Blessed One, taught other deep teachings: the Maha-nidana Sutta, Maha-satipatthana Sutta, Saropama Sutta, Rukkhupama Sutta, Ratthapala Sutta, Magandiya Sutta, and the Aneñjasappaya Sutta. Further, in that territory of the Kuru people,[5] the four classes -- bhikkhu, bhikkhuni, upasaka, upasika -- generally by nature were earnest in the application of the Arousing of Mindfulness to their daily life. At the very lowest, even servants, usually, spoke with mindfulness. At wells or in spinning halls useless talk was not heard. If some woman asked of another woman, "Mother, which Arousing of Mindfulness do you practice?" and got the reply, "None at all," then that woman who replied so was reproached thus: "Your life is shameful; though you live you are as if dead," and was taught one of the kinds of Mindfulness-arousing. But on being questioned if she said that she was practicing such and such an Arousing of Mindfulness, then she was praised thus: "Well done, well done! Your life is blessed; you are really one who has attained to the human state; for you the Sammasambuddhas have come to be." ***** I think there were very special conditions for anyone to be born in the time of the Buddha and to directly hear him. In the Jatakas and other accounts we can read about many of these special conditions. This is not to suggest that we cannot hear and develop the path. We would not be having this discussion if that were so. ‘There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness...’ =================================================== We could also say ‘there is the case where someone walks along the streets in NY or HK. In the Satipatthana Sutta we read about mindfulness in all positions, even whilst getting dressed, eating, defacating and so on. One step, or one moment of mindfulness, at a time. The truths are applicable to all. Metta, Sarah ======== 35421 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bagels, Forests & Happy Walks (was: Repulsiveness of the body meditation) Hi Andrew L, Starting Abhidhamma ================= With regard to your question about starting, you jumped in a long time ago! As soon as there is any considering or reflecting on the realities and truths in one’s daily life as being anatta, one is already studying and ‘starting’ Abhidhamma. Abhidhamma is nothing other than seeing, hearing, likes, dislikes, feelings, rupas experienced in whatever daily life situation we find ourselves. There’s no avoiding Abhidhamma -- it’s no different from Dhamma. I’ve never studied the Abhidhamma systematically, but always questioned and considered as you are doing now. Certainly you must have accumulated plenty of ‘moral consciousness’ and wisdom too for this. I can tell that you've read and considered a lot. Dying ===== You ask several qus on ‘dying’ including ‘How can I be mindful of consciousness in general when I’m dying?’. Andrew, there is dying at each moment -- momentary dying as the citta (consciousness) falls away to be followed by another. At the end of life, it’s the same -- one citta after another. Awareness can only arise and develop at the present moment. So only by understanding and being aware of present dhammas can awareness accumulate and wisdom grow. Better to focus on the present opportunities in this regard. There are many definitions of bhavana (mental development or meditation). According to the texts, there are two kinds of bhavana -- samatha and vipassana. Both can only ever develop at the present moment when the conditions are right. For the development of vipassana, the only obstacle or hindrance is wrong view. Not a place or time or special object to begin with. More on Slaves ============ ‘I am not subject to myself, able to go where I like, I am subject to others, my life is under control of others. That is the definition of a slave. And every morning, if I do not take a cab, I have to walk (read: slave) 1.5 miles to a day treatment facility.’ Andrew, I think we’re all slaves by your definition. I don’t wish to make light of the very serious period you’re having to get through in your life, but I think that everyone is ‘subject to others’ and few of us have the luxury of taking a cab whenever we please. You’ve been reminding me of those days when I worked in the smoke-filled psychicatric centre in London and the long journeys by 2 buses and lots of walking at each end I used to take, often on icy streets, exhausted on winter nights. Once a week I’d travel to the other end of town to study Pali but never had time to do my homework. Bills had to be paid, obligations followed. In terms of the development of satipatthana however, I had confidence and still do that any situation is as good or bad as any other. It’s the understanding of the dhammas that counts. Whatever those dhammas are, they arise by complex conditions including kamma. In an ultimate sense, the only results of kamma are the vipaka cittas such as seeing and hearing consciousness and particular rupas in the body. Dhammas are slaves to conditions if you like -- whether they are ones we like or dislike. ‘Other people’ and ‘psychiatric centres’ are labels we give to complex experiences, erroneously taking the lables and concepts for reality. Walking the Earth ============== I like the open air myself and work hard to arrange some free time every day to work and read posts outside. When I don’t get it, I’m disappointed. Attachment, again. The Buddha taught his followers and us about realities to be known through six doorways. (See all the suttas in Salayatanavagga, inc. those under ‘Secure from Bondage’ SN35:104 onwards. (And don’t those walks to the treatment centre count as being in the ‘open air’;-)) How the Dhamma was intended ========================== It’s true that many of the bhikkhus lived in the open or spent time in jhana seated under trees. They were certainly addressed. Householders living dusty lives and following household chores were also addressed and also became enlightened. Even amongst the arahants we read about great differences in accumulations. After the Buddha’s death, some were immediately concerned like Ananda to visit and help lay people. Others retired to the forests. Who are we? We’re ignorant worldlings with a little glimmer of understanding about the profundity of the Buddha’s teachings. You and I and most the people on DSG are pretty sociable otherwise we wouldn’t be conversing. We see the value of discussing dhamma and sharing the little knowledge we have with others, right? So better to know our inclinations than to try and imitate an idea of life in ancient India. Idle chatter and Authority ==================== It is a test when we’re surrounded by idle chatter or hearing what we consider nonsense and have to refrain from answering back. Again, we all face these challenges -- whether in a work, a patient or a household environment. Sometimes we refrain from wrong speech and sometimes we don’t. Either way it’s conditioned again and not a self that passes or fails. If there were no ‘falling’ at these times, the cittas involved could never be known. For example, if we live in an ideal forest without any encounters and never speak or think of speaking a harmful word, it’s easy to kid oneself that one has no weakness in this area. Sooner or later the latent tendencies will have to be known as they are. This is why someone in an arupa brahma plane, for example,can never become a sotapanna, even though conditions are so very perfect. MN2 Nanamoli/Bodhi transl: 5 “What taints, bhikkhus, should be abandoned by seeing?* Here, bhikkhus, an untaught ordinary person, who has no regard for noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who has no regard for true men and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, does not understand what things are fit for attention and what things are unfit for attention. Since that is so, he attends to those things unfit for attention and he does not attend to those things fit for attention.’**’ *’The word ‘seeing’ (dassana) here refers to the first of the four supramundane paths - the path of stream entry (sotapattimagga)...... **MA [the commentary] makes the important point that there is no fixed determination in things themselves as to whether they are fit or unfit for attention. The distinction consists, rather, in the mode of attention...... ***** For example, one might show consideration for family members or friends by enquiring about their work or interests with wholesome cittas or one might attend to one’s Dhamma study or practice with unwholesome cittas. This is what I meant. Wholesome roots =============== Just as you said, the commentary above continued: ‘That mode of attention that is a causal basis for unwholesome states of mind should be avoided, while that mode of attention that is a causal basis for wholesome states should be developed.’ Again, it’s not a self deciding to increase wholesome roots and ‘bingo’. This reminds me of the sutta and commentary Nina is translating and discussing on ‘Distracting Thoughts’. It always comes down to understanding present cittas for what they are. Whilst considering one’s intentions, whilst biting one’s lip and so on, develop sati and panna. Man on course to Heaven & Devas =========================== As Herman rightly picked up, there is no denying other realms of existence and other ‘beings’ and particular experiences of these that some may have, such as you recount. However, my point -- and I’m using plenty of shorthand in speaking to you to get through a lot of topics -- was that again, ultimately, only namas and rupas are ever experienced. A sound or visible object identified as a deva or heavenly being are of no greater imptorance or value than any other. So don’t cling and let go of any special experiences, otherwise they become hindrances when we dwell on them or try to recreate them. See also Nina’s comment. Nama and Rupa ============= Just as you say, clearly distinguishing namas and rupas, repeatedly, over and over again so that there is no doubt about these realities experienced, leads to the first stage of insight. All kinds of realities have to be known and not with any idea of focussing or following breath for example. Intercepting the link at feelings... ======================== Again, no self to ‘intercept’. Just panna which has to understand whatever is conditioned now, whether it be feeling, craving or any othe reality. Don’t select! Fear and Falling ============= Again, the fear and thinking are conditioned dhammas - conditioned by a clinging to self. Why do we mind about future rebirths? Because of clinging to self. When there is awareness or consideration for others or other wholesome states, there is no fear. The same applies to past kamma. ‘Butchered It’ =========== No, you haven’t ‘butchered it’ Andrew. Just pick up again. I assure you that many people on this list have also had extremely tough experiences in this life and wear many different shackles. I know just what you mean about the environment you visit daily and could tell you many stories too from when i worked in it. But it wouldn’t help. We have to face up to the real problems in our lives and trust me, it’s better to cooperate with your ‘slave-masters’ if you wish to remove those (conventional) shackles. They have to be able to trust you on their own terms. Yes,there may be constraints on you for a long time, but it’s like that for others here too. At least you have food and housing and can read and discuss Dhamma. Over the course of aeons of lifetimes, your present difficulties would hardly register a ‘blip’ in the overall pattern. You have my sympathy and concern here nonetheless, believe me, and I’m sure of most other members too. Mischief ======= When I was your age and in Sri Lanka, I was once asked by a local judge who attended our discussions how someone as ‘young and mischievous’ as I appeared could be so interested in the Dhamma. I replied then that the Dhamma was for anyone and that’s my reply now. Starting a ‘Can you help me thread’ gives us the chance to offer a little Dhamma-dana here. This is the most useful dana I know of and so i’d like to thank you for the opportunity. It’s not mischief in any sense as I see it;-) I’ve no idea if I’ve digressed into sub-topics, but have tried to keep to big picture issues. I hope you’re having some weekend time with your family out of ‘shackles’, Andrew. Maybe you can even share a few of these comments or other letters on the list with them as a way of Dhamma-dana too? I’ll look forward to your feedback as usual. With metta. Sarah ======= 35422 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:57am Subject: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Hello all, Just a quick note to say the Cooran group meeting was enjoyable and spiritually invigorating. On the way up, Reg and I managed, as usual, to miss the turn onto the Freeway, but still made the trip from Brisbane to Cooran, with a stop for coffee, in three hours. What a surprise to find Azita, KenH, RobK and family had already arrived there, and how lovely to see them all! Thanks to Andrew and Sandra for providing their beautiful property as the venue for Dhamma Discussions. Steve arrived next day, and Jill and Brian each popped in briefly for a few hours. (Jill is coming on the India trip in October.) There were severe bush fire warnings posted, and cold strong winds - so a number of us were wondering how our own properties and homes were faring at times during the meeting. As a result, we didn't have any campfires. This weekend varied a little from the usual agenda of papers or articles being presented by each of us, leading on to discussions. KenH primed the discussions with quite a few technical Abhidhamma questions - taking advantage of the great good fortune of having RobK present to grill! The discussions were conducted with tolerance and good humour. There was, however, some lengthy debate over Concept which remains unsettled to KenH's complete satisfaction i.e. everyone else disagreed with him - and we half suspected he might send a surreptitious post off-list to get advice (more ammunition) to present next day as 'further thoughts'. I'll let him explain. Hopefully, Andrew, Azita (when she gets back to Cairns), Steve, KenH, or RobK (from Oz or when he gets to New Zealand) will write a little about the actual discussions. But for now, to bed, perchance to sleep ... metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 35423 From: Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 0:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Hi, Christine (and KenH and all) - In a message dated 8/15/04 6:58:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cforsyth1@b... writes: > There was, however, some lengthy debate > over Concept which remains unsettled to KenH's complete satisfaction > i.e. everyone else disagreed with him - and we half suspected he > might send a surreptitious post off-list to get advice (more > ammunition) to present next day as 'further thoughts'. > I'll let him explain. > ========================= I would really love to hear reports on the Concept discussions and especially on the Ken vs Others areas of disagreement. As you must know, the "mere-concept" versus "reality" issue is of considerable interest to me. I find the distinction to be quite valid, but far from simple. 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) 35424 From: agriosinski Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 7:08am Subject: So Called Momentariness [Re: [dsg]What is real (was Phantom Limbs)] Hi Howard, Herman and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: [...] > Not all visual rupas are identical. We can and do distinguish them. > How do they differ? Well, it seems that they differ in that one has various > colors and shades in particular "locational" relation to each other, and another > visual rupa has different colors and shades in different locations. A visual > rupa is not monolithic, and we do distinguish visual rupas all the time. How is > the distinguishing done? It must be by a (rapid) pattern matching "compare and > contrast" operation; i.e., it must consist of sa~n~nic functioning that > involves a complex operation of pattern recognition and memory. Now surely such > sa~n~na is enormously complicated and sophisticated, and must occur over time. [...] I observe visual rupas to be tiny ones, about 2 mm diameter circles glued together by sanna into more complex paterns. But this gluing is happening in mind and not durring contact. I don't have any inside in process as yet, but seems to be very complicated. Kind of like making sand castles. metta, Agrios 35425 From: jonoabb Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 7:18am Subject: Re: Anapanasati Sutta Hi, Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: ... > > Jon: > > If the 4 tetrads of this sutta are appropriate for monks who (a) are > > already 'devoted to mindfulness of in-&-out breathing' and (b) are living > > a life of seclusion, and have the attainments, that are described by the > > words: > > [17] "There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to > > the shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs > > crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore. > > Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out", > > then is it likely that what is contained in the 4 tetrads has any direct > > application to the practice of a beginner? We should not forget that the > > fruit of over-estimating one's present level of development is wrong > > practice. > > > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I don't put (a) and (b) [17] on the same high pedestal as you do, Jon. > Item (a) I've already giving my understanding of [i.e., monks who have adopted that practice as their "practice of choice"], and [17] is a stock > description of isolating oneself from disturbances and sitting for meditation on the > breath. Here is some more from the sutta about the monks to whom this sutta was addressed. The Buddha praised those present in the following terms: [7] "Monks, this assembly is ... established on pure heartwood... The sort of assembly that is worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of respect, an incomparable field of merit for the world... The sort of assembly to which a small gift, when given, becomes great, and a great gift greater... The sort of assembly that it is rare to see in the world... the sort of assembly that it would be worth traveling for leagues, taking along provisions, in order to see." High praise indeed, coming from the Buddha. Earlier the sutta explains that the elder monks among the assembly were teaching and instructing the other monks. It says: "[5] Some elder monks were teaching & instructing ten monks, some were teaching & instructing twenty monks, some were teaching & instructing thirty monks, some were teaching & instructing forty monks. The new monks, being taught & instructed by the elder monks, were discerning grand, successive distinctions." Earlier still the sutta mentions some of the elder monks present at the venue at around that time: [1] I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Savatthi in the Eastern Monastery, the palace of Migara's mother, together with many well-known elder disciples -- with Ven. Sariputta, Ven. Maha Moggallana, Ven. Maha Kassapa, Ven. Maha Kaccana, Ven. Maha Kotthita, Ven. Maha Kappina, Ven. Maha Cunda, Ven. Revata, Ven. Ananda, and other well-known elder disciples." It is against this background that we should read what the Buddha says about the attainments of those present, starting with the arahants: [8] "In this community of monks there are monks who are Arahants... such are the monks in this community of monks." and so on down to those who [14] 'remain devoted to mindfulness of in-&-out breathing'. This I believe is a reference to a significant level of skill and attainment and not just to any person for whom breath is a 'chosen object'. Unfortunately there is no English translation for the commentary to this initial section of the Anapanasati Sutta. [Nina, any chance of having a look at this some time?] As regards the monk at [17] who is able to *set mindfulness to the fore*, and who remains *always mindful* as he breathes in and out, this I think indicates a high level of attainment in mindfulness. This passage is given in answer to the (rhetorical) question at [16] of how mindfulness of in-&-out breathing is to be developed & pursued so as to bring the four frames of reference to their culmination, and I think we can assume that every word has been carefully chosen. So while it may be 'stock', I think it conveys much more than someone who isolating himself from disturbances to do some 'sitting meditation' on the breath. > In any case, I think it is an individual matter as to what practice is > found to be useful. I'm deriving much from my two hours a day of breath > meditation. I'm really happy with how it is proceeding. It is a wonderful aspect of > my practice, enhancing the other aspects. That's fine, but as I've tried to make clear, the issue here is not anyone's personal practice, whether yours or mine, but the meaning of what is found in the suttas. Individual accounts of personal experience are not likely to be of much value in that regard. Jon 35426 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 7:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati/ Jon Hi, Eric --- ericlonline wrote: ... > E: I thought you were interested in the word of > the Master. Why go to an interpreter? I don’t believe anyone can understand all the words of the Master without the assistance and benefit of other people's study and understanding. The suttas are pitched at a level that is generally beyond us, as they were for the most part addressed to persons who were ready for enlightenment. I have pasted at the end of this post the 2 tetrads we are talking about. Do you find them easy to understand as they are? Are you saying that it definitely doesn't refer to jhanas? I'd be interested to hear your explanation of these (and the other 2) tetrads. > E: Did all the monks mentioned in the sutta have texts? > See my last post to Ken about postponing the taking of > your first steps. When I say texts I of course mean the words of the Buddha, the teachings. In this respect, in fact yes, the monks mentioned in the suttas had the great advantage of hearing the teaching in real time. Thousands of them became enlightened while actually listening to the teaching, and those that didn't become enlightened on hearing it no doubt reflected on it afterwards. Those who didn’t hear the Buddha himself heard the teaching from other great disciples. What today we can read is what those monks heard. > E: Self fulfilling prophecy Jon. Are you saying that everyone is capable of achieving enlightenment in this lifetime if they put their mind to it? I'd be interested in knowing the basis for this interesting idea. > (Let's start at the beginning with a definition of terms. Are you OK > with 'samatha with breath as object' as a definition > of 'anapanasati'?) > > E I would simply say mindfulness of in and out breathing. Well that is a literal translation of the term. Could you give an example of what you mean? Also, what do you understand by the reference in the sutta to monks who were already devoted to mindfulness of in-&-out breathing? > E > Like I said b4. You can stay in the first Tetrad for > years. There is much to learn and cultivate even there. You'd have to tell me how to get to the first tetrad to begin with, Eric ;-)). Jon From the Anapanasati Sutta: [19] "[5] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to rapture, and to breathe out sensitive to rapture. [6] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to pleasure, and to breathe out sensitive to pleasure. [7] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to mental fabrication (feeling & perception), and to breathe out sensitive to mental fabrication. [8] He trains himself to breathe in calming mental fabrication, and to breathe out calming mental fabrication. [20] "[9] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the mind, and to breathe out sensitive to the mind. [10] He trains himself to breathe in satisfying the mind, and to breathe out satisfying the mind. [11] He trains himself to breathe in steadying the mind, and to breathe out steadying the mind. [12] He trains himself to breathe in releasing the mind, and to breathe out releasing the mind. 35427 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 7:43am Subject: Re: So Called Momentariness Hi Howard, I may have to wait answering you. I am off Wednesday coming week for four days. Meanwhile have to finish Tiika, and some other work, such as part of Co to Distracting thoughts which I find very impressive. Nina. op 14-08-2004 16:14 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > I would very much like to hear the Abhidhammic understanding of this issue. 35428 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 7:43am Subject: The Removal of Distracting Thoughts, no 4. The Removal of Distracting Thoughts, no 4. Sutta text: **** The Co. explains that he by the strength of paññaa should consider that such akusala dhammas are dangerous, that they produce suffering as result and that they should be abandoned. N: It is strong paññaa that realizes the disadvantage of akusala and the benefit of kusala. This can condition kusala cittas with paññaa to further develop. The Co states that if he does not have strong paññaa that considers the danger of akusala he should visit his teacher, preceptor or a friend, a fellow monk whom he respects. Or he should ring the bell so that the bhikkhus will have a meeting and he can speak about those problems. A wise bhikkhu will tell him that he should see the danger of such unwholesome thoughts and abandon them. N: If the bhikkhu is humble and not too conceited to ask advice, he can ring the bell and ask for support from the Sangha. We see here the importance of good and noble friendship the Buddha emphasizes time and again. When someone has a good friend he can trust and ask for advice, he can feel safe and secure when he has problems. A wise bhikkhu whom he respects can encourage him to persevere with the development of vipassana and all kinds of kusala. Unwholesome thoughts are anattaa, they arise when there are conditions. But the right conditions can be developed to overcome them. Paññaa that has become strong by vipassana sees more and more the disadvantage of akusala and the benefit of kusala. **** Nina. 35429 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 7:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Importance of Concentration in One Sentence Hi, Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: ... > Is > > simply concentrating on an object likely to be kusala? To put the > > question another way, where is the kusala in concentrating on, say, a > blue > > kasina, or the breath, or a corpse? > > > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I dunno, Jon. You'll have to ck back with the Buddha (or with > Buddhaghosa). These were not my inventions. ;-) > ------------------------------------------- I'm not questioning the objects as mentioned by the Buddha or Buddhaghosa, but the notion that the practice of samatha is simply a matter of concentrating on those objects. If there is no readily identifiable kusala involved in concentrating on the objects, should we not then question the assumption that this is what samatha is all about? ... > > Most of these do not lend themselves to the kind of focused > concentration > > that is generally talked about in the context of samatha. > > > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Really. The kasinas, in particular, don't? Breath doesn't? For > that > matter, any of them? How do you know thiis? And if you are right, why > were they > put forward? What was wrong with the Buddha that day? ;-)) > ------------------------------------------------ I think what we read in the suttas is that only that when samatha with those specified objectsis developed it can lead to high levels of concentration including the jhanas (i.e., samatha + 40 objects --> access/absorption). We do *not* read that concentration on those specified objects is the practice of samatha (i.e., concentration + 40 objects = samatha). Samatha is first and foremost, as the name implies, the serenity that accompanies kusala consciousness. Concentration on the other hand (i.e., concentration of the kind that takes the same object repeatedly) is not necessarily kusala, even when the object is one of the 40. So it is important to understand where the kusala lies in samatha. > How, for> > > example, does one 'concentrate on' the recollection of the Buddha? > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I don't know. Sounds like a kind of contemplation. It wouldn't be > my > choice of subject. I think I would require special instruction on how to > > properly utilize this subject. > ----------------------------------------------- Yes, I think 'contemplation' is much closer to the mark than concentration. I think they are all a kind of contemplation, rather than a concentrating on, and this would be where the panna comes in. But the contemplating cannot be a matter of merely reciting some text or formula; there would have to be a level of understanding first regarding the object. For the recollection of the Buddha, for example, there would have to be some appreciation of his qualities before there can be any meaningful contemplation. Likewise with the kasinas, breath, etc. The right contemplating is a condition for kusala and the serenity that is characteristic of kusala. > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > All I could easily find was message # 14360. > ------------------------------------------------- Thanks for this. Jon > What does TIA stand for, Jon? 'Thanks in advance' ;-)) 35430 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 7:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Annatta teaching Hi, Eric --- ericlonline wrote: ... > I think this addresses your question more directly than my comments > do.) > > E: Yes, one is a picture of food in a magazine. > The other a meal to be eaten. Good, then we're agreed that Sukin is a wise man ;-)). And I'm glad to know that you are happy with his explanation of the point you raised about the importance of panna at the intellectual level. > J:To my reading of the texts, there's no end to the pariyatti --> > patipatti > --> pativedha cycle until final enlightenment is attained. > > E: How many texts did the Arahants walk around with? Hmm. Can I reword that phrase and say 'To my understanding of the teachings (meaning of course, the teachings as recorded)'? Again, the arahants at the time of the Buddha had the actual words of the Buddha very much in mind, and also the words of those senior monks (Theras) who expounded on the teaching given by the Buddha. Today we cannot listen to the Buddha himself. What is your idea of the next best source? Jon 35431 From: Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 4:18am Subject: Re: So Called Momentariness [Re: [dsg]What is real (was Phantom Limbs)] Hi, Agrios - In a message dated 8/15/04 10:55:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time, agriosinski@y... writes: > I observe visual rupas to be tiny ones, about 2 mm diameter circles > glued together by sanna into more complex paterns. ========================== Interesting. For me, a visual rupa is an entire "visual field". 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) 35432 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 0:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anapanasati Sutta Dear Jon, As to the monks to whom the sutta was addressed the Sutta gives already so many details. I read in the Co about the reason why the Buddha waited one month with the Invitation ceremony: As to the different meditation subjects that were mentioned: These are all the details I got from the Co before dealing with the Tetrads. Nina. op 15-08-2004 16:18 schreef jonoabb op jonoabb@y...: > It is against this background that we should read what the Buddha says about > the > attainments of those present, starting with the arahants: 35433 From: Andrew Levin Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 1:25pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Bagels, Forests & Happy Walks (was: Repulsiveness of the body meditati --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Hi Andrew L, > > OK - the housework can wait -- I?ve got your posts out instead - I think > I?ll have to split my response into two posts this time;-) Excuse some major snippage, I felt some goings-on were just branching off from the main issue where we really differ, and tried to address that. Otherwise, just do what you can with my reply, after I finish this I'm going to go meditate. I don't know what else to do. This post may be kind of weak, I'm not really doing very well right now. > > Proceeding > ========= > The most important point to understand is that there is no ?me? or ?you? > that can ever proceed. If you?re sitting at your computer now or in the > day centre or eating bagels even, it?s by conditions and there are only > ever the presently arising dhammas -- the namas and rupass -- at these > times which can be known. Thinking that it would be better somewhere else > or proceeding in a different manner or having a particular focus is merely > that -- thinking. But this 'person,' in conventional terms, is heedless. There is no knowledge of namas and rupas. Phrasing it in absolute terms, what conditions should arise that will allow clear knowledge and mindfulness of namas and rupas to arise, given the earlier written explanation of the situation of this bundle of mental and physical aggregates? :) > > 4 Foundations > ============ > With this -- anatta -- in mind, the 4 foundations are descriptions of the > various namas and rupas which can be the objects of sati and panna > (awareness and wisdom) and accompanying wholesome mental states just when > they arise, having heard and considered what their nature or > characteristics are. Right but when we get down to it mindfulness of posture can be known. It is a thorough knowledge of the position of the body. And I do want to use conventional terms here, Sarah, as the Buddha used them in describing the four foundations of mindfulness, there's value in discussing how they can be practised. We can certainly go to a lower level and discuss the underlying rupas, in fact, I'd love to get that, but I want to develop an understanding at both levels. What I have on my shelf is a commentary on the Maha-Satipatthana Sutta and how to practise the four foundations of mindfulness. I can go outside and practise them to some extent right now, but I'd prefer my understanding to be developed. So yeah, like you said, an understanding of the characteristics of the namas and rupas is in order. I guess that makes much of this paragraph moot. > > Satipatthana only has namas and rupas as objects, so that when we talk > about mindfulness of breathing and posture, for example, we should realise > that these are concepts and in fact the only rupas experienced through the > body are solidity, temperature and motion/pressure. Bodily feelings (a > rather confusing label) refers to the mental feelings accompanying body > consciousness which experiences hardness/softness, heat/cold and pressure. I really don't understand this. When I experience a pleasant bodily feeling, it's a tactile feeling, and I note, or contemplate it as pleasant, pleasant feeling. Mental feelings, from what I gather, are another set of feelings. IE feelings of the flesh and feelings not of the flesh. Now the difficulty is identifying the four elements from a tactile sensation at the same time as noting the bodily feeling that arises in dependence on it. I'll bring up the example from one of my previous posts. When my hand touches my shirt or side, it seems I should have to identify the earth element, the fire element, and the pleasant feeling due to that contact. Am I not correct in this? Isn't that rather difficult? Or should I have awareness of the consciousness experiencing the feelings? If so, where does body-consciousness arise? If it is in the mind, why I do feel like I'm contemplating bodily sensations, not feeling? ( I truly don't know) > You asked a good question about ?how do we know the consciousness > experiencing rupa at each of the sense doors is separate from the rupa > itself??. When there is awareness of seeing, for example, there is no > doubt that it is the consciousness which experiences visible object. > Likewise, when there is awareness of visible object, no doubt that it is > seen and doesn?t experience anything. Rather, I see right now, but I do not know that there is consciousness that is seeing. I know, "I see." Is this due to lack of awareness? I have the feeling that when I was meditating well I had awareness of consciousness, but now that I am heedless, I do not. I believe the way to rectify the situation is to develop mindfulness of mind, that is, mental qualities, but this is no easy task. Nonetheless, I will do what I can. > > Noting/Labelling and Watching > ======================== > Sati is not about noting or labelling or watching elements or feelings. > Noting or labelling is a kind of thinking or concentrating or trying to > catch a particular dhamma. In truth namas and rapas arise and fall away > far too frequently. By the time there is any noting of ?heat?, the rupa > has long since fallen away and successive mind door and sense door > processes have followed.The labelling or watching is also initiated by > attachment to ?trying to catch? a reality or having awareness arise. As I > said, understanding has to develop with detachment from what is > conditioned. Considering carefully now as you are, reading, reflecting on > dhammas as anatta and so on, will be the conditions for sati and panna to > arise of their own accord. I've really read that you can label everything to muster up some attentiveness, the then drop the labeling in favor of pure awareness, but I will agree that labeling isn't necessary and that one can be purely attentive. Labeling has worked for me more in the past, though, so I may continue trying it. Better than walking around unaware of one's surroundings. > > Kurus and New Yorkers > ==================== > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html#comment > > From the comy to the Satipatthana Sutta: > > ?Ekayano ayam bhikkhave maggo = "This is the only way, O bhikkhus." Why > did the Blessed One teach this Discourse? Because of the ability of the > people of the Kurus to take in deep doctrine. > > The inhabitants of the Kuru country -- bhikkhus, bhikkhunis, upasakas, > upasikas -- by reason of their country being blessed with a perfect > climate, and through their enjoyment of other comfortable conditions, were > always healthy in body and in mind. They, happy with healthy minds and > bodies, and having the power of knowledge, were capable of receiving deep > teachings. Therefore, the Blessed One, perceiving their ability to > appreciate this profound instruction, proclaimed to them this Discourse on > the Arousing of Mindfulness, which is deep in meaning, having set up the > subject of meditation, in Arahantship, in twenty-one places. For even as a > man, having got a golden basket should fill it with divers flowers, or > indeed having got a golden casket should fill it with precious jewels of > the seven kinds, the Blessed One, having got a following of the Kuru-land > people, dispensed, it is said, deep doctrine. Likewise, on that very > account, there, in the Kurus, the Blessed One, taught other deep > teachings: the Maha-nidana Sutta, Maha-satipatthana Sutta, Saropama Sutta, > Rukkhupama Sutta, Ratthapala Sutta, Magandiya Sutta, and the Ane?jasappaya > Sutta. > I am familiar with some of these suttas, none of them are particularly difficult. > Further, in that territory of the Kuru people,[5] the four classes -- > bhikkhu, bhikkhuni, upasaka, upasika -- generally by nature were earnest > in the application of the Arousing of Mindfulness to their daily life. At > the very lowest, even servants, usually, spoke with mindfulness. At wells > or in spinning halls useless talk was not heard. If some woman asked of > another woman, "Mother, which Arousing of Mindfulness do you practice?" > and got the reply, "None at all," then that woman who replied so was > reproached thus: "Your life is shameful; though you live you are as if > dead," and was taught one of the kinds of Mindfulness-arousing. But on > being questioned if she said that she was practicing such and such an > Arousing of Mindfulness, then she was praised thus: "Well done, well done! > Your life is blessed; you are really one who has attained to the human > state; for you the Sammasambuddhas have come to be." > ***** > > > I think there were very special conditions for anyone to be born in the > time of the Buddha and to directly hear him. In the Jatakas and other > accounts we can read about many of these special conditions. This is not > to suggest that we cannot hear and develop the path. We would not be > having this discussion if that were so. Agreed. Let me show you the commentary from the commentary Ven. U Silananda wrote about the Four Foundations of Mindfulness: 'At the beginning of this sutta, it was said that it has been delivered in the land of the Kurus to the Kuru people The Kuru country can be found near New Delhi. That part of the country was called Indraprastha in Sanskrit. Why did the Buddha preach this sutta to the Kuru people? Was it mere coincidence? The commentary says "no." It is said that the Kuru country was blessed with a perfect climate. It neither got too cold nor too hot. And the Kuru people enjoyed other comforts such as good food and drink. Since they enjoyed these comfortable conditions, they were always happy in body and mind. Helped by their healthy bodies and minds, their power of wisdom matured and they were capable of receiving profound teachings, that is, satipatthana. That is why the Buddha preached this sutta to them. But this does not that the Buddha preached this sutta only to the people of Kuru. During the forty-five years of his teaching, the Buddha preached the satipatthana method at many different places on different occasions. ' 'In the collection of the Kindred Sayings, there is a satipatthana chapter. It consists of 104 suttas. They are short suttas that were delivered at different places. But it was only to the people of Kuru that the Buddha taught this sutta in greater detail. The commentary mentions that the people of Kuru were so well-endowed with a good climate and good food that their minds became mature. All classes of people practised satipatthana meditation. [similar material from the commentary snipped]' So we see that the teaching is practised to different types of people, not just the Kurus. This seems to support the idea that satipatthana, especially of the four foundations of mindfulness, is indeed an important methodology for practising to acheive the attainments. 'It is said that the Kuru country was blessed with a perfect climate, and its people enjoyed good food and drink and other amenities of life. What about the American people and all the people in the West who enjoy a perfect climate, at least indoors? Even at places with extreme climate, very cold or very hot, you can control the indoors climate with a thermostat. When it is too hot, you turn on the air conditioner, and when it is too cold, you turn on the heater. So, like the Kuru people, the American people enjoy a very good climate. Food in the West is also very rich and good, and when you are about what you eat, you can have health food. And there are other facilities. _Westerners have an even better chance than the Kuru people_. [emphasis mine] Perhaps, vipassana meditation is more suitable for people in the West than for people in other countries.' Problem? Nope. Only problems I have are difficulties with reflections that I believe can be overcome through time. Oh, and that... never mind ;) > > Starting Abhidhamma > ================= > With regard to your question about starting, you jumped in a long time > ago! As soon as there is any considering or reflecting on the realities > and truths in one?s daily life as being anatta, one is already studying > and ?starting? Abhidhamma. Abhidhamma is nothing other than seeing, > hearing, likes, dislikes, feelings, rupas experienced in whatever daily > life situation we find ourselves. There?s no avoiding Abhidhamma -- it?s > no different from Dhamma. > > I?ve never studied the Abhidhamma systematically, but always questioned > and considered as you are doing now. Certainly you must have accumulated > plenty of ?moral consciousness? and wisdom too for this. I can tell that > you've read and considered a lot. Well I'm talking about considering specific types of consciousness. And how we can develop the wholesomeness, and identify each type of consciousness, its antedecedent, and how we can apply this understanding to our benefit in day to day life. That is, again, not noting just 'remember, remembering,' but knowing "Oh this is such and such a consciousness" behind it. Like a science. > > Dying > ===== > You ask several qus on ?dying? including ?How can I be mindful of > consciousness in general when I?m dying??. Andrew, there is dying at each > moment -- momentary dying as the citta (consciousness) falls away to be > followed by another. At the end of life, it?s the same -- one citta after > another. Awareness can only arise and develop at the present moment. So > only by understanding and being aware of present dhammas can awareness > accumulate and wisdom grow. Better to focus on the present opportunities > in this regard. There are many definitions of bhavana (mental development > or meditation). According to the texts, there are two kinds of bhavana -- > samatha and vipassana. Both can only ever develop at the present moment > when the conditions are right. For the development of vipassana, the only > obstacle or hindrance is wrong view. Not a place or time or special object > to begin with. Alright, so shamatha/vipassana is the only way to increase awareness and knowledge of my mental states. I just hope my efforts will bear fruit. > > More on Slaves > ============ > ?I am not subject to myself, able to go where I like, I am subject to > others, my life is under control of others. That is the definition of a > slave. And every morning, if I do not take a cab, I have to walk (read: > slave) 1.5 miles to a day treatment facility.? > > Andrew, I think we?re all slaves by your definition. /me gives Sarah the gift of Machine Head. http://www.geocities.com/t3nt0nhammer/ > Walking the Earth > ============== > I like the open air myself and work hard to arrange some free time every > day to work and read posts outside. When I don?t get it, I?m disappointed. > Attachment, again. The Buddha taught his followers and us about realities > to be known through six doorways. (See all the suttas in Salayatanavagga, > inc. those under ?Secure from Bondage? SN35:104 onwards. > > (And don?t those walks to the treatment centre count as being in the ?open > air?;-)) ' No, there is a distinct difference between taking a walk in the fresh air on one's own time and walking having to be at a certain place for other people under threat of force. > > How the Dhamma was intended > ========================== > It?s true that many of the bhikkhus lived in the open or spent time in > jhana seated under trees. They were certainly addressed. Householders > living dusty lives and following household chores were also addressed and > also became enlightened. Even amongst the arahants we read about great > differences in accumulations. After the Buddha?s death, some were > immediately concerned like Ananda to visit and help lay people. Others > retired to the forests. > > Who are we? We?re ignorant worldlings with a little glimmer of > understanding about the profundity of the Buddha?s teachings. You and I > and most the people on DSG are pretty sociable otherwise we wouldn?t be > conversing. We see the value of discussing dhamma and sharing the little > knowledge we have with others, right? So better to know our inclinations > than to try and imitate an idea of life in ancient India. > > Idle chatter and Authority > ==================== > It is a test when we?re surrounded by idle chatter or hearing what we > consider nonsense and have to refrain from answering back. Again, we all > face these challenges -- whether in a work, a patient or a household > environment. Sometimes we refrain from wrong speech and sometimes we > don?t. Either way it?s conditioned again and not a self that passes or > fails. Sarah, I'm talking about walking a path in the world here. These side-issues are just that, side-issues. They all fall under the category of 'hindrances.' The system hinders progress because they will not allow me to just 'practise dharma.' This is what I want to do, and this is not their agenda. It is almost self-evident that it's a hindrance. The person the system produces through conditioning is very different than the person who practises satipatthana day in and day out. I know. I've both sides. [paste > > ?There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness...? > =================================================== > We could also say ?there is the case where someone walks along the streets > in NY or HK. In the Satipatthana Sutta we read about mindfulness in all > positions, even whilst getting dressed, eating, defacating and so on. One > step, or one moment of mindfulness, at a time. The truths are applicable > to all. > Exactly. So there shouldn't be any discord between us then about how we can practise. > MN2 Nanamoli/Bodhi transl: > > 5 ?What taints, bhikkhus, should be abandoned by seeing?* Here, bhikkhus, > an untaught ordinary person, who has no regard for noble ones and is > unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who has no regard for true > men and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, does not > understand what things are fit for attention and what things are unfit for > attention. Since that is so, he attends to those things unfit for > attention and he does not attend to those things fit for attention.?**? > > *?The word ?seeing? (dassana) here refers to the first of the four > supramundane paths - the path of stream entry (sotapattimagga)...... > > **MA [the commentary] makes the important point that there is no fixed > determination in things themselves as to whether they are fit or unfit for > attention. The distinction consists, rather, in the mode of > attention...... > ***** > For example, one might show consideration for family members or friends by > enquiring about their work or interests with wholesome cittas or one might > attend to one?s Dhamma study or practice with unwholesome cittas. This is > what I meant. Generosity, in other words? So how do we cultivate, and make the wholesome arise? Or do we 'just do it'? > > Wholesome roots > =============== > Just as you said, the commentary above continued: > > ?That mode of attention that is a causal basis for unwholesome states of > mind should be avoided, while that mode of attention that is a causal > basis for wholesome states should be developed.? > > Again, it?s not a self deciding to increase wholesome roots and ?bingo?. > This reminds me of the sutta and commentary Nina is translating and > discussing on ?Distracting Thoughts?. It always comes down to > understanding present cittas for what they are. Whilst considering one?s > intentions, whilst biting one?s lip and so on, develop sati and panna. Mode of attention, hmmm. Not sure what that means. As I've read it, we use the faculty of bare attention to discern whether an action is going to be motivated by the good or the bad, and to stop and not carry out an action (verbal, or bodily, possibly mental) that is going to do harm. Not sure how panna will come about. Don't we need good concentration for panna? > Again, the fear and thinking are conditioned dhammas - conditioned by a > clinging to self. Why do we mind about future rebirths? Because of > clinging to self. When there is awareness or consideration for others or > other wholesome states, there is no fear. I interpret this as do good and you will have no worries. > The same applies to past kamma. Not sure what you mean here. > > ?Butchered It? > =========== > Over the course of aeons of lifetimes, your present difficulties would > hardly register a ?blip? in the overall pattern. You have my sympathy and > concern here nonetheless, believe me, and I?m sure of most other members > too. > Right, and that's what's at stake here. Aeons of lifetimes worth of living, suffering, enjoyment, or torture. > Mischief > ======= > When I was your age and in Sri Lanka, I was once asked by a local judge > who attended our discussions how someone as ?young and mischievous? as I > appeared could be so interested in the Dhamma. I replied then that the > Dhamma was for anyone and that?s my reply now. Starting a ?Can you help me > thread? gives us the chance to offer a little Dhamma-dana here. This is > the most useful dana I know of and so i?d like to thank you for the > opportunity. It?s not mischief in any sense as I see it;-) My mischief still is. It could be a combination of mischief and idleness. Idleness is described as an evil in the Buddha's code of conduct and I know for myself it's evil. Not 100% evil though, sometimes my activity is good, or neutral. But still overall evil. Enough so that I've been called 'wicked.' > > I?ve no idea if I?ve digressed into sub-topics, but have tried to keep to > big picture issues. I hope you?re having some weekend time with your > family out of ?shackles?, Andrew. Maybe you can even share a few of these > comments or other letters on the list with them as a way of Dhamma-dana > too? I?ll look forward to your feedback as usual. I wouldn't know how to share unless they inquired. I don't even think they want to hear much about it. And I don't really spend much time with them. My sister should be coming home today, so it will be good to see her, though. Regards, Andrew levin 35434 From: htootintnaing Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 2:23pm Subject: Setting up foundation for jhana (04) Dear Dhamma Friends, Now the jhana practitioner is quite ready to start his jhana journey. The destination is already known. It is to achieve jhana cittas, to experience jhana cittas, to stay with jhana. The destination is well defined. The journey will be discussed along with the moving vehicle. The preliminary preparation has almost completed; like collecting necessary food, water, medicine, dressings and clothes. Who will be the driver of the vehicle is the matter of this jhana journey. It is simple. If we want to drive and we drive the vehicle will move forward. We are our masters of jhana journey. There are four things in the presence of even one of them will accomplish all the things we want. These four things are 1.our strong mind which well determines to do the necessary actions, 2.our willingness, 3.our diligent effort of steadfast effort, and 4.wisdom. So,if we want to achieve jhana, we all MUST achieve it successfully. Now the driver is ready to start the journey. In the whole the jhana journey is a merry and joyous action to perform. But the problem is where the vehicle is. Without the vehicle, we will not be able to start our journey of great jhana. The vehicle for jhana journey will be delineated in the coming posts. May you all feel peace to read up this series. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 35435 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] King Milinda -5 Aggregates-Conventional Reality Dear Stephen Thanks for sharing your views on this very difficult aspect of the teachings. The passage from Milinda's Questions is directly on point. As I understand it, 'conventional reality' is a way of referring to what we normally take 'reality' to be, this world of people and things. To say the sun rises in the east and sets in the west is to state a conventional truth. However, the realities experienced and the truths taught by the Buddha are of a different kind altogether, beyond the conventional, and these are referred to as 'ultimate' since there are none beyond. In these ultimate terms, realities are not people and things, but are the dhammas variously classified as the five aggregates, the six sense-bases, the 18 elements, the 4 foundations of mindfulness, nama and rupa, and citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana, and truths are truths about these dhammas. The distinction you ask about at the end of your post, namely, between the conventionally real and the conventinally unreal, is not something discussed in the teachings, as far as I'm aware, and I would guess that the reason for that would be that this kind of knowledge is not part of the path to liberation. So this distinction would be a matter for conventional discussion and consensus. I hope this responds to the points you wished to raise. Look forward to further discussion with you on this point. Jon --- alpha16draconis wrote: > From my understanding of the Abhidhamma, there are two truths-the > conventional reality(sammuti)and the ultimate reality(paramattha). > The conventional reality is the relative and conditioned and is > devoid of any independent being or essence. Any particular existent > is a mental and phenomenal construct, composed of constituents, which > in turn are also devoid of any independent being or essence. I am > kind of vague on whether the immediate objects of perception are > purely mental constructs, produced by the 5 aggregates. The simile of > the chariot in the Questions of King Milinda might illustrate this > problem. ... ... So here is my question. Suppose > you a reading a fictional work, say one of the works of Jules Verne > or Arthur Conan Doyle and as you are reading about a particular > character, say Captain Nemo or Sherlock Holmes, you form a particular > mental concept of these entities. This conceptual construct may also > be a product of one or more of the 5 aggregates. I might even dream > of this character to the extent that it might seem conventionally > real. In this case, this mental formation does not represent anything > in conventional reality. Conventionally, it is unreal. From the point > of view of the Abhidhamma, what is it that distinguishes the > conventionally real from the conventionally unreal? They both seem to > be the product of one or more of the 5 aggregates, but the fictional > characters are purely a mental construct, whereas the chariot and the > self seem to be a relative mental phenomenal construct or > abstraction of an some underlying reality. Do objects and things > which conventionally exist possess all 5 of the aggregates, whereas > fictional constructs use only four or less? > > Stephen 35436 From: alpha16draconis Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 6:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] King Milinda -5 Aggregates-Conventional Reality --- I think there is an answer to that question that is fully consistent with the teachings of the Abhidhamma. I'm currently re- reading "Abhidhamma Sangha- A Comprehensive Manual of the Abhidhamma ,Bhikkhu Bodhi-general editor,Buddhist Publication Society,1999. and A Manual of Abhidhamma, translated by Narada Maha Thera, fourth revised edition 1979. Let me think about for a while longer. Stephen In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Dear Stephen > I hope this responds to the points you wished to raise. Look forward to > further discussion with you on this point. > > Jon > > > 35437 From: Herman Hofman Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 7:25pm Subject: RE: [dsg]What is real (was Phantom Limbs) Hi Howard, Sometimes you just gotta make time ! Some more comments below. =============== Howard > A tree, as I seem to observe it, is an amalgam of hardness, visual form, tactile roughness, etc, etc. =============== Herman > Yes, agreed. And even a tree that is only seen, will conjure up data relevant to other senses. One imagines the feeling of the bark, the smell of the gum, the weight of the logs. And all sorts of intentional data is conjured up as well. What can I do with this tree? How long will it take me to walk to it? Can I hang a rope of that branch? Wouldn't it make a beautiful picture etc etc. The tree, as a percept, is a meaning (in a forest of meanings). And with continuous, slight variations in attention to one detail or another, the meaning (which *IS* the perceived) is *continuously* changing, and never absent. ============== Howard > But in hardness, for example, I find only hardness. In fact it seems to be much the case that what people typically think of as "properties" of "objects" are exactly what the Abhidhammikas think of as paramattha dhammas. ============= Herman > Agreed, again. But does one ever come to an experience of hardness only? I think you allude in a following post to having some doubt as to whether there is ever the experience of "only hardness"? In my opinion, "only hardness" is a concept, a product of analytical thinking, never an experience. I accept that it is possible, through the practice and application of various well-documented techniques, to *limit* awareness to an ever finer focus. But what is experienced in such a state does not automatically apply to other states, where it is not experienced. =============== Howard > Where the average person will say that hardness is a property of trees, I think it is a more correct statement that hardness is an experiential condition, and it and other experiential conditions are mentally assembled into percepts we call "trees" (and into the template-concept of "tree"). ============== Herman > Agreed some more :-). And this mental assembly process requires as a minimum set of conditions something conveniently referred to as a "being", though that word covers a complexity beyond all words. And we also know that any "being" requires a myriad of external factors and props (a solar system for one :-)) in order to be a being. So extrapolating a little, this experience of the hardness of a tree requires the whole known universe to be present, though all of that can escape attention while we grasp at 'only hardness" :-) =========== Sure enough, fear is fear, and it will be called> > fear as long as the experience is the same. But isn't it just possible > that the difference between fear and love is the absence/presence of an > unspecified component, common to both? -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, anything that hasn't been proven impossible is presumably a logical possibility, but for me when there is no evidence for the existence of something (a soul, for example), there is no reason to assume it. Old man Occam had a good idea, I think. ;-) -------------------------------------------------- Herman > Yeah, I like his razor too :-). Thanks again Howard Herman 35438 From: Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 4:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg]What is real (was Phantom Limbs) Hi, Herman - In a message dated 8/15/04 10:26:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofman@t... writes: > Howard > But in hardness, for example, I find only hardness. In fact it > seems to be much the case that what people typically think of as > "properties" of "objects" are exactly what the Abhidhammikas think of as > paramattha dhammas. > > ============= > > Herman >Agreed, again. But does one ever come to an experience of > hardness only? I think you allude in a following post to having some > doubt as to whether there is ever the experience of "only hardness"? > -------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't recall having written that. In any case, I do believe that when hardness is experienced, that is all that is experienced as objective content. This is an Abhidhammic position that rings true to me. ----------------------------------------------- In> > my opinion, "only hardness" is a concept, a product of analytical > thinking, never an experience. I accept that it is possible, through the > practice and application of various well-documented techniques, to > *limit* awareness to an ever finer focus. But what is experienced in > such a state does not automatically apply to other states, where it is > not experienced. > > ========================== 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) 35439 From: Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 4:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg]What is real (was Phantom Limbs) Hi, Herman - In a message dated 8/15/04 10:26:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofman@t... writes: > Howard >Where the average person will say that hardness is a property > of trees, I think it is a more correct statement that hardness is an > experiential condition, and it and other experiential conditions are > mentally assembled into percepts we call "trees" (and into the > template-concept of "tree"). > > ============== > Herman >Agreed some more :-). And this mental assembly process requires > as a minimum set of conditions something conveniently referred to as a > "being", though that word covers a complexity beyond all words. And we > also know that any "being" requires a myriad of external factors and > props (a solar system for one :-)) in order to be a being. So > extrapolating a little, this experience of the hardness of a tree > requires the whole known universe to be present, though all of that can > escape attention while we grasp at 'only hardness" :-) > ========================== To some extent I agree with the foregoing. Nothing, whether it be hardness or anything else exists in and of itself, but only as a tentative arising that is an ephemeral aspect of a vast network of interrelated conditions. There is more I could say here, involving momentary actualities and potentialities that reflect my phenomenalist perspective, but my perspective is sufficiently starange to most people that I would do well to not put forward any more of it than I have to! ;-) 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) 35440 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 9:03pm Subject: Re: visual field Hi Howard, this is interesting. In Pali the word gocara is also used for object: field or pasture. Go is cattle, cara, where he goes. Gocara: where a cow goes. Of course it was discussed many times with A. Sujin, people wanted to know: how far does this field stretch out. But we cannot measure visible object, nor should we *think* of the field. It is just what appears through eyes, without thinking of it. Field renders it very well. It is not only that tree, then we fix again on a concept. But later on more on concept. It is a seemingly contrariousness: my life I share with other beings in this world and the ultimates. But we can handle this, once we have understood momentary death. Nina. op 15-08-2004 17:18 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > Interesting. For me, a visual rupa is an entire "visual field". 35441 From: Herman Hofman Date: Sun Aug 15, 2004 11:53pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Pariyatti/pattipatti Hi Sukin, === S > Sorry for the delay in responding. ==== H > No worries. > H:>It appears that you are treating of Buddhism as what is taught in the > Abhidhamma and by Buddhagosa. And I take Buddhism as what is > consistently taught in the suttas. And when a consistent red thread in > the suttas turns to green in a later work, then the thread is neither > red nor green, is it? S: I can't state that about myself since my influence has been K. Sujin and DSG, and I don't study the Abhidhamma or the Vis. And from these influence I constantly hear that ultimately, there is no difference in what is taught in the Abhidhamma, Vinaya and Suttas and that commentaries complement these. ==== H > It is a very interesting view that what is taught in the Abhidhamma is ultimately the same as what is taught in the Suttas and Vinaya. I am sure that the people who hold this view, do so sincerely. What is also interesting is that there are sincere people who hold the opposite view. I guess you cannot assume something to be true based on the sincerity of the people who hold it to be so :-). I do not go looking for doctrinal differences between the Abhidhamma and the Suttas, they just jump out at me. And if I go looking for similarities on basic Buddhist doctrine I cannot find them. ============ > H:>Keeping this in mind will make it unnecessary and even foolish to > disagree with you, because we are never talking about the same thing, > even though the same word is used to describe it. S: :-) I often have a similar impression too, but when others are taking part in discussions. When one person states that he agrees with another and I recall other more basic disagreements, I wonder if one or both of them have any correct understanding of the concepts used. But there must be some value in what is generally discussed here on DSG no? And there must be a few things where we are quite close, otherwise why are both of us still here and willing to read one another's posts? ;-) =========== H > Certainly DSG is a great list to be part of. ========= >H:> It must be great being able to believe from time to time that those > children are not real :-) S: ?? Please explain. ==== H > It was just a silly joke in reference to a time you (or someone I confused you with) mentioned that your maid was absent, and your children were being disobedient, or something like that. Kind Regards Herman 35442 From: Herman Hofman Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 1:09am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Bagels, Forests & Happy Walks (was: Repulsiveness of the body meditation) Hi Sarah and Andrew, Sarah wrote: Proceeding ========= The most important point to understand is that there is no 'me' or 'you' that can ever proceed. If you're sitting at your computer now or in the day centre or eating bagels even, it's by conditions and there are only ever the presently arising dhammas -- the namas and rupass -- at these times which can be known. Thinking that it would be better somewhere else or proceeding in a different manner or having a particular focus is merely that -- thinking. =========== I find the above very much at odds with what is written in the Sankharupatti Sutta M120, of which some excerpts follow: "At one time the Blessed One lived in the monastery offered by Anaathapindika in Jeta's grove in Saavatthi. The Blessed One addressed the Bhikkhus [Monks] from there. 'Bhikkhus, I will tell of the arising of intentions, so listen carefully with attention.' Those Bhikkhus agreed and the Blessed One said: 'Bhikkhus, the Bhikkhu is endowed with faith, virtues, learning, benevolence and wisdom. It occurs to the Bhikkhu, 'Oh, I should be born with the high warriors at the break up of the body, after death.' He bears it in the mind, directs thoughts to it and develops that thought. Those intentions and that abiding, developed and made much, conduces him to be born there. This is the path and method to be born there." This same formula is repeated for many different realms finishing with "I should be born with gods of the sphere of neither perception nor non perception with long life, and enjoy much pleasantness.' This is the path and method to be born there." The intentional effort culminates with "Again the Bhikkhu is endowed with faith, virtues, learning, benevolence and wisdom. It occurs to the Bhikkhu: 'Oh, I should destroy desires, for without desires, the mind is released and it is released through wisdom! Here and now by myself realizing, I should abide.' He, destroying desires, becomes without desires and the mind is released and released through wisdom here and now. By himself realizing, he abides. Bhikkhus, this Bhikkhu is not born any where for any reason." Clearly, there is an enormous clash between "He bears it in the mind, directs thoughts to it and develops that thought. Those intentions and that abiding, developed and made much, conduces him to be born there. This is the path and method to be born there." And " Thinking that it would be better somewhere else or proceeding in a different manner or having a particular focus is merely that -- thinking." Kind Regards Herman 35443 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 1:28am Subject: RE: [dsg] Phantom Limbs give insight into Vedana/Feeling & Sensation... Hi Herman (& Nori), I’m picking up a few threads here -- many thanks for all your pertinent points and queeries. --- Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Sarah and Nori, > ... > S: Yes, though of course it is actually the citta (and accompanying > cetasikas) not 'one' that experiences. I cannot experience 'your' > visible <..> H:> Actually, isn't there just the experience? Isn't citta/cetasika just an > after-the-fact conceptual reference to *THE* experience? Citta > experiencing something is no less presumptious than a being experiencing > something. .... S: Seeing consciousness (a citta) experiences visible object. It’s important to understand and be aware that nama experiences its object, distinct from the object experienced (in this case a rupa). Otherwise the characteristics of namas will never be distinguished from rupas. “Without directly knowing and fully comprehending forms.....eye-consciousness...eye-contact.....and whatever feeling arises with eye-contact as condition....without developing dispassion towards it and abandoning it, one is incapable of destroying suffering.” (SN35:26 (4)) “Bhikkhus, without directly knowing and fully understanding the all...... “And what, bhikkhus, is the all...? “The eye and forms and eye-consciousness and things to be cognized by eye-consciousness.” (SN35:27) ..... S: On the thread to Andrew L, thank you for your good wishes. You asked: S:>>When we have ideas of entities, mara, devas, hevenly beings or other people, these are our ideas only. H:>Are you saying that the enumerations in the Abhidhamma of the planes of existence and the beings that dwell in them are treated as though they are stories? ..... S: Like we discussed before, there are many different kinds of concepts or stories - concepts of the real, concepts of the unreal etc. As Matt said, ‘Words are always words and they have their own meaning. When they are strung together in different ways they create different stories.” From CMA again: “There are such terms as ‘land’, ‘mountain’ and the like........Such terms as ‘person’, ‘individual’, and the like, so named on account of the five aggregates’ (khandhapa~ncakam upaadaaya purisapuggalaadikaa)..... ...All such different things, 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 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.” (CMA, ch V111, #30) .... S: In other words, a person or a deva is a concept. However, the combination of cittas, cetasikas and rupa represented by these terms are real. In another post to me (35212), you pointed out that if one ‘gets clobbered’ by a deva (!!), god or yakka ‘or the like’ one ends up with an unpleasant feeling (I think). You also suggested that a stooped person ‘may well be avoiding low-flying purple elephants’ (errr??). You concluded from this that ‘it is quite reasonable in a Buddhist context to say that anything experienced is real’. I would conclude from this that a) there is no limit to what one’s imagination or thinking can conjure up in the way of concepts and b) we easily take the imagined for being the real;-) If we are ‘clobbered’ all that is ever experienced through the body-sense are combinations of rupas. A deva or yakka is only ever experienced as a concept. In the same post you wrote: S: >>The reality of dukkha in its deepest sense as characteristic of all conditioned realities remains as it's always been. Understanding realities which are anicca and dukkha as also not 'my' dukkha leads to detachment from whatever arises. And the goal of developed understanding is such detachment and thereby 'overcoming' of dukkha. While it's 'my dukkha', there can never be insight into the elements and detachment from the >>erroneous view of self, the most weighty of the defilements. H: >Isn't overcoming dukkha completed by the complete cessation of citta and cetasika? Which of course entails the end of all lovingkindness, >compassion, sympathy, equanimity and understanding as well. .... S: Yes. At parinibbana having developed complete detachment to all conditioned dhammas including these wholesome states resulting in full liberation. .... S: I’d also like to pick up a point that you mentioned in a post to Rob Ep. H:>* With regards to us being social animals, one of the chief benefits of seeking the seclusion of a metaphorical foot of a tree is that it is a context in which there is no "society". Meditation allows for the evaporation of the social context. Society is the context in which the >conceit of "I", "me" and "mine" arises and is nurtured. .... S: I thing this statement is quite erroneous. If it were true, then those who left society before the time of the Buddha would (whether in a human or higher plane) have eradicated any views or conceits concerned with "I", "me" and "mine". Clearly, the message was and is that it is the view that is the problem, not society and lack of secluded trees!! Please keep questioning or probing anything I say anytime. Metta, Sarah P.S. You mentioned that you can’t recollect devas (as recommended to Mahanama, AN X1.12). I love that sutta. It’s not a question of remembering devas (!!), but of reflecting on the qualities of those which resulted in a blessed rebirth and of those accumulation wholesome qualities. “At any time when a disciple of the noble ones is recollecting the conviction, virtue, learning, generosity, and discernment found both in himself and the devas, his mind is not overcome with passion, not overcome with aversion, not overcome with delusion. His mind heads straight, based on the [qualities of the] devas.” ================================ 35444 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 2:02am Subject: RE: [dsg] Eternalism on ATI Hi Herman (& Howard). Thanks for adding extracts from the following sutta, Herman. Much appreciated. --- Herman Hofman wrote: > From Majjhima Nikaya 78, Samana-Mundika Sutta <...> > "With regard to that point, one should know that 'These are skillful > resolves'...'That is the cause of skillful resolves'...'Here skillful > resolves cease without trace'...'This sort of practice is the practice > leading to the cessation of skillful resolves,' I say" .... The practice leading to the cessation of wholesome states refers to the arahant who no longer has akusala OR kusala states arising. Final cessation of all conditioned dhammas is of course at parinibbana. Extracts from Nanamoli/Bodhi transl: “And where do these wholesome habits cease without remainder? Their cessation is stated: here a bhikkhu is virtuous, but he does not identify with his virtue, and he understands as it actually is that deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom where these wholesome habits cease without remainder*” *footnote: ‘This passage shows the arahant, who maintains virtuous conduct but no longer identifies with his virtue by conceiving it as ‘I’ and ‘mine’. since his virtuous habits no longer generate kamma, they are not describable as ‘wholesome’.’ [S: an arahant has kiriya cittas, not kusala cittas]. “And how practising does he practise the way to the cessation of wholesome habits? Here a bhikkhu awakens zeal for the non-arising of unarisen evil unwholesome states...for the continuance, non-disappearance, strengthening, increase, and fulfilment by development of arisen wholesome states, and he makes effort, arouses energy, exerts his mind,and strives. One so practising practises the way to the cessation of wholesome habits.*” *footnote: ‘MA: As far as the path of arahantship he is said to be practising for their cessatio; when he has attained the fruit of arahantship they are said to have ceased.’ [S: 4 right efforts arising with path moments] ... > In the context of the sutta, unskillful resolves cease in the 1st jhana, (1) > and skillful resolves cease in the 2nd jhana. (2) .... S: (1) ‘MA: This refers to the first jhana pertaining to the fruit of non-returning. the path of non-returning eradicates sensual desire and ill-will,and thus prevents any future arising of the three unwholesome intentions - those of sensual desire, ill will, and cruelty.’ (2) ‘MA: This refers to the econd jhana pertaining to the fruit of arahantship.’ Also, ‘MA: As far as the path of arahantship he is said to be practising for their cessation; when he has obtained the fruit of arahantship they are said to have ceased. The virtuous intentions of the arahant are not described as ‘wholesome’.’ ***** Thanks for drawing our attention to this sutta, Herman. Any further comments? Metta, Sarah ======= 35445 From: Herman Hofman Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 2:06am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Anapanasati Sutta Hi Jon, You wrote: That's fine, but as I've tried to make clear, the issue here is not anyone's personal practice, whether yours or mine, but the meaning of what is found in the suttas. Individual accounts of personal experience are not likely to be of much value in that regard. =============== I am wondering what will indicate to *you* that you have the correct meaning of the suttas? And if the meaning is to be gradually acquired, what will indicate that you are heading in the right direction? Kind Regards Herman 35446 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 2:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] King Milinda -5 Aggregates-Conventional Reality Hi Stephen, Welcome to DSG - I hope you find it useful here. I thought there was a wealth of detail and very fine questions in your first post. Thank you. You’re already discussing the main points with Jon, so I won’t add much more. I find the Qus of King Milinda to be very helpful and very relevant to our discussions here. Pls quote any short passages any time for discussion. --- alpha16draconis wrote: > From my understanding of the Abhidhamma, there are two truths-the > conventional reality(sammuti)and the ultimate reality(paramattha). ... S: Yes .... > The conventional reality is the relative and conditioned and is > devoid of any independent being or essence. ... S: Conventional reality (or concepts based on what is conventionally true)is never conditioned in that it doesn’t exist in an ultimate sense. In a sense we can say it is anatta in that there is never any ‘self’, but usually we only refer to conditioned dhammas, paramattha dhammas as having the characteristic of being anatta. Conventional reality doesn’t have any characteristics naturally as it doesn’t arise or exist. .... >Any particular existent > is a mental and phenomenal construct, composed of constituents, which > in turn are also devoid of any independent being or essence. ... S: Strictly speaking, ‘a particular existent’ can only be a nama or rupa arising and ‘existing’ for an instant before falling away. A ‘mental and phenomenal construct, composed of constituents’ never exists. You make a lot of good points and I may well be being over-picky here;-) pls take it as a welcome here! Stephen, we’ll be glad if you introduce yourself a little....like, where do you live? I look forward to many more of your contributions. Metta Sarah ====== 35447 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 2:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] the Battle Dear Nina (Azita & Howard), The on line translation Howard gave (below) was that by Soma Thera. Nina, I'm delighted to read your series on this sutta and especially the commentary notes. It's so often referred to. When we met Vince and Nancy for breakfast in Bkk (remember, Azita), he kept referring to this sutta and the teeth-clenching too. If either of you (Nina or Azita) are sending him posts, pls include Nina's series on it! Meanwhile, I'll try to refer to them in an email, but they often don't see the emails if they 're on retreat;-) Nina, I liked this quote from K.Sujin at the end of another post of yours: Sujin: >When there are no conditions for the arising of sati, it is like that. If we say: there is very little sati today, we hope to be better than we really are. We should not take an interest in the fact whether we know a great deal or only a little.> Excellent stuff. Metta, Sarah p.s Azita, I hope you had a good weekend at Cooran. As Chris probably told you, I'll bring your CMA to Bkk in October. If you remind me just before we leave, I'd be glad. --- upasaka@a... wrote: > __________________________ > Vitakka-Santhana Sutta; Majjhima Nikaya No. 20 > > > The Removal of Distracting Thoughts > > Thus have I heard. At one time the Blessed One was staying at Savatthi, > in > Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's Pleasance. The Blessed One addressed the > bhikkhus, > saying, "Bhikkhus," and they replied to him saying, "Reverend Sir". The > Blessed One spoke as follows: 35448 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 2:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Merely Pondering, no 1. Dear Howard (& Nina), --- nina van gorkom wrote: > > Howard: > > I don't think of hardness as something belonging to me, not even > > conventionally speaking. > N: I good point for considering, I suggested Sarah brings it up in Bgk. > Theoretically we know and understand that there is no self, but the > practice? ..... S: What about when we touch the keyboard or a glass. Don't we think it's 'me' or 'self' touching the hardness or that the hardness is outside of me? Also, don't we take this hardness for being something -- a keyboard or a glass? Don't we take the experience or the objects such as the glass or keyboard for being mine? Self view is very crafty and as we know, it comes in many guises. .... N: > Seeing, visible object, cold, hearing, these are all dhammas that each > have > their own characteristic. When we feel cold there are nåma and rúpa, but > we > do not distinguish nåma from rúpa; we have an idea, a concept of > ourselves > feeling cold. ... S: Just the point, I think. K.Sujin talks about how we should know what kind of self-view it is arising at different moments. From Nyantiloka’s dict: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/s_t/sakkaaya_ditthi.htm “sakkáya-ditthi 'personality-belief', is the first of the 10 fetters (samyojana). It is entirely abandoned only on reaching the path of Stream-winning (sotápatti-magga; s. ariya-puggala). There are 20 kinds of personality-belief, which are obtained by applying 4 types of that belief to each of the 5 groups of existence (khandha): * (1-5) the belief to be identical with corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations or consciousness; * (6-10) to be contained in them; * (11-15) to be independent of them; * (16-20) to be the owner of them (M.44; S.XXII.1).” ****** Metta, Sarah ====== 35449 From: Andrew Levin Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 3:16am Subject: [dsg] Re: Bagels, Forests & Happy Walks (was: Repulsiveness of the body meditati --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > Hi Sarah and Andrew, > > > Clearly, there is an enormous clash between > > "He bears it in the mind, directs thoughts to it and develops that > thought. Those intentions and that abiding, developed and made much, > conduces him to be born there. This is the path and method to be born > there." > > And > > " Thinking that it would be better somewhere else or proceeding in a > different manner or having a particular focus is merely that -- > thinking." > > Kind Regards > > > Herman Herman, Thanks for your reply. To me, this just illustrates that the Buddha uses conventional reality to illustrate different truths as well as absolute terms. Clearly there is a difference in reality between one being in a hospital setting and one practising a path walking unimpeded through the outside world. Although I may have overestimated the difference, that is to say, it should still be possible to practise in a hospital setting, practising on the streets without any interference or mandatory assignments is still the easier of the two settings, just as the monastic life is more suited to the holy life than the home life. 35450 From: Ken O Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 4:09am Subject: Re: So Called Momentariness [Re: [dsg]What is real (was Phantom Limbs)] Hi Agrios Could you substantial your statment that visual rupas are 2mm diameters. If objects a citta can be sized then our eyes would be very huge :) Ken O 35451 From: Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 0:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: visual field Hi, Nina - In a message dated 8/16/04 12:32:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > > Hi Howard, > this is interesting. In Pali the word gocara is also used for object: field > or pasture. Go is cattle, cara, where he goes. Gocara: where a cow goes. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Hah! I didn't know that. Yes, this *is* interesting. --------------------------------------------- Of> > course it was discussed many times with A. Sujin, people wanted to know: how > far does this field stretch out. But we cannot measure visible object, nor > should we *think* of the field. It is just what appears through eyes, > without thinking of it. Field renders it very well. It is not only that > tree, then we fix again on a concept. But later on more on concept. > It is a seemingly contrariousness: my life I share with other beings in this > world and the ultimates. But we can handle this, once we have understood > momentary death. > Nina. > op 15-08-2004 17:18 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > >Interesting. For me, a visual rupa is an entire "visual field". > ========================= Thanks, Nina! :-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 35452 From: Herman Hofman Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:35am Subject: RE: [dsg]What is real (was Phantom Limbs) Hi Howard, > Howard > But in hardness, for example, I find only hardness. In fact it > seems to be much the case that what people typically think of as > "properties" of "objects" are exactly what the Abhidhammikas think of as > paramattha dhammas. > > ============= > > Herman >Agreed, again. But does one ever come to an experience of > hardness only? I think you allude in a following post to having some > doubt as to whether there is ever the experience of "only hardness"? > -------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't recall having written that. In any case, I do believe that when hardness is experienced, that is all that is experienced as objective content. This is an Abhidhammic position that rings true to me. ----------------------------------------------- Yes, I am sorry, I misread you. Your statements were about doubting the experience of rupas without sanna having been operative. If I can throw another question your way: Is the experience of hardness separate from the experience of the degree of hardness, or is it a compound experience (not intentionally a leading statement) combining both quality and quantity? Kind Regards Herman In> > my opinion, "only hardness" is a concept, a product of analytical > thinking, never an experience. I accept that it is possible, through the > practice and application of various well-documented techniques, to > *limit* awareness to an ever finer focus. But what is experienced in > such a state does not automatically apply to other states, where it is > not experienced. > > ========================== 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) 35453 From: Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 1:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Merely Pondering, no 1. Hi, Sarah (and Nina) - In a message dated 8/16/04 5:55:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@y... writes: > --- nina van gorkom wrote: > >>Howard: > >>I don't think of hardness as something belonging to me, not even > >>conventionally speaking. > >N: I good point for considering, I suggested Sarah brings it up in Bgk. > >Theoretically we know and understand that there is no self, but the > >practice? > ..... > S: What about when we touch the keyboard or a glass. Don't we think it's > 'me' or 'self' touching the hardness or that the hardness is outside of > me? Also, don't we take this hardness for being something -- a keyboard or > a glass? Don't we take the experience or the objects such as the glass or > keyboard for being mine? Self view is very crafty and as we know, it comes > in many guises. > =========================== When "I touch the keyboard or glass," if I am in the confused mode of I-making, which, of course, is usually the case, it will seem that "I" am experiencing hardness, and not just that "there is hardness". And it is also the case that to me, while the hardness is a relatively impersonal phenomenon, neither "me" nor "mine," still I am also aware that it seems to occur as part of a mindstream that I call "mine". Thus the experience is almost always polluted by I-making. The pollution in the case of paramattha dhammas lies primarily at the subjective pole - it seeming that "I" observe the hardness, and that hardness, though itself impersonal, appears as part of "my" stream of experience. However, I do not seem to be "touching hardness". The really strong entry of *objective* reification comes in for me not with paramattha dhammas, but with conventionaI objects. I seem to be touching not hardness, but the conventional object we call keyboard or glass. The hardness in itself does not appear to me as an external thing that "I" encounter, but merely what is currently present within "my" mindstream. The reifying that comes in, as I experience it, is twofold: A subjective "observer" (which is expressed as "me" and "mine"), and which is a vague, unidentified actor/observer (and, BTW, the notion of a "citta" as observer, as I see it, plays right into this subjective-reification error), and an objective "observed," with this latter being a full blown conventional object such as keyboard or glass. But, yes, "me" and "mine" are almost always distorting our experience. 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) 35454 From: Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 1:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] the Battle Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 8/16/04 6:25:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@y... writes: > The on line translation Howard gave (below) was that by Soma Thera. > ====================== Thank you for searching that out! :-) 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) 35455 From: Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 1:58am Subject: Re: [dsg]What is real (was Phantom Limbs) Hi, Herman - In a message dated 8/16/04 8:38:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofman@t... writes: > If I can throw > another question your way: Is the experience of hardness separate from > the experience of the degree of hardness, or is it a compound experience > (not intentionally a leading statement) combining both quality and > quantity? > ======================== Interesting question. If only my mindfulness, concentration, and clarity of attention were sharp enough for me to really see what it is that I experience in this regard!! It certainly seems clear to me that not all "hardnesses" experienced are of the same intensity, and I expect that they are experienced as what they are *when* they are experienced. However, I also suspect that the full cognitive recognition (culmination of sa~n~nic processing) follows - very quickly - after the fact, and certainly that cognitive distingushing among degrees of hardness comes after the fact. The same applies, for example, to sounds. We hear what we hear when it is, as it is: louder or softer, melodious or jarring, higher or lower pitched, etc, but the full, "conscious" recognition only follows after further processing. 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) 35456 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:00am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Anapanasati Sutta Hi, Herman --- Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Jon, > > You wrote: > > That's fine, but as I've tried to make clear, the issue here is not > anyone's personal practice, whether yours or mine, but the meaning of > what is found in the suttas. > Individual accounts of personal experience are not likely to be of much > value in that regard. > > =============== > > I am wondering what will indicate to *you* that you have the correct > meaning of the suttas? And if the meaning is to be gradually acquired, > what will indicate that you are heading in the right direction? I'm not sure if I've understood the question, but I'll try to answer. I don't think one ever arrives at a "correct" understanding of the meaning of the suttas; one only finds that there is more and more to be understood. On your general question, however, I think that (a) finding more and more consistency across the whole Tipitaka, and (b) noticing that over the years that there is a better general sense of the conditioned nature of things, would be key indicators. Others may express it differently. Less an idea of 'self', deeper appreciation of the wisdom of the Buddha, less an idea of control, clearer idea of namas and rupas: I think any of these, apparent over an extended period of time, would indicate that one's general understanding was progressing in approximately the right direction. How would you see it? Jon [My point to Howard was of course somewhat different. What I was trying to say was that the fact that a person has 'practised' on the basis of a certain intepretation of the suttas and has found that practice useful or a benefit, or to bring certain results, cannot be of any assistance to another person in coming to a view on whether that interpretation is correct or not.] 35457 From: jwromeijn Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:14am Subject: Comments on 'Introduction to the Abhidhamma' Comments on 'Introduction to the Abhidhamma' In the 'Links' of the Menu "robmoult" has put an Introduction with the titel "Buddha's Smile" and asked for comments (end of august) I'm not sure where to put them: if this is not the right place: Moderator please redirect this. Positive If have read several introductions, most on internet. This is the first one that's not 'grey' (when printed): it has pictures, tables and short paragraphes. It's easy to read. And (so far as I know, I'm not really an expert) it's not superficial. Of the thousands of pages that can be written, it's a rather good selection (but not perfect). Technical problems This draft doesn't have a "Table of centens", no numbered structure with chapters. Is for example "What happens when we die" a chapter and "What is rupa" a paragraph of that chapter? And I don't know why but in this pdf-file the "Search"-function doesn't work. Some topics that surprised me Page 9. 'Mental States' = Citta + Mental Factors; but is Mental Factor = Cetasika ? Page 55 "Spontaneous birth - possible for all beings (human s experience spontaneous birth only at the beginning of a world)". I have read MN 12 ("The Great Discourse on the Lion's Roar") and can't understand how this fits the principle "nothing happens without a cause". Is this really Abhidhamma, do we have to take this quote literally? (I don't). A not perfect selection I prefer more information about "rupa": this selection gives the impression that "nama" is much more important than "rupa". Page 63/64 ("Things to be done when someone is critically ill" is important but doesn't belong in an Introduction to Abhidhamma. Page 66-81 are about the "31 planes of existence": too much pages. Page 66 quotes the words "rupa-loka" and "arupa-loka" but not the important (from a soteriological point of view) fetters (samyojana's) nr 6 and 7: rupa-raga and arupa-raga. I hope a second edition will come soon Metta Joop 35458 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 11:08am Subject: Making up foundation for jhana (05) Dear Dhamma Friends, Even though the jhana journey is quite ready, there has not been a vehicle for the journey. Now let start to build a vehicle for jhana. I will describe kasina as a basis. 10 kasina, 1 anapanasati, 1 kayagatasati, 4 brahmavihara, 10 asubhakammathana and 4 arupakammathana totalling 30 kammathana can give rise to appana(jhana). There are 10 kasina. Pathavi, tejo, vayo, apo and colour kasina like odata(white), nila (brown), pita ( golden yellow ) and lohita ( red ), akasa ( space ) and aloka ( light spot ). The vehicle for the journey will be built by white colour as its components. After making the necessary foundation,the practitioner needs to prepare for the setting. He should wear white dressing. Everything must be white. His meditating room or hall or place must preferably be white in colour. Walls should be white. Ceiling must be white and floor must be white. All the contents of the room must be white if possible. As everything is white and his mind is already set in a good morale that is white in nature or pure mind. So everything inside and outside is white. I start to write white kasina or odata kasina because its has very fascinating effects. As you all will already know white light carries all the rays. So all the energy is there in the white. If we can tackle that colour well, we will be able to manipulate the whole world with jhana. Next step is preparing and manufacturing the whole vehicle without which the journey will not be able to start.I am going to post these soon. May you all feel clean in your mind. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 35459 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 11:31am Subject: Tiika Visuddhimagga. XIV, 94, 95. Tiika Vis. XIV, 94: With reference to the word vi~n~naa.na.m, consciousness, the expression indeterminate resultant to begin with, has the neuter gender, and therefore it is said in particular with reference to indeterminate dhamma, to be merely twofold. N: Here it is dealt with under the classification of consciousness, vi~n~naa.na.m, which has the neuter gender in Pali. Indeterminate is twofold, because here only citta, viññaa.nakkhandha, is dealt with. Tiika: Elsewhere indeterminate should be said to be fourfold because materiality and nibbaana are also indeterminate dhamma. The nature of resultant of the sense sphere etc. should be understood just as in the aforesaid method concerning kusala. N: Kusala citta is of four planes of citta: of the sense-sphere, of fine material jhaana, of immaterial jhaana or lokuttara, supramundane. Evenso, kusala vipaaka can be of these four planes of citta. Akusala vipaaka can only be of the sense-sphere. Tiika Vis. 94: Resultants are as it were without root-cause or with root-cause, with reference to the accompaying roots, not to producing root-causes. N: Vipaakacitta can be sahetuka, accompanied by roots, but these roots are merely result of kamma with roots. Tiika: Resultant with root-cause, sahetuka, is also provided with roots because of kamma with rootcauses, and it is called with rootcause merely because of the accompanying roots. Elsewhere also resultant that is without roots is produced by kamma that is with roots. Why is there result without roots from kamma with roots? Herein, the cause has been explained. N: Vipaakacittas that are without roots are the results of kamma with roots, such as seeing and other cittas arising in processes. Tiika Vis. 95 Just as result accompanied by non-greed etc. is not produced in the case of the five sense-cognitions that experience whatever object presents itself, evenso it should be understood that the receiving-consciousness and the investigating-consciousness with functions that are not very prominent, are without roots .... ***** Nina. 35460 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 11:31am Subject: Pali: Tiika Visuddhimagga 94, 95. Pali: Tiika Visuddhimagga 94, 95. Vis. 94. abyaakata.m jaatibhedato duvidha.m vipaaka.m kiriya~nca. tattha vipaaka.m bhuumito catubbidha.m kaamaavacara.m ruupaavacara.m aruupaavacara.m lokuttara~nca. tattha kaamaavacara.m duvidha.m kusalavipaaka.m akusalavipaaka~nca. kusalavipaakampi duvidha.m ahetuka.m sahetuka~nca. The 'indeterminate' is of two kinds: (i) resultant and (ii) functional. Herein, i. 'resultant' is of four kinds according to plane; namely, (A) of the sense sphere, (B) of the fine-material sphere, (C) of the immaterial sphere, and (D) supramundane. Herein, III. i. A. that of the 'sense sphere' is of two kinds, namely, (a) profitable result and (b) unprofitable result. And i. A. (a) the 'profitable resultant' is of two kinds, namely, (1) without root-cause and (2) with root-cause. Tiika 94: ³Vi~n~naa.nan²ti pada.m apekkhitvaa ³abyaakata.m vipaakan²ti aadiko napu.msakaniddeso, With reference to the word vi~n~naa.na.m, consciousness, the expression indeterminate resultant to begin with, has the neuter gender, tato eva adhikataabyaakataapekkhaaya duvidhanti vutta.m. and therefore it is said in particular with reference to indeterminate dhamma, to be merely twofold. A~n~nathaa ruupanibbaanaanampi abyaakatabhaavato ta.m catubbidhanti vattabba.m siyaa. Elsewhere indeterminate should be said to be fourfold because materiality and nibbaana are also indeterminate dhamma. Vipaakassa kaamaavacaraadibhaavo kusale vuttanayeneva veditabbo. The nature of resultant of the sense sphere etc. should be understood just as in the aforesaid method concerning kusala. N: Kusala citta is of four planes of citta: of the sense-sphere, of fine material jhaana, of immaterial jhaana or lokuttara, supramundane. Evenso, kusala vipaaka can be of these four planes of citta. Akusala vipaaka can only be of the sense-sphere. Tiika: Ahetukataa sahetukataa viya sampayuttahetuvasena, na nibbattakahetuvasena. Resultants are as it were without root-cause or with root-cause, with reference to the accompaying roots, not to producing root-causes. Vipaakassa hi sahetukataa sahetukakammavasena sijjhamaanaapi sampayuttahetuvaseneva vuccati, Resultant with root-cause, sahetuka, is also provided with roots because of kamma with rootcauses, and it is called with rootcause merely because of the accompanying roots. a~n~nathaa ahetukaanampi sahetukataa aapajjeyyaati. Elsewhere also resultant that is without roots is produced by kamma that is with roots. Kasmaa pana sahetukassa ahetuko vipaako hotiiti? Why is there result without roots from kamma with roots? Tattha kaara.na.m vuttameva. Herein, the cause has been explained. N: Vipaakacittas that are without roots are the results of kamma with roots, such as seeing and other cittas arising in processes. Vis. 95: tattha alobhaadivipaakahetuvirahita.m ahetuka.m, ta.m cakkhuvi~n~naa.na.m, sota, ghaana, jivhaa, kaayavi~n~naa.na.m, sampa.ticchanakiccaa manodhaatu, santiira.naadikiccaa dve manovi~n~naa.nadhaatuyo caati a.t.thavidha.m. Herein, that 'without root-cause' is that devoid of non-greed, etc., as the cause of result. It is of eight kinds as(34) eye-consciousness, (35)-(38) ear-, nose-, tongue-, and body-consciousness, (39) mind-element with the function of receiving, (40)-(41) the two mind-consciousness-elements with the functions of investigating, and so on . Tiika Vis. 95. Ki~nca aaramma.naabhinipaatamattesu pa~ncasu vi~n~naa.nesu yathaa alobhaadisampayogo na sambhavati, Just as result accompanied by non-greed etc. is not produced in the case of the five sense-cognitions that experience whatever object presents itself, eva.m mandataramandakiccesu sampa.ticchanasantiira.nesuuti hetuuna.m uppattiyaa asambhavatopi nesa.m ahetukataa da.t.thabbaa. evenso it should be understood that the receiving-consciousness and the investigating-consciousness with functions that are not very prominent, are without roots, .... *** Nina 35461 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 11:31am Subject: Intro Vis. XIV, 94, 95 and Tiika. Intro Vis. XIV, 94, 95 and Tiika. Text Vis. 94. The 'indeterminate' is of two kinds: (i) resultant and (ii) functional. Herein, i. 'resultant' is of four kinds according to plane; namely, (A) of the sense sphere, (B) of the fine-material sphere, (C) of the immaterial sphere, and (D) supramundane. Herein, III. i. A. that of the 'sense sphere' is of two kinds, namely, (a) profitable result and (b) unprofitable result. And i. A. (a) the 'profitable resultant' is of two kinds, namely, (1) without root-cause and (2) with root-cause. Text Vis. 95. III. i. A. (a) i. Herein, that 'without root-cause' is that devoid of non-greed, etc., as the cause of result. It is of eight kinds as(34) eye-consciousness, (35)-(38) ear-, nose-, tongue-, and body-consciousness, (39) mind-element with the function of receiving, (40)-(41) the two mind-consciousness-elements with the functions of investigating, and so on [455]. Intro: Thus far the Visuddhimagga has dealt with kusala dhamma, all kusala cittas, and akusala dhamma, all akusala cittas. Now follows the explanation about the cittas that are indeterminate dhamma, avyaakata dhamma, neither kusala nor akusala. The Tiika explains that there are four dhammas that are avyaakata dhamma: resultant cittas (vipaakacittas), inoperative cittas (kiriyacittas), ruupa and nibbaana. But in this section the Visuddhimagga deals with the khandha of consciousness, viññaa.nakkhandha, and therefore it only explains about the cittas that are indeterminate: the resultant cittas (vipaakacittas), and the inoperative cittas (kiriyacittas). First vipaakacittas are summarized. These can be kusala vipaaka, the result of kusala kamma, or akusala vipaaka, the result of akusala kamma. Kusala vipaakacittas can be of all four planes of citta: of the sense sphere, of the fine-material sphere (ruupa-jhaana), of the immaterial sphere (aruupa-jhaana), and supramundane (lokuttara). Akusala vcipaakacittas are only of the sense-sphere. As we have seen under the section of kusala citta (Tiika to Vis. XIV, 85), kusala kamma can produce as result: eight kinds of sahetukavipaakacittas, with roots, which arise as rebirth-consciousness, bhavanga-citta (life-continuum), dying-consciousness and during a process after the javana-cittas (kusala cittas or akusala cittas) as retention, tadaaramma.na cittas, if that process takes its complete course. Kusala kamma also produces eight kinds of ahetuka vipaakacittas, without roots, which arise in a process of cittas. They are: the five kinds of sense-cognitions (seeing, etc.), receiving-consciousness (sapa.ticchana-citta) arising after the sense-cognition, and two types of investigation-consciousness (santiira.na-citta) that arise after the receiving-consciousness. Akusala kamma can produce seven kinds of ahetuka vipaakacittas. It does not produce sahetuka vipaakacittas. We may take it for granted that we see and hear, but they are conditioned dhammas, produced by kamma. Kamma produces rebirth-consciousness, and then throughout our life kamma produces sense-cognitions arising in processes. Nobody can prevent their arising or exert control over them. In the following sections the Visuddhimagga deals first with kusala vipaakacittas. The Tiika explains that sahetuka vipaakacittas are accompanied by the cetasikas that are roots, such as non-attachment, but that this does not mean that these roots are active, that they produce effects. These roots are merely results, they accompany vipaakacitta produced by kusala kamma with roots. When we read the texts about vipaakacittas it may seem that there is a mere summing up, but we should not forget that these cittas arise all the time, from birth to death. Seeing is ahetuka vipaakacitta and it may be the result of kusala kamma or of akusala kamma. It arises and falls away and then it is gone before we can find out whether it is kusala vipaaka or akusala vipaaka. It is followed by receiving-consciousness sampa.ticchana-citta, which is also called mind element, mano-dhaatu. This citta does not see, it merely receives visible object and then it is succeeded by investigating-consciousness, santiira.na-citta, which determines the object. The Tiika explains that these functions are not very prominent. They just follow the sense cognitions and perform their functions of receiving the object and determining it. The Expositor (II, p. 350) refers to the Dhammasanga.ni (§ 454) and explains about receiving-consciousness that is also called mind-element, mano-dhaatu: We should not forget that it is an element, a dhamma devoid of self. We have heard the term element many times, but through insight the characteristics of dhammas can be directly known so that they are realized as elements, devoid of self. **** Nina. 35462 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 11:31am Subject: The Removal of Distracting Thoughts, no 5. The Removal of Distracting Thoughts, no 5. Sutta: The Co. explains that if the bikkhu still cannot abandon unwholesome thoughts he should recite with a loud voice the Pali texts he has learnt . N: He should not recite them thoughtlessly but with his whole heart. The texts he has learnt can help him in times of trouble, they can make him feel glad. Rahula, for example, who was very much attached to his body contemplated the meditation subject that was explained to him by the Blessed One before and after his meal thus: . When the bhikkhu recites such texts he can be reminded of the characteristics of nama and rupa and develop insight then and there. Also his unwholesome thoughts are impermanent and non-self. The Commentary then states that if this does not help, the bhikkhu should take an empty notebook from his shoulderbag and write words of praise about the excellent qualities of the Buddha. N: When the bhikkhu is discouraged about his unwholesome thoughts he can be inspired when he thinks of the excellent qualities of the Buddha. These thoughts will cause him to be full of enthusiasm and they will strengthen his confidence and dedication to the Master. The Buddha had accumulated the perfections for countless aeons, with the utmost endurance and patience so that he could attain Buddhahood. The bhikkhu who writes words of praise can be reminded that he also should have endurance to develop understanding and all the perfections so that he can attain arahatship. While he is writing words of praise he can feel gratefulness and the greatest respect for the Teacher and then he will have wholesome thoughts instead of thoughts with desire, aversion and ignorance. If he has doubt about the Dhamma, about the Path leading to the realization of nibbaana, this can be abandoned. He is reminded not to delay the development of understanding of nama and rupa, even while he is writing. ***** Nina. 35463 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 2:05pm Subject: cooran Dear group, I left Cooran yesterday - taken to the airport by KenH. What a great 3 days it was- such an ideal location (even a small peak nearby which we climbed) and Andrew and Sandra made everyone very comfortable. The quality of the discussions was excellent. Some of the participants had 30 or more years background in Buddhism and all were genuinely concerned to learn how understanding Abhidhamma relates to insighting the present moment. Christine had a bag filed with the Tipitaka and commentaries ready for easy reference.Special regards to Redge for the dialogue we had. There were many topics but two that stood out was how genuine samatha arises. When I was new to Buddhism it was taught that you concentrate on an object such as breath and this develops concentration. But this type of practice is very likely to lead to miccha-samadhi(wrong concentration) with the attendant strange experiences that wrong concentration gives. True right concentration is associated with wisdom and arises from developing kusala citta. This leads to tranmquility which leads to right concentration- it is a subtle path that is only clear to firm panna. Another topic was how firm understanding must be so that the present moment can be known. If one neglects the moment of seeing or the moment of fear or of anger (or any moment) becuause one is looking for some other ("better") moment then not only will these moments not be known there will also be a sense of self and control - which is radically oppossed to seeing things as they are. At this point someone asked if it was then simply a matter of observing with bare attention whatever appeared. I explained how this had been my first 'praticewhen new to buddhism. However it actually increased the idea of self because there was ME who was observing - it magnified self because it seemed I could control the observing process. So what then? We discussed how pariyatti (theory), leads into patipatti. If one studies the Dhamma there can be diverse results - one might be looking for faults and so increase doubt or wrong view. Or one might be like a univeristy professor - belielving it to be like any other academice topic. But when Dhamma is investigated as a description of what is happening now then, very gradually, the bridge between pariyattin and pattipatti (direct insight) is made and wisdom grows. This is not applying some step by step technique - it is rather wisdom understanding when sati is present and when it is not. It is something that has to be known each for himself. I must thank Steve for his excellent knowledge and especially for explaining some points about Jhana that were most helpful. There is much more that I can say but this gives some flavour of the discussions. RobertK 35464 From: ericlonline Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 2:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anapanasati/ Jon Hey Jon, > E: I thought you were interested in the word of > the Master. Why go to an interpreter? J> I don't believe anyone can understand all the words of the Master without the assistance and benefit of other people's study and understanding. The suttas are pitched at a level that is generally beyond us, as they were for the most part addressed to persons who were ready for enlightenment. How do you know the commentators were capable of understanding the suttas and also of interpreting them? I thought the Buddha did not set up a Dhamma heir btw? J> I have pasted at the end of this post the 2 tetrads we are talking about.Do you find them easy to understand as they are? If you are trying to be a sculptor and have never touched clay then it will be hard to understand instructions about sculpting. Make some stick figures and maybe a context starts to spring out of your own 'playing' that is capable of adding meaning to otherwise meaningless words. J> Are you saying that it definitely doesn't refer to jhanas? Jhana is not mentioned therefore jhana is not necessary to begin to practice. J> I'd be interested to hear your explanation of these (and the other 2) tetrads. What do you want to know? ---- > E: Did all the monks mentioned in the sutta have texts? > See my last post to Ken about postponing the taking of > your first steps. J> When I say texts I of course mean the words of the Buddha, the teachings. In this respect, in fact yes, the monks mentioned in the suttas had the great advantage of hearing the teaching in real time. Thousands of them became enlightened while actually listening to the teaching,.... so the stories go J> ....and those that didn't become enlightened on hearing it no doubt reflected on it afterwards. Those who didn't hear the Buddha himself heard the teaching from other great disciples. What today we can read is what those monks heard. so our hope goes --- > E: Self fulfilling prophecy Jon. J> Are you saying that everyone is capable of achieving enlightenment in this lifetime if they put their mind to it? I'd be interested in knowing the basis for this interesting idea. Mind is the forerunner. I am saying if the sign you have placed in front of your mind says 'I will not be enlightened in this lifetime' then that is pretty much what you will acheive. Doubt, it is one of the hindrances. Does not just effect Anapanasati meditators. ---- J> (Let's start at the beginning with a definition of terms. Are you OK with 'samatha with breath as object' as a definition > of 'anapanasati'?) > E I would simply say mindfulness of in and out breathing. J> Well that is a literal translation of the term. Could you give an example of what you mean? Any of the steps is to be practiced with mindfulness of breathing in and out. That is, cognizance of the breath helps to 'keep it real'. It is very easy to be deluded. If one is aware of the breath while practicing then there is less chance to fall into a daydream and overestimate what is happening. J> Also, what do you understand by the reference in the sutta to monks who were already devoted to mindfulness of in-&-out breathing? You would have to ask the person who spoke those words what their intentions were. Anything beyond that is at best an educated guess and also meaningless for our aims. There is no superior or inferior. Just those who practice and those that don't. > E > Like I said b4. You can stay in the first Tetrad for > years. There is much to learn and cultivate even there. J> You'd have to tell me how to get to the first tetrad to begin with, Eric ;-)). Sit down, shut up, stop theorizing and stake your awareness as best you can at the breath. Dont let anyone get in your way of this! Not even your own naysaying, I can never do it we are all doomed, doubtful inclinations! ;-) Jon From the Anapanasati Sutta: [19] "[5] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to rapture, and to breathe out sensitive to rapture. [6] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to pleasure, and to breathe out sensitive to pleasure. [7] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to mental fabrication (feeling & perception), and to breathe out sensitive to mental fabrication. [8] He trains himself to breathe in calming mental fabrication, and to breathe out calming mental fabrication. [20] "[9] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the mind, and to breathe out sensitive to the mind. [10] He trains himself to breathe in satisfying the mind, and to breathe out satisfying the mind. [11] He trains himself to breathe in steadying the mind, and to breathe out steadying the mind. [12] He trains himself to breathe in releasing the mind, and to breathe out releasing the mind. 35465 From: ericlonline Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 2:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Annatta teaching Hey Jon, > J:To my reading of the texts, there's no end to the pariyatti --> > patipatti --> pativedha cycle until final enlightenment is attained. > E: How many texts did the Arahants walk around with? J> Hmm. Can I reword that phrase and say 'To my understanding of the teachings (meaning of course, the teachings as recorded)'? Again, the arahants at the time of the Buddha had the actual words of the Buddha very much in mind, and also the words of those senior monks (Theras) who expounded on the teaching given by the Buddha. Today we cannot listen to the Buddha himself. What is your idea of the next best source? Read and understand the advice given to the Kalamas. Then sit down, shut up and stake your awareness at your breath until you have found your way and are no longer deceived by words. Even your own! PEACE E 35466 From: agriosinski Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 3:37pm Subject: Re: visual field --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: [...] > It is just what appears through eyes, without thinking of it. Hi Nina, if rupa is so momentary, can I learn the process of "birth and death of one visual rupa" somewhere? metta, Agrios 35467 From: Herman Hofman Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 4:32pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Phantom Limbs give insight into Vedana/Feeling & Sensation... Hi Sarah, Thanks for all the time and consideration that goes into your replies: \H:> Actually, isn't there just the experience? Isn't citta/cetasika just \an after-the-fact conceptual reference to *THE* experience? Citta \> experiencing something is no less presumptious than a being experiencing \> something. \.... \S: Seeing consciousness (a citta) experiences visible object. It's \important to understand and be aware that nama experiences its object, \distinct from the object experienced (in this case a rupa). Otherwise the \characteristics of namas will never be distinguished from rupas. \"Without directly knowing and fully comprehending \forms.....eye-consciousness...eye-contact.....and whatever feeling arises \with eye-contact as condition....without developing dispassion towards it \and abandoning it, one is incapable of destroying suffering." (SN35:26 \(4)) \"Bhikkhus, without directly knowing and fully understanding the all...... \"And what, bhikkhus, is the all...? \"The eye and forms and eye-consciousness and things to be cognized by \eye-consciousness." (SN35:27) H > I agree that by way of intelligence, using memory and a few other mind functions, a whole experience (citta) can be carved up into components. When one considers only visual object (rupa), there is mental carving up of a whole experience (citta), then ignoring some component of seeing in favour of an other component. But at no time do these components stand alone in reality, only in thought do they take on a separated existence. The chief characteristic of nama and rupa in general is that they don't exist outside of thinking. They are concepts. What is real is *experience", which when compared to what follows becomes "that experience", which when dissected becomes "that visual experience" and with further post-mortem examination it becomes "that visual object" "that seeing" "in that context". And then later on you can preface all those "that"s with "my". As Howard and I discussed yesterday, the mind, in cutting and pasting, can only leave out everything it is not considering. While blithely toying with namas or rupas or sense bases as ultimate realities, an unspeakable complexity of relations is coming together to allow this experience to occur. Abhidhamma is the Indian science of 2000 years ago. And, contrary to how it is sometimes portrayed, it does not limit itself to experience only. For example, it goes into detail of physiology of sense bases. However, the investigating of the nature of reality did not reach a peak with the description of cakkhu pasada. And while I am very happy for people to have a profound affection for specific antique physiologies and psychologies, I have not yet heard the claim that this has led them to a "full understanding". Kind Regards Herman 35468 From: alpha16draconis Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 4:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] King Milinda -5 Aggregates-Conventional Reality Thank you for your remarks. I want to think about my reply for a while. Until then, I did post something about myself about a year ago today. It is post #24290. Stephen. 35469 From: Andrew Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:09pm Subject: Cooran weekend Hello everyone It was a great privilege and benefit for us in Queensland to host RobK. For those who haven't met him face-to-face, he is both knowledgeable and humble, very good at both speaking and listening. I was personally inspired by his determination to understand, rather than change, the ancient tradition. It made me think that we will never understand something that is incredibly deep and profound by dismissing it whenever some point doesn't "ring true" to our level of understanding. Just after Rob left, I found in my emails a quote from George Bernard Shaw: "All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions". How prevalent this viewpoint is today and also how detrimental to the continuation of the Buddhadhamma (which we know is predicted to die out). How foolish is the expectation to understand the Dhamma on a single reading and with limited reflection and a mind paralysed with doubts about the wisdom of those before us (even those who stood in the presence of the Buddha himself and received his highest praise). I know many on this list feel comfortable with "challenging" the Dhamma (the Kalama Sutta comes into play here) but I wonder how many go further and endeavour to "supplant" the Dhamma - simply on the basis of their current understanding. When something doesn't ring true to us, do we declare "that's not the Dhamma" or "that is hard for me to accept at the moment"? Of course, medieval peasants believed their own sense perceptions when they declared that the earth was flat - I mean, it was just so obvious! Any person or manuscript that said otherwise was clearly wrong! Such is the price to be paid for clinging to wrong views on limited understanding. Anyway ... those are my thoughts BTW. If you don't like them, please don't blame poor old RobK. :-) I'm sorry to report that we have no tape recordings of the discussions. Firstly, KenH forgot to bring his electrical cord to take power down to the shed. More importantly, though, a noisy wind blew up that our equipment wasn't able to deal with (nor my hay fever!). But KenH was seen to be taking copious notes (possibly even in shorthand) so we await his post .... Best wishes Andrew T 35470 From: Herman Hofman Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:01pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Phantom Limbs give insight into Vedana/Feeling & Sensation... Hi Sarah, It's me again :-) =========== S > In another post to me (35212), you pointed out that if one 'gets clobbered' by a deva (!!), god or yakka 'or the like' one ends up with an unpleasant feeling (I think). You also suggested that a stooped person 'may well be avoiding low-flying purple elephants' (errr??). You concluded from this that 'it is quite reasonable in a Buddhist context to say that anything experienced is real'. =========== H > My comments re purple elephants were in response to your statement "Would it be reasonable to infer that purple flying elephants and unpleasant feelings, say, have the 'same mode of being' in anything other than linguistic terms if we happen to use the verb 'to be' to refer to them?" People react to their perceptions. With your work in psychiatric institutions you would know how afflicted people can be by sights and sounds not seen or heard by anyone else. But one doesn't have to go to a medical facility to see that every human being is afflicted by their perceptions and reactions to them. And this is kamma, the basis for kamma, the continuation of kamma. Is kamma real? ================= Sarah > I would conclude from this that a) there is no limit to what one's imagination or thinking can conjure up in the way of concepts and b) we easily take the imagined for being the real;-) If we are 'clobbered' all that is ever experienced through the body-sense are combinations of rupas. A deva or yakka is only ever experienced as a concept. ================ Herman > For one who has gone beyond birth and death, the Buddha spoke with high praise. "When the Brahmana, in knowledge, has passed beyond the conditions of existence, Him neither goblin nor fiend can terrify." "He neither rejoices at his arrival, nor grieves at his departure: This Sangamaji, freed from attachment, him I call a Brahmana." (Udana I) But for anyone not gone beyond birth and decay the tortures of hell await those who negligently contrive to induce the autism of paramattha dhammas to prevent the recognition that certain combinations of brown and yellow, mixed with a particular kind of odour, are a suffering being whose need is the doing of some good by body, words and mind. As in 'Good man didn't you see a toddler who stands and lies with difficulty, mingled in his own urine and excreta while lying? 'Good man didn't you see among humans a woman or man, gravely ill immersed in his own urine and excreta, raised by others and conducted by others?' (Devadutta Sutta) Now I would say that if toddlers and sick people are only concepts then one has either gone beyond birth and death, or one is negligent to their own detriment. Kind Regards Herman 35471 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:06pm Subject: Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Hi Howard, Christine, Nina and all, Howard wrote to Christine: ------------- > I would really love to hear reports on the Concept discussions and especially on the Ken vs Others areas of disagreement. As you must know, the "mere-concept" versus "reality" issue is of considerable interest to me. I find the distinction to be quite valid, but far from simple. > ------------ No great revelations, I'm afraid: it was more about me and my tiresome theorising. In the CMA (for example) it is said that concepts can condition certain mental phenomena by object condition and by natural decisive support condition. I, in my wisdom, held that this statement could not be strictly accurate(!) - concepts are illusions: they don't really exist, so they can't condition anything. In the case of object condition, it has been explained on dsg that it is not the object per se that does the conditioning: it is the `taking of an object' (even an illusory object) by citta and cetasika that conditions those namas by way of object. So I set out to explain, in a similar manner, how a concept could condition citta and cetasika by way of natural decisive support. This was made difficult by my ignorance of conditions: I wasn't sure of the meaning of `natural' in this context, nor of `decisive' nor of `support, but I stuck by my guns. Mayhem reigned for quite some time until, eventually, I was persuaded to accept the CMA's statement and accept that my understanding of it was superficial Nina, you were right, of course, when you warned me last week about the theme of our discussions (the fine line between intellectual understanding and direct understanding. You said, "The fact that we ask shows some lobha lurking here, longing for insight, direct awareness. Who does not?" It seems that just listening to (or studying) the Dhamma can go wrong when it is directed by a sense of self ('I want my understanding to be deeper than it is'). So Robert had his work cut out for him - having to continually remind me and others that the step up to patipatti cannot be forced. It is natural that we will try to force it – we might even become obsessed with our wrong understanding and preach a false version of the Dhamma (dangerous kamma indeed). But that obsession, too, can be understood. Everything that happens happens by conditions: there is no self. Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Christine (and KenH and all) - > > In a message dated 8/15/04 6:58:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > cforsyth1@b... writes: > > > There was, however, some lengthy debate > > over Concept which remains unsettled to KenH's complete satisfaction > > i.e. everyone else disagreed with him - and we half suspected he > > might send a surreptitious post off-list to get advice (more > > ammunition) to present next day as 'further thoughts'. > > I'll let him explain. > > > 35472 From: Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 3:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Phantom Limbs give insight into Vedana/Feeling & Sensation... Hi, Herman (and Sarah) - In a message dated 8/16/04 7:41:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofman@t... writes: > H >I agree that by way of intelligence, using memory and a few other > mind functions, a whole experience (citta) can be carved up into > components. When one considers only visual object (rupa), there is > mental carving up of a whole experience (citta), then ignoring some > component of seeing in favour of an other component. But at no time do > these components stand alone in reality, only in thought do they take on > a separated existence. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree with this, Herman. I believe, however, that that is actually the position of Abhidhamma as well, unless I misunderstand. Within a mindstate (which I don't presume to be without duration or to have sharp boundaries), the object, its presence, and all the concomitant operations and characteristics are interdependent, and inseparable - but they are also distinguishable. --------------------------------------------- The chief characteristic of nama and rupa in> > general is that they don't exist outside of thinking. They are concepts. -------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't think that is so. We do form concepts of them, and when we think and talk about them, those concepts come into play, but they themselves are not concepts in my opinion. Hardness as experienced is not the same as the concept of "hardness"; hardness experienced is not hardness thought about. -------------------------------------------- > What is real is *experience", which when compared to what follows > becomes "that experience", which when dissected becomes "that visual > experience" and with further post-mortem examination it becomes "that > visual object" "that seeing" "in that context". And then later on you > can preface all those "that"s with "my". -------------------------------------------- Howard: That's true. I especially like "What is real is experience" -- not a post-mortem of experience. (But that doesn't imply that an experience is unitary or monolithic. If it were, there would be no basis for subsequent structural analysis or for distinguishing experiences from each other.) ------------------------------------------- > > As Howard and I discussed yesterday, the mind, in cutting and pasting, > can only leave out everything it is not considering. While blithely > toying with namas or rupas or sense bases as ultimate realities, an > unspeakable complexity of relations is coming together to allow this > experience to occur. ------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not certain what I am being credited with here, Herman! ;-) What you say here sounds somewhat right to me and somewhat not-quite-so-right. I'm not sure what you are referring to in yesterday's conversations. Perhaps it is the following two statements which I repeat here together to clarify my position: 1) "I do believe that when hardness is experienced, that is all that is experienced as objective content. This is an Abhidhammic position that rings true to me." 2) "Nothing, whether it be hardness or anything else exists in and of itself, but only as a tentative arising that is an ephemeral aspect of a vast network of interrelated conditions." --------------------------------------------------------- > > Abhidhamma is the Indian science of 2000 years ago. And, contrary to how > it is sometimes portrayed, it does not limit itself to experience only. > For example, it goes into detail of physiology of sense bases. However, > the investigating of the nature of reality did not reach a peak with the > description of cakkhu pasada. And while I am very happy for people to > have a profound affection for specific antique physiologies and > psychologies, I have not yet heard the claim that this has led them to a > "full understanding". > > Kind Regards > > > Herman > ============================= 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) 35473 From: connieparker Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 8:33pm Subject: Re: Bagels, Forest & Happy Walks Dear AndrewL, If I may, the "distinct difference between talking a walk in the fresh air on one's own time and walking having to be at a certain place for other people under threat" is in the thinking. The basic steps involved in walking are the same. If you're walking, that's your practice at that time. Everything we do, I think, is our 'practice'... whether we do it 'mindlessly', angrily, with great pleasure or whatever. It doesn't matter whether we eat bagels and are allowed to leave at the end of the day or eat jail food, we're all 'prisoners'. There is never a better time, place or activity to 'practice' than whatever is going on right now, but we can learn to have a better understanding of what now involves... nothing but dhammas, even the stories of me and mine, them and freedoms. No need to hope our efforts will bear fruit, because it's just the nature of things that they will, but there may be a need to know what our 'efforts' really are. How much effort, for instance, (even if it seems the easiest thing in the world,) do we put into our thoughts of being forced to do this or that 'against our will' or thinking some other reality would be better than the one we have right now? The 'system' can not prevent you from 'practicing dhamma'. What else can we do when that's all there is? Awareness will arise when it arises and there is no picking or choosing what it will be aware of. Now color, now smell, now thinking. Now something "I like" or "I hate" or "I don't notice", but really "I" am just in the way. It is not 'my' smelling or 'my' hearing, it just is, and then it isn't anymore. Heard someone say there's just that much difference between now here and nowhere. I think the hard thing is to forget about everything we think we know and just try to start over learning what Buddha really said/meant. If we really knew, we wouldn't be struggling. We have some idea of what the path should be and where it leads, but we don't even know where we are right now. peace, connie 35474 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 9:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Merely Pondering, no 1. Hi Howard, < the notion of a "citta" as observer, as I see it, plays right into this subjective-reification error> this is well observed! We have learnt about citta, an ultimate reality, but so long as we have not really, really experienced citta as nama, here it is: the observer citta. It is O.K. so long as we realize this. Then we know the task that is ahead! Nina. op 16-08-2004 14:42 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > The reifying that comes in, as I experience > it, is twofold: A subjective "observer" (which is expressed as "me" and > "mine"), and which is a vague, unidentified actor/observer (and, BTW, the > notion of a > "citta" as observer, as I see it, plays right into this > subjective-reification error), and an objective "observed," with this latter > being a full blown > conventional object such as keyboard or glass. > But, yes, "me" and "mine" are almost always distorting our experience. 35475 From: Herman Hofman Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 9:44pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Phantom Limbs give insight into Vedana/Feeling & Sensation... Hi Sarah, Yep, me again :-) ========= S: I'd also like to pick up a point that you mentioned in a post to Rob Ep. H:>* With regards to us being social animals, one of the chief benefits of seeking the seclusion of a metaphorical foot of a tree is that it is a context in which there is no "society". Meditation allows for the evaporation of the social context. Society is the context in which the >conceit of "I", "me" and "mine" arises and is nurtured. .... S: I thing this statement is quite erroneous. If it were true, then those who left society before the time of the Buddha would (whether in a human or higher plane) have eradicated any views or conceits concerned with "I", "me" and "mine". Clearly, the message was and is that it is the view that is the problem, not society and lack of secluded trees!! =========== Herman > Doesn't the Theravadan tradition recognize pacceka buddhas? And if you were willing to have a peek outside of this tradition you would find many more examples of beings who became enlightened in seclusion. You seem to be rejecting out of hand one of the main drivers behind monastic life of just about any variety. The tree is metaphorical, the seclusion from the social world is not. Can I ask you the reverse of what you are saying: Do you know of beings who were born into and reared into a social life, who have not acquired self-view? Surely the view has conditions for its arising. ============= Sarah > Please keep questioning or probing anything I say anytime. Herman > If you insist :-) Kind Regards Herman 35476 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:19pm Subject: Re: Cooran weekend --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" It made me think that we will > never understand something that is incredibly deep and profound by > dismissing it whenever some point doesn't "ring true" to our level of > understanding. Snip> Anyway ... those are my thoughts BTW. If you don't like them, please > don't blame poor old RobK. :-) > > ++++++++ Dear Andrew and all, I didn't put it as concisely as you have Andrew but what you say is how I feel about the tradition - very pleased you concur! Another pleasing time was meeting Jill Jordan for the first time. She is the coauthor of an excellent book on Abhidhamma I first read almost 20 years ago ( and have reread many times since). http://www.abhidhamma.org/Introduction.html It seems she is still as clear and enthusisatic about Dhamma as years ago. Azita is an old friend of Jills (and mine) and it was encouraging to all of us to see how energy to know the Dhamma bubbles in both of them. Robertk 35477 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Hi Ken H & All, Good to hear all the reports and look forward to more! Sounds like you had some great discussions and I hope that help is on the way to getting Reg connected on line;-). -- kenhowardau wrote: > No great revelations, I'm afraid: it was more about me and my > tiresome theorising. ... S: I’m sure any of your comments were well considered as usual;-). Let me just add a little on decisive support condition. .... K: >I wasn't sure of the > meaning of `natural' in this context, nor of `decisive' nor > of `support, but I stuck by my guns. ... S: Just a little on these terms, here from ‘Summary & Exposition’ (PTS comy to Abhidhammattha Sangaha), ch 8 “A natural decisive-support is a decisive support causal condition by its very nature (pakati), by its own intrinsic nature irrespective of any other kind of causal condition. it is said to be an individual decisive support, apart, that is, from object and contiguity. Or else, a natural decisive-support causal condition is a decisive-support causal condition that is ‘ready’ (pakata), where the ‘pa’ in pakata is a prefix. It shows that it is something, with its capacity to give rise to its own effect, that has been produced and practised in a [mental and physical] continuity. Therefore natural decisive-support causal conditions consist of greed, etc, or faith, etc, that have been produced in one’s own mental continuity, or seasonal change and food, etc, that have been repeatedly experienced.” .... K: >Mayhem reigned for quite some > time until, eventually, I was persuaded to accept the CMA's > statement and accept that my understanding of it was superficial ... S: Sounds like you all had fun;-) On the contrary (re superficial..), I think your understanding allows you to consider deeply. What is meant in the passage I quoted above by ‘seasonal change and food, etc’? As usual, we have to understand whilst reading the Abhidhamma, the distinctions between sammuti sacca and paramattha sacca and to know when the former are being used as ‘short-cuts’ to represent the latter as in this case. We had some detailed discussions on these aspects with K.Sujin last year following on from points raised here on list. You may care to look at this post I wrote: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/26468 Especially the following with added asterisks for highlighting: S: >There are 24 conditions which ‘cause’ namas and rupas to arise at this moment. These are elaborated in detail in the last book of the Abhidhamma, the Patthana. During our trip, K.Sujin was referring a lot to one of these conditions, or rather a sub-category of one of these conditions, namely pakatuupanissaya paccaya (decisive support condition). Nina writes a detailed and helpful introduction to the conditions which can be found at: http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Pakatuupanissaya paccaya is a very broad condition and K.Sujin was saying that everything is included in it including all other conditions and even concepts. Mike was asking before what she meant when she refers so often to ‘accumulations’ and when I asked her for a Pali term, she said ‘pakatuupanissaya’. So accumulations includes everything ‘including concepts and rupas’conditioning at this moment. Who knows the accumulations of each person and how anyone will respond at any moment? By pakatuupanissaya, accumulations can be traced back over aeons and aeons. Anything can be a condition as a result. For example, strong emotions may be a condition for awareness for one person or lobha(attachment) for another. All we can do is to encourage others to understand the teachings and ‘to understand one’s own world’. We cannot know the others. While we speculate about perceived conceit, attachment or irritation in others, the accumulated thinking or speculation at this moment can be known. There was some discussion before between Nina and I about concepts as pakatuupanissaya paccaya and what this meant when we talk about the weather or a friend, for example as condition. K.Sujin explained that *the concepts represent a detailed account of realities*. This reminds me of the descriptions in the Satipatthana Sutta commentary which explain what is meant by ‘going forward’, ‘eating’ and so on. *Whatever we read represents realities. By ‘weather’ is meant the heat or cold or other experiences felt as a result of this condition. We use ‘weather’ as a kind of shorthand for an otherwise long detailed account of realities.* By accumulations as we sat under the air-conditioning, some felt cold and others felt hot. Kamma can only bring its results, ie the kusala and akusala vipaka to experience the desirable or undesirable objects by pakatuupanissaya paccaya, formed up over those aeons. All ‘roots’ (i.e lobha, dosa, moha, alobha, adosa, amoha), and all other cetasikas are included in this condition too.< <....> Metta, Sarah ====== 35478 From: Herman Hofman Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 1:50am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Anapanasati Sutta Hi Jon, Thanks for this reply. I appreciate it. > > I am wondering what will indicate to *you* that you have the correct > meaning of the suttas? And if the meaning is to be gradually acquired, > what will indicate that you are heading in the right direction? I'm not sure if I've understood the question, but I'll try to answer. I don't think one ever arrives at a "correct" understanding of the meaning of the suttas; one only finds that there is more and more to be understood. On your general question, however, I think that (a) finding more and more consistency across the whole Tipitaka, and (b) noticing that over the years that there is a better general sense of the conditioned nature of things, would be key indicators. Others may express it differently. Less an idea of 'self', deeper appreciation of the wisdom of the Buddha, less an idea of control, clearer idea of namas and rupas: I think any of these, apparent over an extended period of time, would indicate that one's general understanding was progressing in approximately the right direction. How would you see it? =================== I think with the more frequent arising of an understanding of reality in line with the Teachings, there will be a natural tendency towards a loss of appetite for the world, which is not to be confused with an increasing aversion to the world. I read the Suttas and Vinaya as being in promotion of the holy life to end the round of rebirths, so a trend of unforced/unprompted renunciation would be an indication of increasing understanding. Kind Regards Herman 35479 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 2:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bagels, Forests & Happy Walks (was: Repulsiveness of the body meditati Hi Andrew, Lots more to discuss. Thank you. Again, no special order here - pls pick up what's of use or anything to be discussed further. --- Andrew Levin wrote: > this I'm going to go meditate. I don't know what else to do. This > post may be kind of weak, I'm not really doing very well right now. … On the contrary, I thought your comments and questions were very strong and astute and it seemed to me that you were doing fine. You strike me as a very sane and intelligent young man with a very sincere and rare deep interest in the Buddha's teachings . Unfortunately, you've been misguided, but then so have we all. I hope we can help you get on the 'right track' and gradually show others such as 'the authorities' that you can pass their conventional tests too. "I'm going to meditate. I don't know what else to do." ========================================= That's fine. In your free time, if you wish to sit and meditate, go ahead. If you'd like to chat with your family or friends, go ahead. If you'd like to watch some Olypic highlights on TV, go ahead. If you'd like to write to us here anytime, especially go ahead!! Awareness always starts now and now and now – not by any special wishing or forcing, but by really understanding what it is and what it is aware of. "This 'person', in conventional terms, is heedless. There is no knowledge of namas and rupas." ====================================== Good observations. It's an indication of growing wisdom when 'one' begins to realise how much ignorance and heedlessness there is. You ask about the conditions that will allow 'clear knowledge and mindfulness of namas and rupas to arise…'. These questions for a start! Andrew, I'd also be very happy to work through (very slowly) either Nina's Abhid in D.Life (on line) or the Abhidammattha Sangaha (even more slowly) with you. At least one translation of the latter is on line too, though B.Bodhi's translation is the easiest to follow, I find, partly because he gives all the Pali and many useful additional notes. Posture ======= You say it can be known and that it is 'a thorough knowledge of the position of the body'. In the texts, 'body' and 'posture' are concepts representing complex combinations of elements. We read in suttas about these elements and in the commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta, it clearly explains that while walking and so on, there are merely rupas experienced through the body sense and so on. I've just mislaid my copy of the Satipatthana Sutta and commentaries, but if you look under this title in U.P., you'll find lots of extracts in support of this point;-). Test it out – how is posture known at this very moment? Like you said very well, we have to understand conventional and absolute realities – only by understanding the latter, do we understand the former. Bodily feelings ============== As you say, there are bodily and mental feelings. Both are namas however and both are mental factors (cetasikas), so both accompany cittas and experience various objects. In the case of the former, they accompany bodily consciousness, the cittas which experience rupas through the body-sense. These accompanying feelings are pleasant or unpleasant. The bodily consciousness citta and accompanying cetasikas, including this bodily feeling, experience the rupas dependent on a 'base' in any part of the body. After this experience, there may be pleasant, unpleasant or neutral feelings accompanying other cittas in the sense door or mind door processes. If awareness is aware, it can only ever be aware of one reality at a time. As you suggest, there cannot be awareness of one of 'the four elements' and bodily consciousness or feeling at the same time. Also as you say, when you touch your shirt, only an element is experienced. The pleasant feeling (and any other nama) can only be known or experienced by mind door cittas. Andrew, we could get into a lot of detail here and you're very quick on the uptake, but I think it's most important to keep looking at the big picture and to stress that it's not a matter of 'should identify'- ing or 'should have awareness'. Otherwise, 'self' is adding more pressure again or an idea of control of awareness is sneaking back in. If we do work through one of those texts (i.e you read, post extracts, comments and questions and I or others chip in from time to time;-)), I think we should keep it separate from this 'big picture' thread. Anyway, I love your questions on feelings, consciousness and elements. Please let me know if there are more. (Also check feelings and sensations in U.P.) Seeing =============== You said '"I do not know that there is consciousness that is seeing. I know, "I see". Is this due to lack of awareness?" Yes. Howard was discussing this point too. Most the day there is ignorance, just not knowing or having any idea about any realities at all. As awareness and understanding grow, it'll be very clear that there is no 'I' that sees. Sometimes it might seem that there is more ignorance than before, as you express, but this is just because there is more growing understanding of the extent of this ignorance which we had no idea about before. 'Rectifying the situation' involves being aware of all and any realities – namas and rupas – without any selection. When you say 'I will do what I can', again an idea of self may be slipping in;-). Labelling again ===================== I know you've read very widely, Andrew, and you've read about labelling 'to muster up some attentiveness' and then 'drop the labeling in favor of pure awareness'. It's OK if you like to do this, but you won't read about it in the texts themselves because it's not satipatthana and it's motivated by a desire to catch realities which have fallen away. It's like slow motion walking or other similar practices. It won't help imho. Kurus and New Yorkers – not quite finished ====================================== You mentioned that the'deep doctrine' in the suttas that the Kurus could not only 'apprciate the profound instruction' but become enlightened by 'are [not] particularly difficult'. If they are not so difficult and just as easily appreciated by modern New Yorkers, why are not more of us enlightened now when we read them? You stressed the aspects of suitable climate and food, but the commentary stresses in far more detail how the Kuru people were "generally by nature earnest in the application fo the Arousing of Mindfulness to their daily life' and how 'at the lowest, even servants, usually , spoke with mindfulness'"etc. This was the background at the time. I think the comment that 'Westerners have an even better chance than the Kuru people [at the time of the Buddha]' is wrong, though I have the highest respect for so much of what U Silananda has written and the charts he has laid out. In any case, this is probably moot because we both agree that we can hear and consider the teachings and develop wisdom wherever we are and whatever our current lifestyle;-). Specific Types of Consciousness ======================= I'm delighted that you'd like to look in detail at different kinds of cittas and develop more understanding of these rather than 'remember, remembering'. Again, we have to go beyond a kind of 'working it out' or 'identifying' 'like a science' and really understand what is conditioned already. You agree that samatha and vipassana 'is the only way to increase awareness and knowledge of my mental states'. Right effort always bears fruit. I'm sure you can see the benefit already from relinquishing some ideas of self and control. Walking the Earth ================ I'm going to happily relinquish this part of the thread into Connie's good hands. She knows what she's talking about here!! Pls discuss further with her too. Hindrances =========== In the commentaries we read about how ignorance is the only major obstacle to the arising of wisdom. Why? Because any reality – even those conditioned by 'the system', can be known when they arise. I know that it takes a lot of confidence in the teachings before this is apparent, but I think your reflections here are a testament to it being true. So hearing, considering, reflecting wisely are conditions for such awareness and wisdom to arise at any 'unlikely' time. I don't believe this is a side-issue but a central part of the teachings. "No discord between Us" ==================== Exactly – 'the truths are applicable to all'. So lets drop the Kurus vs New Yorkers and 'those controlled by the system' vs 'those Walking the Earth';-) Generosity ==================== You ask how 'we cultivate, and make the wholesome arise'. I think a good start is to understand more about different kinds of generosity that can arise in a day. Helping others -- whether fellow patients or family members, listening or inquiring about someone's health or work, sharing dhamma or appreciating others' sharing, reflecting on one's own or others generosity and so on. You asked whether we 'just do it'. I think that by understanding its value, slowly it can become one's nature to think more of others and less of oneself. As you've been through such a traumatic phase in your life, it might be helpful each day to set yourself a few very simple baby step goals to show kindness to others. I think you'll find it's like a refreshing tonic but I'm not setting rules!! Mode of attention =============== When we study more about different mental states, you'll learn more about the universal mental states which arise with every citta. One of these is vedana (feeling) discussed. Another is manasikara (attention). When it arises with wholesome cittas, it is yoniso manasikara or wise attention. Actually, no need to wait for any formal study, go ahead and look at Nina's book 'Cetasikas' on line. I'm not keen on the 'bare attention' and discerning whether actions are good or bad and then stopping. It's OK conventionally speaking – we all understand that it's better to stop before saying or doing something harmful. But again, we need to look at that deeper level of conditioned dhammas that are anatta. Panna comes about (in answer to another qu) by clearly understanding dhammas intellectually in the first place as we're doing here. Concentration is another of those universal cetasikas which arises with every citta – including all unwholesome ones. More Mischief and Idleness ========================= Again we have to understand the realities. We might be a 'drugged out' zombie on the bed with kusala cittas including great panna or we might be rushing around looking very healthy and active with akusala (unwholesome) cittas. Ignorance arises with all unwholesome cittas and sloth and torpor just when there is unwise attention to objects, when there is no energy for kusala states. Admittedly this is much of the time for most of us, whether we regard ourselves as 'idle' or not. Please don't be concerned about doing anything too slowly, Andrew. The teachings are very profound and reading and reflecting slowly might be helpful too. Also, I do understand about the side-effects of the medications. Some of that good nutritional NY food and plenty of rest are needed to cope with them I'm sure. You mentioned in another letter that 'you feel unwholesome very very often'. Again, I'd like to stress that the unwholesome states are conditioned dhammas only that arise and fall away. Thinking about and identifying with them is useless and just leads to more unwholesome states. There can be awareness of thinking as just a nama at these times. The concepts thought about such as 'how unwholesome I am' are merely indications of attachment to self. Finding a Teacher ================ You mentioned this in another letter. Here we're all just good friends supporting each other. Better to have good friends who help and support than a teacher that encourages an idea of Self. On a tape I heard a good friend saying that the greatest dana is helping others to 'overcome this view of self'. I believe this too. ************ Andrew, I hope you had a nice time with your sister. Where does she live? I'm sure you can find something from the list to share with her or your parents – even if it's just the collection pf photos of these 'shackled' dhamma students you're talking to;-) Metta, Sarah ====== 35480 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 2:33am Subject: Re: trouble is... Hi, Connie, I was away for the weekend, so apologies for the slow reply. I'd approve of whatever wholesome activities bring you contentment and well-being, Connie - job or no job. Interesting phrase 'productive member of society', semi or otherwise. I've never thought that a criteria for assessing the value or importance of work was that it be 'paid'. In this country (Australia) we have a great tradition of volunteerism. The Welfare sector would totally collapse without the work of full-time and part- time unpaid volunteers. This came up recently when talking to my brother. He had worked for a quarter of a century as a Bank Accountant all over Queensland and in Papua New Guinea. He took early retirement thinking he'd spend his time travelling, boating and reading. The friend who travelled with him to distant parts of the globe died unexpectedly, for ever altering the future he had planned. Out of sheer boredom, my brother volunteered to work in an organisation that prepares and delivers meals to the elderly. He spoke of it in half-ashamed way - as if it wasn't 'real' work, because it wasn't 'paid' - and he often compared it to the responsibility and status he had had as an Accountant. How strange that he couldn't (initially) see that being a condition for the elderly to remain in their own homes, rather than be placed in an Aged Care Facility was equally as important as work in the finance sector. Don't worry about reading withdrawal - just rearrange your schedule to do reading at a particular time, and reflection and consideration of what you have read during the routine parts of the job. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connieparker wrote: > > Hi, Christine. > Just looked at the clock and realized I was more interested in counting > down my last hours of "freedom" than I was in where the hands are. When > my aunt asked me a few days ago if I'd like a job doing laundry, I thought > it was just another of those do you want to housesit for the weekend or > paint my shed kind of things so I said "sure", but it turns out she meant > a legitimate, reported income, show up regularly and pay taxes thing. One > of my first thoughts when I caught on was that my going back to the work > force and being a semi-productive member of society after all this time > would meet with your approval. I'll let you know if I still care what you > think of me in another few weeks when I'm over my reading withdrawal... > just when I got the CMA Jon and Sarah were nice enough to send, too! > Gotta go while I've still got time! > peace, > connie 35481 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 2:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Comments on 'Introduction to the Abhidhamma' Dear Joop, --- jwromeijn wrote: > Comments on 'Introduction to the Abhidhamma' > > In the 'Links' of the Menu "robmoult" has put an Introduction with > the titel "Buddha's Smile" and asked for comments (end of august) > I'm not sure where to put them: if this is not the right place: > Moderator please redirect this. ... S: I know RobM will be delighted to read your comments and will wish to discuss further. He's out of touch in Canada for another two weeks, but I'll make sure he sees your comments and any others on his return, so keep posting any more! Thank you in your other post for introducing more about yourself. I was very interested in your questions and comments and appreciated Nina's replies. You wrote one qu for me: "And Sarah, is for example teaching the Dhamma to other people not important" in connection with discussions on nama and rupa. Of course teaching or sharing the Dhamma is very precious -- the little we understand is thanks to those who have taught and shared with us starting with the Buddha who with unlimited compassion helped those 'with little dust' to understand anatta. There's no conflict as I understand between helping others and knowing that what we take for 'others' are merely namas and rupas in an ultimate sense. Understanding dhammas leads to an increase in the brahma viharas and other wholesome qualities -- not the reverse. As you pointed out, there is a big difference between 'idifference' and 'equanimity' and also between 'aversion' and 'compassion', 'attachment' and 'metta' or 'sympthetic joy'. I'll look forward to more of your well-considered posts and discussion with Rob M when he returns. Metta, Sarah p.s If you or any other new members have a pic to add to the photo album, we'd be glad. You won't be the only happy grandfather there, will he Howard?. ==================== 35482 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 3:39am Subject: Experiencing Pain Dear All, One night early last week, Rusty the Dog (who is ageing and suffering from urinary urgency) communicated at 3.00 a.m. that he had to go outside, and he had to go outside NOW. I groaned and got out of bed. Groaned because once I'm awake I can never go back to sleep. Realising that it was quite early, and there was a long night ahead, I turned on the kettle, put a tea bag and sugar in a mug, and waited until the kettle boiled. All of this was done in dark, with a little bit of reflected moonlight coming in from windows onto the back verandah over the kitchen sink. Once the water had boiled, I picked up the mug, picked up the kettle, and poured boiling water over the back of the hand holding the mug. I vaguely recall that it hurt. But I was aware of needing to complete the sequence of putting down the mug, putting down the kettle, reaching out for the tap and letting the very cold tank water flow over the hand for a minute or two. I was aware that I didn't make a sound, and I realised later that I didn't cry. A week later, the top half of the back of my left hand is bright red with striations across it, numb, and the skin is leathery and starting to lift a little. Abhidhammically speaking (or am I?) - considering mental and physical phenomena, what controls the intensity of 'the experience' of physical pain? I mean, there doesn't seem to be any set scale whereby if *this* amount of damage is done to a body by 'this' method, then *that* amount of pain is experienced. I also wonder about why we cry, and why we don't. There seems to be aspects of 'communication' involved in crying - I live alone, so who was to know or care (in that moment) that I had burned myself ... metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 35483 From: gazita2002 Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 4:51am Subject: Cooran Dear Group, Wonderful w/e with the SEQ dhamma group, and great to have RobK join us. We sat outside in the sun and the wind, so it was impossible to record and besides - we didn't have any recording equipment! It was a lively 2 days with barely a lull in discussion, even into the evening in Andrew and Sandra's cosy, warm, friendly kitchen. Yes, I agree, Rob was kept busy and it was great to listen to him and Reg interact. Reg was talking about focussing on thinking - in the way we do when we are reflecting on the dhamma, and often we take this thinking for something more than it really is. Rob suggested that we don't neglect the sense door objects. This was a timely reminder for me bec. altho I think that the reflection on the dhamma is helpful, it is only reflection and not to be mistaken for awareness. KenH's query about concept being a condition for realities to arise [hope I've got this right]. I see that Sarah has posted something about this in her comments on conditions. That the concepts are actually made up of realities, or rather concepts come out of realities - this is becoming a little awkward - we make concepts out of realities. If this is the case, then I think KenH was actually correct, bec. I think this was his argument over the dinner table Sat nite - that altho concepts are the object of thinking, they, the concepts, cannot condition realities to arise and most of us were disagreeing with him. Now I'm confused so will need a little more help here. This is about my 3rd draft on Cooran so altho there's probably more to write, this is it for now before I delete this one too. Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. p.s thanx to all the Kalayanmitts at the w/e. Such wonderful people. 35484 From: jjnbdal Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 4:59am Subject: Re: Cooran weekend Dear Andrew T: Thank you for the thought; it is very useful. RobK is very pleasant and knowledgeable and fun. I met him about 2 years ago along with Nina, Jon, Sarah, Sukin, Mom Betty and Num. We had a great time discussing dhamma some of which has been posted by Nina. I learned a lot from them. Regards from Singapore, jaran --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > Hello everyone > > It was a great privilege and benefit for us in Queensland to host > RobK. For those who haven't met him face-to-face, he is both > knowledgeable and humble, very good at both speaking and listening. 35485 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 6:13am Subject: Re: Bagels, Forest & Happy Walks Hi Connie, I just read this post of yours, and if I don't respond now, I will probably never do it. Just wanted to say that I really appreciate this and another recent post (probably the last one) of yours very much. :-)) Please keep more of such posts coming! Metta, Sukin --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connieparker wrote: > Dear AndrewL, > > If I may, the "distinct difference between talking a walk in the fresh air > on one's own time and walking having to be at a certain place for other > people under threat" is in the thinking. The basic steps involved in > walking are the same. If you're walking, that's your practice at that > time. Everything we do, I think, is our 'practice'... whether we do it > 'mindlessly', angrily, with great pleasure or whatever. It doesn't matter > whether we eat bagels and are allowed to leave at the end of the day or > eat jail food, we're all 'prisoners'. There is never a better time, place 35486 From: seisen_au Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 6:17am Subject: More Cooran Hi All, I spose i better add my 2 cents worth about the Cooran weekend. :-) As everyone else has mentioned it was great to have RobK join us in Cooran and assist in straightening our views. Thanks Rob! It was nice catching up with everyone else and meeting Jill was an added bonus. It was a very inspiring weekend, association with the wise, hearing the sadhamma, lots of discussion and considering, now if only there was more practice in accordance with the Dhamma (satipatthana), opps there's that `whispering lobha' again :-D, no need to worry that too can be an object of satipatthana.. Some of the discussions included the nonexistent concepts, cittavithi during jhana, the abandoning of the raft and much more that seems to have escaped me for now. I think KenH had a good point about concepts and object condition. The contention was (KenH please correct me if i've got this wrong): How can a nonexistent/concept condition the arising of an existent/Dhamma. But I think we provided enough textual support to at least raise some doubt in KenH about his position. Some of our sides arguments ran something like: The Brahmaviharas have beings/concept as object which are conditioning factors for metta etc to arise or remembering eating mango in the past is a condition for lobha to arise. I'm not sure but I think we agreed that the `abandoning' that takes place with respect to the raft is the abandoning of lobha, not the abandoning of the teaching. As for the jhana cittavithi, my understanding was that jhana cittas arise in the javana cittas of a mind door vithi. So we have something like: Bhavanga>>bhavanga>>mind door adverting>>7 javana cittas in which access and jhana cittas arise>>back to bhavanga>>then the whole thing repeats etc etc… Perhaps someone could correct this or add some more details. Many thanks once again to Andrew and Sandra for their hospitality. Steve. 35487 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 6:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] flipping off the moon Hi, Ben --- Benjamin Nugent wrote: ... > All these various threads about concepts vs. reality brought up a > fantastic > cliche which I will now share with you. Funny how that happens. Bruce > Lee > once said in the movie "Enter the Dragon": "It [the teaching] is like a > finger pointing towards the moon." It probably won't surprise you to learn that the 'finger pointing towards the moon' analogy has been used before to describe people like me who read the teachings as supporting the development of awareness/insight in daily life, thus making this development independent of any kind of 'formal practice'. However, I had not realised the analogy could be traced to Bruce Lee. Was it a Bruce Lee original, or is it a traditional eastern saying, I wonder (I suspect the latter)? > [hits student glaring intently at his finger pointing > skyward] > > "Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly > glory!" > > Explanation and Commentary: Never stare at Bruce Lee's fingers. He's a > little too sensitive. > > Seriously though, it takes effort to turn the head and avert the eyes > from > the finger to the moon, but once you do, you can do all the pointing you > like, because the moon does not give a flip whether or not you point to > it nor which finger you use to do so. ;-) > > Dry-Insight. Repeat that word to yourself and ask yourself if this is > really > something you want to invest your energy on. Sounds more like a bad rash > than anything leading to the supramundane. I agree that 'dry-insight' doesn't sound particularly cool, but then, does 'absorption' (for jhana) sound a more likely way to go? ;-)) Jon 35488 From: Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 2:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Hi, Ken - In a message dated 8/16/04 10:47:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > No great revelations, I'm afraid: it was more about me and my > tiresome theorising. In the CMA (for example) it is said that > concepts can condition certain mental phenomena by object condition > and by natural decisive support condition. I, in my wisdom, held > that this statement could not be strictly accurate(!) - concepts > are illusions: they don't really exist, so they can't condition > anything. > =========================== Thank you for this, Ken. As you might expect, I tend to disagree somewhat with your position, mainly in its being somewhat unclear and lacking detail. I think that to say that concepts are illusions is, on the one hand, unclear, because that depends on exactly what one is referring to when one says "concept," with that affecting in what *way* a concept can be illusory, and, on the other hand, even when that is clarified, it is an overstatement in certain ways. I believe there are at least two senses to 'concept'. One of these is a) a kind of thought or mental construct, and the other is b) the alleged referent of the first. In the case of a), it is often the situation that what we think of as a thought-concept is actually not a single event, but an entire sequence of thoughts/concepts, mistakenly thought of as a single idea. In that case, the culminating idea is, itself, a single thought-concept whose referent is a collection of mental phenomena. That "collection," though well grounded in that it consists individual mental events that are interrelated, is mentally constructed, with the "collecting" being done by mental operation. There is illusion involved here, namely in thinking that there is but a single mental event ot thought that is the concept. Now, in case b), the sense is not of concept as idea, as a kind of mental event, but of concept as *referent* of an idea. So, there is the idea or perception of a tree - a mental event, and there is the alleged tree itself. The first of these is an instance of a). And the illusion with regard to that is in thinking that that this "idea or perception" is a single mental event. The second of these, the alleged tree itself, is an instance of b), and it is illusory in a twofold manner: One is that "the tree" is thought of as a self-existent external entity as opposed to a mental projection of a mind construct combining a multitude of interrelated, directly experienced conditions, and the other is in confusing being a conceptual referent with being directly experienced. In the case of b), even when the projected concept is, itself, a paramattha dhamma such as hardness, it is still somewhat illusory in that conceptualized hardness, or hardness thought about, is not the same as directly experienced hardness. The bottom line on all this, as I see it, is that there is more than one sense of 'concept', that all senses of it have some illusory aspects to them, but concepts are not entirely illusory in that they often have a directly ex perienced phenomenon (such as hardness or heat or an itch) as *intended* referent, and even when that is not so, they often codify networks of actual relations among directly experienced phenomena, and they serve as the means for us to grasp relations, to engage in thought, and to communicate with others. 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) 35489 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 6:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Phantom Limbs give insight into Vedana/Feeling & Sensation... Hi, Howard There is no 'real' and 'unreal' dichotomy in the dhamma; there is only the distinction between what is meant by or included within conditioned dhammas / the five aggregates / paramattha dhammas / nama and rupa, etc on the one hand, and what is not on the other. To further analyse those 'things' that are not included and point to their variety and differences is to lose sight of the purpose of the distinction, in my view. Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Matt (and Herman) - ... > I think the line between "real" and "unreal" may be too finely > drawn. > If we say that hardness is "real" but a tree "unreal," then what are > unicorns > and souls? "Very unreal"?? > The word 'real' may have many alternative definitions, and more > often > it is given no definition at all, leaving people to depend on some sort > of > vague "feeling" of what 'real' means. I personally think there is not > all that > much value in the word. I think that distinctions other than the > real/unreal > dichotomy can be more useful and more clear. ... > The bottom line on all this is that the facts are not anywhere as > simple as a "real versus unreal" dichotomy, or an "existence versus > nonexistence" > dichotomy. I believe there is a middle way to the way things actually > are that > is very subtle and is not amenable to easy slogans and terminology. > > With metta, > Howard 35490 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 7:44am Subject: Setting up foundation for jhana ( 06 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, Now the vehicle for the jhana journey has to be built. The practitioner has fulfiled the necessary precepts. Other preparations for the environment have been set up. Now it is the time that the vehicle has to be built. First make a circular frame of about 2 feet. Then that frame must be fixed with bright-white coloured sheet. In that sheet, there should not be any staining or spot or any discolouration. The sheet must be smooth and free of any marking. Alternatively, frame can be covered with white paper with similar quality so that the mind may not be distracted. If it is ready, the practitioner should sit in cross-legged position on a comfortable cushion. Place the kasina frame right in front of him. It should not be too far or too close. To avoid distraction, the environment should be very quiet or fairly quiet, be free of strong smell, be free of any insects and the light should not be flactuating. If all these have been performed the practitioner is quite ready to start his jhana journey. This post is the end of the topic ''Setting up foundation for jhana''. Next series will be headed as ''Initiation Of Kasina For Jhana''. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 35491 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 11:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: visual field Dear Agrios, It is nice to see you again. op 17-08-2004 00:37 schreef agriosinski op agriosinski@y...: quote: < It is just what appears through eyes, without thinking of it.> > A: if rupa is so momentary, > can I learn the process of > "birth and death of one visual rupa" > somewhere? N: We have to consider the eye of wisdom, not the eye in conventional sense. Pictoral ideas of one unit of rupa that arises and falls away do not help at all. First we have to learn the characteristics of all kinds of rupas and namas that appear. There is to be the firm understanding that rupa is the element that does not experience anything, different from the nama element that knows, feels or thinks. After the first stage of insight there is the second stage: realizing nama and rupa as being conditioned. Understanding can realize: there is nothing, and then there is a reality because of conditions, and then it disappears. Only after that stage the arising and falling away of nama and rupa can be clearly realized. Pañña has to be developed stage by stage, we cannot hasten it or forego the first stages. Does this make sense to you? Or do you want more explanations? Nina. 35492 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 11:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] the Battle Dear Sarah, I passed the sections on to Vince. I find the sutta and Co very uplifting, encouraging, full of compassion. The Co brings the sutta nearer to us. The problems the bhikkhu has are very human. The Buddha who gave good advice did not reproach him with the words: you should not have such thoughts. This is in the same spirit as in the Co to the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta. Conditions for wholesome thoughts are shown in this sutta with kindness and compassion. There is not only teeth clenching, and this will be clearer at the end. Nina. op 16-08-2004 11:37 schreef sarah abbott op sarahprocterabbott@y...: > Nina, I'm delighted to read your series on this sutta and especially the > commentary notes. It's so often referred to. When we met Vince and Nancy > for breakfast in Bkk (remember, Azita), he kept referring to this sutta > and the teeth-clenching too. 35493 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 11:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Hi Ken, Robert, Andrew and Christine, thank you for your posts, each with your own way of giving the flavour of the discussions. op 17-08-2004 04:06 schreef kenhowardau op kenhowardau@y...:> > No great revelations, I'm afraid: it was more about me and my > tiresome theorising. In the CMA (for example) it is said that > concepts can condition certain mental phenomena by object condition > and by natural decisive support condition. I, in my wisdom, held > that this statement could not be strictly accurate(!) - concepts > are illusions: they don't really exist, so they can't condition > anything. N: Good topic. Object condition: we can check now. Anything we think of now, real or concept is an object of the citta that thinks. Therefore it is object condiiton, there is not more to it. Natural decisive support condition: climate, food, friends, these conventional realities are among the factors that condition citta to be in a certain way. It is a very wide condition. I liked what you wrote here: Thank you, Nina. 35494 From: ericlonline Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 11:17am Subject: Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Hey Ken, K> ...concepts are illusions: they don't really exist, so they can't condition anything. Maybe it is more fruitful to think of concepts as real but illusory but not as illusion per se. This way they exist (i.e. as an aggregate) and condition the illusions (which are not real) that we are under. PEACE E 35495 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 0:43pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Anapanasati Sutta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > I don't think one ever arrives at a "correct" understanding of the meaning > of the suttas; one only finds that there is more and more to be > understood. > > On your general question, however, I think that (a) finding more and more > consistency across the whole Tipitaka, and (b) noticing that over the > years that there is a better general sense of the conditioned nature of > things, would be key indicators. > > Others may express it differently. Less an idea of 'self', deeper > appreciation of the wisdom of the Buddha, less an idea of control, clearer > idea of namas and rupas: I think any of these, apparent over an extended > period of time, would indicate that one's general understanding was > progressing in approximately the right direction. Dear Jon, I find this message of yours to Herman to be a great relief to me. I was of the opinion that you might have considered it impossible to judge whether you were ever making any progress or not. The idea that you can watch for these signs over many years to see if you are on the "right path" makes a lot of sense and makes me think that we can perhaps have a sane and common measurement of progress. All that you list above seems to me like good signs which I would be in accord with. I would add that one might also develop a sense of peace, or well-being, or subtle happiness not based on conditions, as one moved towards greater unattachment and more refined states of perception. I would think that if one continues to be miserable and feel oppressed and reactive while practicing Buddhism for many years, one might not be taking a skillful approach. Best, Robert Ep. 35496 From: Robert Epstein Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 0:49pm Subject: Re: Anapanasati Sutta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bodhi2500" wrote: > Hi All > This section at the beginning of the Anapanasati sutta was > briefly discussed at cooran on the weekend> > > "Monks, this assembly is free from idle chatter, devoid of idle > chatter, and is established on pure heartwood: such is this community > of monks, such is this assembly. **The sort of assembly that is > worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy > of respect, an incomparable field of merit for the world: such is > this community of monks, such is this assembly.** > > > A section of this passage also occurs in the Mahanama sutta, in > which it is describing Noble disciples> > > "Furthermore, there is the case where you recollect the Sangha: 'The > Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples who have practiced well... who > have practiced straight-forwardly... who have practiced > methodically... who have practiced masterfully -- in other words, the > four types [of noble disciples] when taken as pairs, the eight when > taken as individual types -- **they are the Sangha of the Blessed > One's disciples: worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of > offerings, worthy of respect, the incomparable field of merit for the > world.'** > > Would it be right that all the monks at the anapanasati sutta > assembly were at least sotapannas? > > > Steve Hi Steve, to shift to a slightly different aspect of this passage: Lauding those who "have practiced methodically" certainly suggests that the Buddha advocated "formal practice," something that has been of controversy here. I am interested to hear how Jon, Nina, Sarah or others might interpret this statement in light of the sense that many have expressed against such "practicing methodically." I don't think that the definition Jon and Sukin have communicated to me, that practice is the "occurrence of satipatthana" rather than an actual "practicing" of meditation or other activity, can hold up to the statement that those who have "practiced methodically" are to be so lauded as one category of Noble Disciples. I don't see how "methodical" can be interpreted any other way than as something which one has concentrated on and purposely engaged with as a skillful action. Best, Robert Ep. 35497 From: agriosinski Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 1:06pm Subject: [dsg] Re: visual field --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote:= [...] >Understanding > can realize: there is nothing, and then there is a reality because of > conditions, and then it disappears. Only after that stage the arising and= > falling away of nama and rupa can be clearly realized. Pañña has to be > developed stage by stage, we cannot hasten it or forego the first stages.= > Does this make sense to you? Or do you want more explanations? > Nina. Hi Nina, Yes it does make sense, but only intellectual. Just one more memory for sanna to chew on. Seems, rupa is there apart of observing process as a paramata dhamma. But from practice - nothing is there if observer is out of the picture. It is quite easy to understand rupa as it suppose to be. But there is nothing like this learnt rupa around. So I had this idea of learning EVERYTHING about rupa, and maybe one sitting will realize HEY? Isn't this hardness/softness ? Bad idea? metta, Agrios 35498 From: nori Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 3:18pm Subject: What is real (reply to Sarah, Howard, MattR) Hi Howard, Sarah, MattR, Sorry to bring this topic up again, but I given it more thought. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: >> From my personal inspection, it has become clear to me that my mind extracts relational patterns among elements of direct experience and molds them into mental constructs that I view as "things" such as trees, tables, rolls of bathroom tissue, and star systems, and I then invest these constructs with essence - with "true existence". And because humans have similar mentalities which operate similarly on similar experiences, and because we can communicate with each other (via concepts), there is developed a "concensus reality" so that we seem to live in "the same world". But it is clear to me that this is a mentally constructed world, and the "reality" that underlies it consists of interrelated streams of relationally patterned experiential streams. --- > Nori: This is consensus reality; I find it is as close to reality as you > can come. .... Sarah: See Matt's post . Thx for the help, Matt. --- MattR: >>There are countless millions of concepts created by nama & rupa realities. None are real; the brain, the billions of people, Howard or you. Consensus reality is a concept created by the reality of thinking, how close is that? --- First I must agree with one thing. The only things that are real (in the sense of it certainly existing) are our experiences. There is no debating that. The idea that there is enduring matter existing "outside of us" is an assumption. I will grant that. However to act in this existence we must have some kind of view or "concept" of reality of which we act by, and this view, I think, will ultimately have to be a guess since I see no way there can be any certainty in this (If you guys do see some method then I would be happy to hear it). And so, in guessing (that is making an assumption) as to what is the correct view, we take all evidence (i.e. observations and experience) into consideration and form what is what we believe to be correct view ... a concept. Now I would like to distinguish the idea of concepts and imagination. Now I agree, all concepts and imagination are not reality. However this does not mean that all concepts and imagination do not reflect certain aspects of reality. And I also believe that just because concepts and imagination are not reality, does not give anyone any foundation to dismiss the true independent existence (in some related manner) of what is experienced. I also understand the idea of Nagasena's chariot. "Chariot" is a concept, yes, OK. However, this still does not dismiss the independent existence of this conglomeration of matter. We look in the mirror and see ourselves. We see others humans like ourselves dissected, we see brain, nervous system, bone, muscle, blood. We can analyse these other humans, even when they are alive and watch how they operate, and relate it to their experiences and sensations as they speak of them. We see others die. We see others born. We see other species, dissected. We analyse DNA, etc. From all the evidence of these things we observe, we form a view; a concept of reality. again, just because concepts and imagination are not reality, does not give anyone any foundation to dismiss the true independent existence (in some related manner) of what is experienced. There is the idea of Occam's Razor. "The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon." So now taking this into consideration, there is already a model (that is - a concept, a guess) which works without introducing anything new. And that is the 'material world' of independently existing forms of matter; and consciousness, mind, perception, sensations, experience, etc. existing as a consequence of this material formation. Now Howards idea: "mind extracts relational patterns among elements of direct experience and molds them into mental constructs that I view as "things" such as trees, tables, rolls of bathroom tissue, and star systems, and I then invest these constructs with essence - with "true existence". And because humans have similar mentalities which operate similarly on similar experiences, and because we can communicate with each other (via concepts), there is developed a "concensus reality" so that we seem to live in "the same world". But it is clear to me that this is a mentally constructed world, and the "reality" that underlies it consists of interrelated streams of relationally patterned experiential streams." ... requires the introduction of all these new ideas and concepts which have not been observed. There is already a working model out of what is observed. Howard mentioned that a dream seems real until you wake up; But this is not true. There is no consistency in a dream. That is, the consistency of results which are in accord with a model, which was built from analysis and observation. --- Secondly, I do not see any sort of knowledge to be gained from the 'Abhidammic' analysis of 'rupas' and breaking them up into different categories of sensations. What is to be gained, what is the profit in that ? peace and metta, nori 35499 From: nori Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 3:27pm Subject: Re: What is real (reply to Sarah, Howard, MattR) ... a minor correction on last post: Howard mentioned that a dream seems real until you wake up; But this is not true. There is no consistency in a dream. That is, there is no consistency of results from 'tests', which are in accord with a model, which was built from analysis and observation... that is, experience. 35500 From: Herman Hofman Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 4:04pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Phantom Limbs / Structure Hi Howard, Some more comments below: ============== > What is real is *experience", which when compared to what follows > becomes "that experience", which when dissected becomes "that visual > experience" and with further post-mortem examination it becomes "that > visual object" "that seeing" "in that context". And then later on you > can preface all those "that"s with "my". -------------------------------------------- Howard: That's true. I especially like "What is real is experience" -- not a post-mortem of experience. (But that doesn't imply that an experience is unitary or monolithic. If it were, there would be no basis for subsequent structural analysis or for distinguishing experiences from each other.) ------------------------------------------- Agreed. Structure is a great word in the context of experience. And I would say there are at least two kinds of structure that obtain. One is discovered, the other is defined. A one year old child can play a great game of peek-a-boo and discover some of the structures of reality, say, the difference between visual object and seeing. Visual objects disappear, while seeing remains. Most human beings have access to the mental *EQUAL* and *NOT* operation, so for those who have it, *EQUAL* and *NOT* are part of the structure of experience. And these structural operations, which lie at the foundation of the act of comparison, operate whether one is aware of it or not. Memory, whether discovered or not, whether acknowledged or not, is of course a defining structure of human existence. The following is highly speculative, but I suspect that a flatworm, no matter how old, could never discover this structure, even while playing pick-a-boo :-). With regards to defined structures, the number of defined structures that can be imposed on experience is endless. They come into play after cognition, they do not create or shape cognition. And they are socially/culturally reproduced. I would equate them with papanca. As an example, take the structures imposed on experience as per the Dhamma-sangani. These are defined structures according to plane of existence, ethical nature, motivation /root causes. All healthy human beings, from all parts of the globe, from all cultural backgrounds, are in a position to discover the common structures of mind-generated experience. What one imposes on experience as arbitrary definition can be the cause of much unnecessary suffering, and certainly endless proliferation. Kind Regards Herman 35501 From: Herman Hofman Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 4:42pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Experiencing Pain Hi Christine, I very much like the way you narrate, though I am sorry you burnt yourself. With regards to degrees of pain, I truly haven't got a clue what determines that, but it would be very interesting to find out. ================== C > I also wonder about why we cry, and why we don't. There seems to be aspects of 'communication' involved in crying - I live alone, so who was to know or care (in that moment) that I had burned myself ... =================== I thought your comment re crying was very perceptive. I've got a little theory that, like crying, anger can also be a form of communication, and loses its function in solitude. I think that displays of emotion (there is a huge range of different emotions that healthy humans can display and recognize) are aimed at exercising a level of control in a group situation. Thanks and Regards Herman 35502 From: Andrew Levin Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 5:19pm Subject: Re: Bagels, Forest & Happy Walks --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connieparker wrote: > Dear AndrewL, > > If I may, the "distinct difference between talking a walk in the fresh air > on one's own time and walking having to be at a certain place for other > people under threat" is in the thinking. The basic steps involved in > walking are the same. And the slaving. Under one condition I'm free to go where I like, under the other I'm not, and thus produces a change, as you said, in thinking, in temperment, etc. Sure one can be a mindful slave but the point is. > If you're walking, that's your practice at that > time. Everything we do, I think, is our 'practice'... whether we do it > 'mindlessly', angrily, with great pleasure or whatever. No. Mindfulness is the practise. This is the difference between starting at point X saying "mindful, mindful," and having no constraints placed upon one but one's own mental and physical limitations and having go to through a forced labor camp while trying to remain as mindful as possible. Take today for instance. I arrived at my hospital and began walking. Stopped for a while, trying to get my roots back down and stand on my feet. People noticed. I eventually get back to the building I attend and instead of keeping on my feet and quiet I allowed myself to get involved with the staff and answering the questions they had and even going to groups. No occasion for non-remorse to be allowed, admittedly more due to my own folly than anything, but if I were free, I might very well be able to walk from my house down to the state road and back without any sort of rude interruption. It's a clear path versus a dusty path, if that's a better analogy than the former. Right now I'm taking the "prisoner who will go along with it until he gets his act together" role and will see what dharma I can't practise in the midst of all this chaos, but so far it isn't working out too well. It doesn't matter > whether we eat bagels and are allowed to leave at the end of the day or > eat jail food, we're all 'prisoners'. There is never a better time, place > or activity to 'practice' than whatever is going on right now, but we can > learn to have a better understanding of what now involves... nothing but > dhammas, even the stories of me and mine, them and freedoms. You do practise for your own freedom, right? Isn't that what this path's all about, anyway, freedom? Do you like being a 'prisoner'? Were you always one? I wasn't. If I had the strength and health I'd take back control of my life, hell, even my nurse practitioner agrees with me that that's fine to do once I can assume the role. You're only a prisoner inasmuch as you listen to the guards and don't hatch an escape plan to shore. Isn't freedom nicer? Yees, it is. > > No need to hope our efforts will bear fruit, because it's just the nature > of things that they will, but there may be a need to know what our > 'efforts' really are. How much effort, for instance, (even if it seems > the easiest thing in the world,) do we put into our thoughts of being > forced to do this or that 'against our will' or thinking some other > reality would be better than the one we have right now? The 'system' can > not prevent you from 'practicing dhamma'. What else can we do when that's > all there is? True, there are still only nama and rupa, but doesn't the Buddha advice one to go to the root of a tree, or a secluded place to begin one's practise? Isn't that for some degree of non-distraction, intentionally looking for more suitable conditions to practise? This is what can be acheived on one's own without interference from outside entities. > Awareness will arise when it arises and there is no picking > or choosing what it will be aware of. Now color, now smell, now > thinking. Now something "I like" or "I hate" or "I don't notice", but > really "I" am just in the way. It is not 'my' smelling or 'my' hearing, > it just is, and then it isn't anymore. Heard someone say there's just > that much difference between now here and nowhere. So what is needed, nonconceptual awareness, or knowledge and vision, or is it simply mindfulness? Of the six sense bases we can become aware of things when awareness arises but of certain nama and rupa we have to exert ourselves or put forth effort and intention to be aware, no? At least on the breath, certainly somewhat for feelings, the elements, what have you. Even feelings triggered by the six sense bases. Which I am still confused about. But I will save that for my reply to Sarah's post. > > I think the hard thing is to forget about everything we think we know and > just try to start over learning what Buddha really said/meant. If we > really knew, we wouldn't be struggling. We have some idea of what the > path should be and where it leads, but we don't even know where we are > right now. Right. For me it's more like, trying to practise such and such a teaching and develop an understanding of that teaching and how the teachings interlock and cover the same phenomenon and develop awareness of all nama and rupa in accordance with that teaching, or at least go on with the assumption that some awareness will present itself.. Bye Connie, AL 35503 From: Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 2:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Experiencing Pain Hi, Herman (and Christine) - In a message dated 8/17/04 7:46:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofman@t... writes: > I thought your comment re crying was very perceptive. I've got a little > theory that, like crying, anger can also be a form of communication, and > loses its function in solitude. I think that displays of emotion (there > is a huge range of different emotions that healthy humans can display > and recognize) are aimed at exercising a level of control in a group > situation. > ======================= Yes, I agree about anger. Interesting, isn't it, that both sorrow and anger are aversive? Does this social aspect apply as much to positive feelings and emotions? It does apply to them, for there is amusement leading to laughter, and this is greater in a social context, but aversive reactions seem to be even more a social matter. 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) 35504 From: Andrew Levin Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 8:11pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Bagels, Forests & Happy Walks (was: Repulsiveness of the body meditati --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Lots more to discuss. Thank you. Again, no special order here - pls pick > up what's of use or anything to be discussed further. Just going to try to go through it point by point. > > --- Andrew Levin wrote: > > this I'm going to go meditate. I don't know what else to do. This > > post may be kind of weak, I'm not really doing very well right now. > ? > On the contrary, I thought your comments and questions were very strong > and astute and it seemed to me that you were doing fine. You strike me as > a very sane and intelligent young man with a very sincere and rare deep > interest in the Buddha's teachings . Unfortunately, you've been misguided, > but then so have we all. I hope we can help you get on the 'right track' > and gradually show others such as 'the authorities' that you can pass > their conventional tests too. I'm ecstatic to be able to be here and have access to such wonderful minds and to be able to develop a solid understanding of the teachings I hope to put into practise, but just as the Buddha said with virtue, it's through knowing one a long time that his virtue/understanding/sanity/intelligence is known, not for a short time. > > "I'm going to meditate. I don't know what else to do." > ========================================= > That's fine. In your free time, if you wish to sit and meditate, go ahead. > If you'd like to chat with your family or friends, go ahead. If you'd like > to watch some Olypic highlights on TV, go ahead. If you'd like to write to > us here anytime, especially go ahead!! Awareness always starts now and now > and now ? not by any special wishing or forcing, but by really > understanding what it is and what it is aware of. No- no, Awareness in my experience can either be cultivated or can appear spontaneously. I have cultivated it through breath meditation in the past to apply to mental states and even be able to be aware of my own awareness, and there have been occasions where awareness of everything around me, that is, reality through the six sense doors has just spontaneously appeared. Certainly I hope more of the latter produces itself again but developing the kind of awareness that can see through mental states like fear and depression is fun if I have the patience to sit and do it at any given time. Anyhow, I'm not really able to make awareness come through reflection or understanding, so if you could take me through the stages of understanding that would be cool. :) > > "This 'person', in conventional terms, is heedless. There is no knowledge > of namas and rupas." > ====================================== > Good observations. It's an indication of growing wisdom when 'one' begins > to realise how much ignorance and heedlessness there is. You ask about the > conditions that will allow 'clear knowledge and mindfulness of namas and > rupas to arise?'. These questions for a start! > > Andrew, I'd also be very happy to work through (very slowly) either Nina's > Abhid in D.Life (on line) or the Abhidammattha Sangaha (even more slowly) > with you. At least one translation of the latter is on line too, though > B.Bodhi's translation is the easiest to follow, I find, partly because he > gives all the Pali and many useful additional notes. I'm thinking this will give me knowledge of what the various nama and rupa (nama especially thought) are so I can identify them when they come up, correct, no? Sitting meditation for me, if it's going right, is the method to increase mindfulenss of mental qualities, even to the degree that I can see consciousness itself, whereas when heedless, I can't see consciousness for anything, though I could still identify 'akusala' from 'kusala.' So it would be especially good if the Abhidharma can teach other methods for increased knowledge, awareness, or mindfulness of nama. > Posture > ======= > You say it can be known and that it is 'a thorough knowledge of the > position of the body'. In the texts, 'body' and 'posture' are concepts > representing complex combinations of elements. We read in suttas about > these elements and in the commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta, it clearly > explains that while walking and so on, there are merely rupas experienced > through the body sense and so on. I've just mislaid my copy of the > Satipatthana Sutta and commentaries, but if you look under this title in > U.P., you'll find lots of extracts in support of this point;-). Doesn't the (Maha- and) Satipatthana sutta state that one of the four foundations of mindfulness is mindfulness of posture, and that the reflection on the material elements is a further reflection of the body in the body section? And didn't buddha say 'Whoever practises these four foundations of mindfulness for [X time period] can expect one of two results: gnosis in the here & now, or if some trace of affliction remains, non-return?' So don't we need each foundation, and its respective meditations, or as much of it as we can practise? > > Test it out ? how is posture known at this very moment? To me posture is able to be known deeply when I establish myself in the foundations of mindfulness outside on these walks I take, I can get a deep and thorough knowledge of my walking going, instead of just a superficial knowledge, as Venerable Silananda says most people's knowledge of their posture is. I usually don't take it back home with me to be aware of my posture when I'm sitting, but sometimes I will know deeply that I'm sitting while I'm on the subway or something. It's a pretty easy task, in fact, just knowing the body as it is deported. Simple knowing, then. Intention to gain knowledge and the arising of knowledge. > > Like you said very well, we have to understand conventional and absolute > realities ? only by understanding the latter, do we understand the former. I'd like to develop an understanding of the latter, yes, but I still believe one can practise in accordance with the suttas with a conventional understanding and attain freedom. That is, mindfulness of breathing, clear comprehension, posture, [repulsiveness of the body meditation], and reflection on the four elements. These can be more or less done concurrently, IMO, and probably makes for a deep and thorough understanding. I'm still interested in learning the absolute realities though, and how understanding is supposed to unfold. I did check out this [ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/10949 ] post on the modes of absolute realities involved in something like eating, but this seems to fall under the reflection of the four elements, nothing outside the scope of the directions given in the Maha-Satipatthana sutta itself. > > Bodily feelings > ============== > As you say, there are bodily and mental feelings. Both are namas however > and both are mental factors (cetasikas), so both accompany cittas and > experience various objects. In the case of the former, they accompany > bodily consciousness, the cittas which experience rupas through the > body-sense. These accompanying feelings are pleasant or unpleasant. The > bodily consciousness citta and accompanying cetasikas, including this > bodily feeling, experience the rupas dependent on a 'base' in any part of > the body. After this experience, there may be pleasant, unpleasant or > neutral feelings accompanying other cittas in the sense door or mind door > processes. I'm very confused as to how a feeling should be known. Does everything that arises dependent on contact create feeling, and thus should we be mindful of the feeling arising from contact at every sense door? Not that this is impossible, far from it, i just want to get a clear idea of the task at hand. And please help lessen my ignorance, where are the citas located which experience bodily feeling? To me it seems like body feeling should be a nama, just as I should be identifying 'earth' and 'fire' elements when the wind hits my skin, I should be identifying 'pleasant' for the feeling. It seems very rupa-ish to me. But I am not in the know, so please inform me. > If awareness is aware, it can only ever be aware of one reality > at a time. As you suggest, there cannot be awareness of one of 'the four > elements' and bodily consciousness or feeling at the same time. > > Also as you say, when you touch your shirt, only an element is > experienced. The pleasant feeling (and any other nama) can only be known > or experienced by mind door cittas. > > Andrew, we could get into a lot of detail here and you're very quick on > the uptake, but I think it's most important to keep looking at the big > picture and to stress that it's not a matter of 'should identify'- ing or > 'should have awareness'. Otherwise, 'self' is adding more pressure again > or an idea of control of awareness is sneaking back in. If we do work > through one of those texts (i.e you read, post extracts, comments and > questions and I or others chip in from time to time;-)), I think we should > keep it separate from this 'big picture' thread. > > Anyway, I love your questions on feelings, consciousness and elements. > Please let me know if there are more. (Also check feelings and sensations > in U.P.) > > Seeing > =============== > You said '"I do not know that there is consciousness that is seeing. I > know, "I see". Is this due to lack of awareness?" Yes. Howard was > discussing this point too. Most the day there is ignorance, just not > knowing or having any idea about any realities at all. As awareness and > understanding grow, it'll be very clear that there is no 'I' that sees. > Sometimes it might seem that there is more ignorance than before, as you > express, but this is just because there is more growing understanding of > the extent of this ignorance which we had no idea about before. > 'Rectifying the situation' involves being aware of all and any realities > ? namas and rupas ? without any selection. When you say 'I will do what I > can', again an idea of self may be slipping in;-). I'm lost here. How does it come to be that understanding and awareness grow? I'm usually pretty slow with understanding and without awareness most of the time. > > Labelling again > ===================== > I know you've read very widely, Andrew, and you've read about labelling > 'to muster up some attentiveness' and then 'drop the labeling in favor of > pure awareness'. It's OK if you like to do this, but you won't read about > it in the texts themselves because it's not satipatthana and it's > motivated by a desire to catch realities which have fallen away. It's like > slow motion walking or other similar practices. It won't help imho. It helps get me on my feet, what other method of increasing awareness is there? Is there any, or do we just have to increase understanding and wait for awareness to come as it may? > Kurus and New Yorkers ? not quite finished > ====================================== > You mentioned that the'deep doctrine' in the suttas that the Kurus could > not only 'apprciate the profound instruction' but become enlightened by > 'are [not] particularly difficult'. If they are not so difficult and just > as easily appreciated by modern New Yorkers, why are not more of us > enlightened now when we read them? Same as why there aren't so many arahants now compared to an assembly that consisted of bhikkus who had all reached at least the first stage of enlightenment. There was a Buddha, a teacher. This is one major factor. They may have had more earnest efforts in arising mindfulness, but then again, don't some of us earnestly try, at least at times? So who knows? > In any case, this is probably moot because we both agree that we can hear > and consider the teachings and develop wisdom wherever we are and whatever > our current lifestyle;-). Yes, I would say so. > > Specific Types of Consciousness > ======================= > I'm delighted that you'd like to look in detail at different kinds of > cittas and develop more understanding of these rather than 'remember, > remembering'. Again, we have to go beyond a kind of 'working it out' or > 'identifying' 'like a science' and really understand what is conditioned > already. > > You agree that samatha and vipassana 'is the only way to increase > awareness and knowledge of my mental states'. Right effort always bears > fruit. I'm sure you can see the benefit already from relinquishing some > ideas of self and control. Alright. So that's the only way to do it. Can we say that with certainty? > Hindrances > =========== > In the commentaries we read about how ignorance is the only major obstacle > to the arising of wisdom. Why? Because any reality ? even those > conditioned by 'the system', can be known when they arise. I know that it > takes a lot of confidence in the teachings before this is apparent, but I > think your reflections here are a testament to it being true. So hearing, > considering, reflecting wisely are conditions for such awareness and > wisdom to arise at any 'unlikely' time. I don't believe this is a > side-issue but a central part of the teachings. I don't see it. I've not had much panna. But then again, reflecting on what? The only ways I discern wisdom can be arisen is through vipassana meditation and to a lesser extent, perhaps satipatthana practise. > > "No discord between Us" > ==================== > Exactly ? 'the truths are applicable to all'. So lets drop the Kurus vs > New Yorkers and 'those controlled by the system' vs 'those Walking the > Earth';-) > OK for now. > Generosity > ==================== > You ask how 'we cultivate, and make the wholesome arise'. I think a good > start is to understand more about different kinds of generosity that can > arise in a day. Helping others -- whether fellow patients or family > members, listening or inquiring about someone's health or work, sharing > dhamma or appreciating others' sharing, reflecting on one's own or others > generosity and so on. You asked whether we 'just do it'. I think that by > understanding its value, slowly it can become one's nature to think more > of others and less of oneself. As you've been through such a traumatic > phase in your life, it might be helpful each day to set yourself a few > very simple baby step goals to show kindness to others. I think you'll > find it's like a refreshing tonic but I'm not setting rules!! First I really have to get mys^H-- aggregates in better shape. When I'm 'hiding out,' that is, saying 'in,out' of my breaths with no deep knowledge of the breathing whatsoever, in my breath oblivious to everything around me, I'm no good to anyone, and I have to develop an attitude of kindness towards myself to express it to others as such and as harmlessness. And it has to be renewed consistently, which is something that is very difficult for me to do in my current circumstances, as I don't get to leave the house very often and am do not easily develop good will towards myself or others. Bringing in something from another post, I read that generosity is one of the ten perfections. Now Ayya Khema suggests that we need to develop the perfections life after life until we can make a breakthrough to the seeing noble truths. Personally, I don't think they're all necessary, I think they can be seen in this very life with just a few, if even that many, of the perfections. And generosity is not one of the perfections I have in this lifetime, though I will recognize that it's a latent quality obscured by some greed down there somewhere. > Mode of attention > =============== > When we study more about different mental states, you'll learn more about > the universal mental states which arise with every citta. One of these is > vedana (feeling) discussed. Another is manasikara (attention). When it > arises with wholesome cittas, it is yoniso manasikara or wise attention. > Actually, no need to wait for any formal study, go ahead and look at > Nina's book 'Cetasikas' on line. Sarah I don't have the energy or enthusiasm I would need to read that right now, perhaps in the morning or tomorrow afternoon. I'm just not feeling well. > > I'm not keen on the 'bare attention' and discerning whether actions are > good or bad and then stopping. It's OK conventionally speaking ? we all > understand that it's better to stop before saying or doing something > harmful. But again, we need to look at that deeper level of conditioned > dhammas that are anatta. Panna comes about (in answer to another qu) by > clearly understanding dhammas intellectually in the first place as we're > doing here. Concentration is another of those universal cetasikas which > arises with every citta ? including all unwholesome ones. Is that so? I thought concentration is a pretty much willed or forced type of activity that you have to develop to keep your mind focused on one object, your subject of concentration. > > More Mischief and Idleness > ========================= I think you missed the point. Buddha has just described idleness as an evil in the laypersons' code of discipline. Perhaps just being slow to do good is the reason why. Slow to try to understand things. It's really a good vs. evil issue here, and I am on the 'evil' side of things right now through mischief and idleness. Whereever I go, I can see this. As for moving slowly, if it's to develop an understanding I will, but I feel more lost than anything. And my energy is low. I've been sleeping too much but when I wake I feel refreshed and able to handle things better, but sleep should not be the solution to my problems. I feel like a slave to this computer so often never mind being a slave to the hospital. And personally, I don't feel like I'm being consistent myself in my endeavors nor is there much good in my life as it is. I don't know how to express myself, really. Especially in the midst of other people, I lose myself easily. > Finding a Teacher > ================ > You mentioned this in another letter. Here we're all just good friends > supporting each other. Better to have good friends who help and support > than a teacher that encourages an idea of Self. On a tape I heard a good > friend saying that the greatest dana is helping others to 'overcome this > view of self'. I believe this too. Agreed. Teacher is not necessary, friends working out an understanding is better. > > ************ > Andrew, I hope you had a nice time with your sister. Where does she live? > I'm sure you can find something from the list to share with her or your > parents ? even if it's just the collection pf photos of these 'shackled' > dhamma students you're talking to;-) > Sarah, I barely got to see her, she came home only for a few hours and I only saw her as she stopped in my room in passing and said Hi. She's been living in a group home on the north shore of Long Island but now she's moving into some facility where she will stay with one or two other girls her own age. I'm not sure of the details. Next week I could show her some pictures I guess, but I still don't feel comfortable or 'at home' in DSG yet. be well, andrew levin 35505 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 9:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Dear Sarah, As to accumulations, do I understand it rightly like this: accumulations are included in pakatuupanissaya, but it is not the inverse: all pakatuupanissaya are accumulations. Thus, the sentence could be read into two different ways. Lobha in former times conditions lobha now. The latent tendency of lobha is going on all the time and conditions again lobha now. Here we speak of accumulations, accumulated lobha. Pleasant climate can condition lobha, but I would not use the word accumulations here. Although we can say: I have accumulated a liking for a mild climate. Perhaps the word accumulations could be easily misunderstood. We also speak of accumulated kamma that produces result. Lodewijk finds it a very difficult word, he stumbles over it. Nina. op 17-08-2004 07:45 schreef sarah abbott op sarahprocterabbott@y...: > Mike was asking before what she meant when she refers so often > to ‘accumulations’ and when I asked her for a Pali term, she said > pakatuupanissaya’. So accumulations includes everything ‘including > concepts and rupas’conditioning at this moment. Who knows the > accumulations of each person and how anyone will respond at any moment? 35506 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 9:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] More Cooran Hi Steve, Thank you for your report. When jhana is attained for the first time, there is one moment of jkhanacitta in a mind-door process: arising after the change of lineage (gotrabhu), then bhavanga and reviewing: paccavekkha in another mind-door process. When the meditator has become skilful, there can be countless jhanacittas succeeding one another in a mind-door process, without bhavangacittas in between, even for a whole day. Nina. op 17-08-2004 15:17 schreef seisen_au op seisen_@h...: > As for the jhana cittavithi, my understanding was that jhana cittas > arise in the javana cittas of a mind door vithi. So we have something > like: > Bhavanga>>bhavanga>>mind door adverting>>7 javana cittas in which > access and jhana cittas arise>>back to bhavanga>>then the whole thing > repeats etc etc… > Perhaps someone could correct this or add some more details. 35507 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 9:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bagels, Forest & Happy Walks Hi Sukin and Connie, I join Sukin, I like it very much. Nina. op 17-08-2004 15:13 schreef Sukinderpal Singh Narula op sukinder@k...: Just wanted to say that I really appreciate this and another > recent post (probably the last one) of yours very much. :-)) > > Please keep more of such posts coming! 35508 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 10:20pm Subject: Still more Cooran Hi all, As Andrew has said, I was the only one taking notes at the Cooran meeting. (There was no electrical connection for the tape-recorder and I couldn't help feeling partly responsible. :-) ) They are brief and incomplete but they remind me of some very inspiring conversations. Robert and Jill provided a tremendous boost to our knowledge base, but there was also a general spirit of co-operation – careful speaking and careful listening – that we can all be proud of. 1) The first note relates to the object of anapanasati: "Why is breath the most difficult object of jhana? Why does it become more elusive as concentration increases?" There were no definitive answers to this question, but other interesting facts came to light – as already reported by Robert and Steve.*** 2) "The object of stealing is in another's possession." The factors for the kamma-patha of stealing include that the object is in another's possession and that the "thief" is aware of its being so. In the case of lost property, the finder would normally know, or assume, that the property belonged to another. But, in some cases, the "owner" has abandoned his rights of ownership, resolving, "It is no longer mine: it belongs to whoever finds it." So in those circumstances, the person who keeps what he finds can be lucky: even though he suspects he is doing wrong, in fact he is not. Or at least, his akusala cetana has not been at the level of kamma- patha. 3) The next note simply reads, "Habit can be kusala or akusala." Robert was speaking at the time and I don't quite remember the substance. But it does remind me of a conversation I sometimes have with RobM. He believes that formal (conventional) meditation creates a habit and that habit will eventually develop into kusala, momentary meditation (bhavana). But isn't there an obvious flaw in that strategy? It seems to me that the habit will be one of lobha and moha (maybe even of miccha-ditthi), and all that will come of such a habit will be more of the same. 4) Carita (nature, character): is it a cetasika? Or can it be said that, even in a moment of (say) generosity (alobha) there can be an underlying greedy nature? The latter is correct: carita refers to our accumulations. Therefore, only a Buddha can directly know it. Even the great Sariputta could be mistaken as to a person's carita. 5) The soup. In one or two suttas and in the Milinda-something (The Questions of King Milinda), there are references to the `impossibility' of separating sweet from sour in the taste of soup. However, the point being made is not the impossibility of knowing cetasikas one at a time: the point is that only a Buddha knows (and teaches) how such a seemingly impossible feat can be achieved. (Again, this reminded me of on-going conversations with RobM who favours the interpretation that citta and its cetasikas can only be known collectively.) 6.) "Wrong view can be known by panna." This is a tough one because you would think a person who has wrong view in one moment would be extremely unlikely to have panna in the next. But there are degrees of wrong view. 6a.) The worst kind of wrong view is not, as we might imagine, belief in self: rather, it is the belief that there is no benefit and no detriment from good and bad actions. 7.) "Lobha likes pleasant feeling." That was how Robert summed up a very interesting point he was making. We all agreed enthusiastically and I was confident of being able to recount the whole conversation in detail. Those four words would be more than enough to jog my memory . . . 8.) "The wheel has been turning for so long: It takes courage to dissolve it." There was quite a lot of discussion on this. We have accumulated our defilements over countless lifetimes – building the wheel of samsara. Therefore, dismantling, or getting off, that wheel is an enormous task – one that we are not entirely willing to undertake. 9.) No Cooran meeting would be complete without this next question: "Can a citta that takes the concept of oneself as object possibly be kusala?" The answer was `no; although there can be instances that come very close.' In those instances, self is taken as an example: e.g., "Just as I want to be happy, so too do others." 10.) "Faith (saddha) leads to other sobhana cetasikas." Once again, this note refers to a conversation that is already foggy in my memory. But for what it's worth, I remember it was a very inspiring conversation. Perhaps some other, younger, participants can remind me of the details. :-) Kind regards, Ken H *** STOP PRESS: I notice Nina has kindly corrected some of Steve's explanation of jhana-citta-vithi, which Steve, admittedly, was unsure of at the time. 35509 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 11:04pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Anapanasati Hi Nina, Sorry for the delay in responding. My free time for the computer has been reduced by about 3 hours, so I have difficulty not only finding time to respond, but also to read and catch up with the postings. You asked: > Nina: Would you share the > discussion if you have time? I like to hear what Num said and regret it that > he does not post as in former times. Always worthwhile what he said, Num was most of the time trying to make sure that his guests were comfortable. He hardly made any comment except for bringing out one sutta quote which he said he liked very much, but I can't remember which sutta that was. But then again I do have a problem paying attention to what goes on and recalling anything afterwards. :-( Anyway, one new face showed up this time. This is an elderly man (can't recall his name) who has a history going back to Acharn Naep (sp?). He has been listening to K. Sujin for many years but still feels troubled by what he sees as a conflict between his job (business consultant) and dhamma practice. He felt that the world of business demanded that one becomes opportunistic etc. and that one had to get away from it if one wanted to sincerely study dhamma. We all expressed our views and I think in the end he had a better understanding of what it means by that sati and panna can arise irrespective of time, place and situation. We talked a little about silabattaparamasa and Robert and I wondered what in the most subtle form this was. K. Sujin said that as long as anything is done with the idea of `self' with regard to developing understanding, then it was a form of `wrong practice'. We also talked about other practices and how if we had not met K. Sujin, we would still think that those were correct. Robert and I talked about our own experience with Acharn Naep's teachings and how indiscernible the wrong view was. This then lead me to wonder about the role of `merit'. I was under the impression that doing merit such as dana had quite a major influence over whether one will find the `good friend' in any particular life. K. Sujin said that it had all to do with accumulations. I struggled awhile with this conclusion since I was thinking about people with apparently good accumulations, but were not fortunate enough to find the right teacher. But then I thought about how panna might be so conditioned to detect and discriminate the right from the wrong, having considered many aspects of the teachings, that it would have a better chance at picking out the good from the mass of different interpretations. If daily life has been the field upon which one has considered and reflected wisely, wouldn't this give us a better chance? Besides, isn't Right View a kusala kammapattha of a fairly high degree and wouldn't this bring about vipaka in the form words, visual and/or sound connected with dhamma? And of course, ultimately it is accumulated panna which will then have to make the interpretation. Someone brought up the topic of monks living in places where it was difficult to strictly follow the rules, such as having to wear a jacket for protection against the cold. I insisted that they should consider living in other places, like Thailand, where they won't have to bend any of the rules and where they would easily obtain alms. K. Sujin and Robert agreed with this. It was inspiring to see Robert's two children having a keen interest in Buddhism and Alex asked quite a few good basic questions! This is all I can recall for now Nina. If I remember anything else worth mentioning, I will write some more. :-) Metta, Sukin. 35510 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 11:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: visual field Hi Agrios, I am just now off for a trip, and I answer when I am back. I like to take good care of your post, Nina. op 17-08-2004 22:06 schreef agriosinski op agriosinski@y...: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote:= > Yes it does make sense, but only intellectual. > Just one more memory for sanna to chew on. 35511 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Aug 18, 2004 2:11am Subject: Re: Still more Cooran Hello KenH, (Steve) all, HG -we've got to improve the recording system! I have a note that says: "RobK --> two pigs --> Maha..pig and culla..pig --> Jataka" It refers to a Jataka Tale that Rob told us, and I've found Jataka No. 388 Tu.n.dila-Jaataka which ends with: "In those days the king was Ananda, Cullatu.n.dila was the Brother who fears death, the multitude was the Congregation, Mahaatu.n.dila myself." But darned if I can remember the point Rob was making - enthralling as it was at the time. I know I feel disappointed that the wonderful Ananda wasn't a pig, too. :-) Was this the discussion about animals talking, I wonder? I also recall Steve and I digging out the quotes from the Visuddhimagga to see if (yet again) Metta could be radiated to self, feeling triumphant (maybe that was only me?) when we found (p. 322) "First of all it should be developed only towards oneself, doing it repeatedly thus: 'May I be happy and free from suffering' or 'May I keep myself free from enmity, affliction and anxiety and live happily.' --> --> only to be told by RobK to "Read on!" and came to: If that is so, does it not conflict with what is said in the texts? <> It does not conflict. Why not? Because that refers to absorption. But this [initial development towards oneself] refers to [making oneself] an example. For even if he developed lovingkindness for a hundred or a thousand years in this way, 'I am happy' and so on, absorption would never arise. But if he develops it in this way 'I am happy. Just as I want to be happy and dread pain, as I want to live and not to die, so do other beings, too', making himself the example, then desire for other beings' welfare and happiness arises in him." And the only other note I took on that first morning was of Jill saying "Nobody ever says 'Now I've got wrong view!" metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 35512 From: seisen_au Date: Wed Aug 18, 2004 2:14am Subject: Re: More Cooran Hi Nina, Thanks for the clarification. Nina wrote: > Hi Steve, When the meditator has become skilful, there can be countless > jhanacittas succeeding one another in a mind-door process, without > bhavangacittas in between, even for a whole day. > Nina. In the Visuddhimagga (IV78) it states: 'for there are seven instances in which the normal extent [of the cognitive series] does not apply.' 'bhavanga jhana in the fine-material and immaterial kinds of becoming' 'there is no measure of the [number of consciousnesses in the] life- continuum [bhavanga] in the fine-material and immaterial [kinds of becoming].' Does that mean for a being born in the kamaloka and skilled in jhana, that the continued series of jhana cittas are called bhavanga jhana cittas? Thanks Steve. 35513 From: Antony Woods Date: Wed Aug 18, 2004 3:28am Subject: Imponderables which alone give meaning to our existence M.O'C Walshe (translator of the Long Discourses of the Buddha) wrote: "Schumacher showed how modern man's religious sense has increasingly atrophied under the influence of thinking like that of Descartes (1596-1650), a brilliant mathematician who sought to reduce the whole of philosophy to the consideration of what can be weighed and measured - thus eliminating at a stroke all those imponderables which alone give meaning to our existence." (p25 "Buddhism and Christianity: A positive approach", Wheel 275/276, Buddhist Publication Society, PO Box 61, Kandy, Sri Lanka) What are some of these imponderables? I think that karma is one. No mathematical modelling will calculate the benefit of donating money to Buddhist charities or practising precepts and mental development. Thanks / Antony. 35514 From: agriosinski Date: Wed Aug 18, 2004 5:16am Subject: [dsg] Re: visual field --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Hi Agrios, > I am just now off for a trip, and I answer when I am back. I like to take > good care of your post, > Nina. Thank you Nina, I'll be waiting for your return. I am reading Sabbasava Sutta and rethinking all this hunt for rupas one more time. You have a nice and safe trip, metta, Agrios 35515 From: Andrew Levin Date: Wed Aug 18, 2004 7:50am Subject: Re: Bagels, Forest & Happy Walks --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Hi Sukin and Connie, > I join Sukin, I like it very much. > Nina. > op 17-08-2004 15:13 schreef Sukinderpal Singh Narula op sukinder@k...: > Just wanted to say that I really appreciate this and another > > recent post (probably the last one) of yours very much. :-)) > > > > Please keep more of such posts coming! Should I take this to mean you guys like the thread going between Sarah and I or is it the counters to my position you like? :P 35516 From: ericlonline Date: Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:42am Subject: Are dreams real enough? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nori" wrote: > ... a minor correction on last post: > > Howard mentioned that a dream seems real until you wake up; But this > is not true. There is no consistency in a dream. That is, there is no > consistency of results from 'tests', which are in accord with a > model, which was built from analysis and observation... that is, > experience. Ever hear of dream yoga? The Tibetans have a long history of 'practice' within the framework of the dreamstate. Imagine that practicing 24 hours a day!! PEACE E 35517 From: ericlonline Date: Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:54am Subject: Re: Still more Cooran --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: 1) The first note relates to the object of anapanasati: "Why is breath the most difficult object of jhana? Why does it become more elusive as concentration increases?" Because we only know 2 feelings, positive and negative. The breath is pretty much neutral. So people lose interest in it quickly. It becomes more elusive as concentration increases because it calms down and becomes smoother. Also, anything looked at expands. So it takes awhile to discern more subtle aspects as the gross features begin to disappear from view. Plus there are always the hindrances to contend with. PEACE E 35518 From: jwromeijn Date: Wed Aug 18, 2004 9:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Comments on 'Introduction to the Abhidhamma' --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Dear Joop, > S: I know RobM will be delighted to read your comments and will wish to > discuss further. He's out of touch in Canada for another two weeks, but > I'll make sure he sees your comments and any others on his return, so keep > posting any more! Thanks for your reactions, Sarah, I look if I have a picture. Some small corrections on my post: It's not in 'Links' but in 'Files' left on the screen where the 'Introduction to the Abhidhamma can be found. I talked about the principle "nothing happens without a cause" when I questioned if "Spontaneous birth - possible for all beings (humans experience spontaneous birth only at the beginning of a world)" is really Abhidhamma? To be more precise a quote of the Abhidhammattha Sanghaga (explanation by Bhikkhu Bodhi): "All matter is with conditions because it arises dependent on the four causes." Metta, Joop 35519 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Aug 18, 2004 9:42am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 042 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, So far, 30 of 89 cittas have been described with examples. There left 59 sobhana cittas or beautiful consciousness. Among these 59 cittas, 8 cittas are lokuttara cittas or supramundane consciousness. So there left 51 cittas as loki sobhana cittas. These 51 cittas can be grouped into 3 separate kinds of citta. They are kusala or wholesome, vipaka or resultant, and kiriya or in- operative or ineffectual cittas. So there will be 17 in each group. These 17 cittas are 8 kamavacara cittas, 5 rupavacara cittas, and 4 arupavacara cittas. These terms have been explained in the previous posts in this thread. But for the benefit of all, I will repeat them. Kama ( should be pronounced as kar-ma and should have written kaama but to avoid special character of letter simple kama is used. This means that kaa = k with special-charactered a such as ka~ma ) means related to one or all of 5 physical senses. Avacara means frequently arising. Kamavacara is made up of kama and avacara. Kama here means bhumis where 5 kama arammana prevail and are abundant. Kamavacara means frequently arising in kama bhumis that is 4 apaya bhumis or woeful planes of existence, 1 manussa bhumi or human realm, 6 deva realms altogether 11 realms. Even though it is named as kamavacara cittas, this kind of citta can also arise in other realms such as rupa brahma bhumis and arupa brahma bhumis. So it is called kamavacara that is frequently arising in kama bhumis. Rupavacara is made up of rupa and avacara. Rupa here means rupa bhumi. Arupavacara is made up of arupa and avacara. Arupa here means arupa brahma bhumis. Therefore, among 51 loki sobhana cittas, there are 8 kamavacara kusala cittas, 5 rupavacara kusala cittas, and 4 arupavacara kusala cittas. If these citta arise in dying beings, they will serve as maranasanna javana cittas and at the end of these javana cittas, there will follow bhavanga citta or cuti citta and respective being passes away. As these cittas are kusala cittas and they do have kamma producing or kamma generating effect, so called being who died will be reborn with their respective vipaka cittas as patisandhi cittas. These patisandhi cittas also function as bhavanga cittas and at the end of a life, they function as cuti cittas. They are 8 kamavacara vipaka cittas, 5 rupavacara vipaka cittas, and 4 arupavacara vipaka cittas. At any point, those who so called beings become arahats, they have already eradicated all kilesa from root and as there is no more anusaya, there only arise as in-operational cittas or in-effective cittas which are called kiriya cittas. These are javana cittas of arahats. These loki sobhana kiriya cittas are 8 mahakiriya cittas, 5 rupakiriya cittas, and 4 arupakiriya cittas. Vipaka cittas of these loki sobhana cittas are quite specific and they do not arise in other bhumi. Even The Buddha did not have rupavacara vipaka cittas and arupavacara vipaka cittas. Niyamas do not exempt The Buddha. But loki sobhana kusala cittas can arise if conditions are right. Kamavacara kusala cittas can also arise in rupa brahmas and arupa bhahmas not only in kama bhumis. Rupavacara kusala cittas can arise in human beings, devas, and rupa brahmas but not in arupa brahma because arupa brahma will not practise rupa jhana by any chance. Arupavacara kusala cittas can arise in human beings, devas, rupa brahmas and arupa brahmas. Kamavacara kiriya cittas can arise in human beings, devas, rupa brahmas, and arupa brahmas. Rupavacara kiriya cittas can arise in human beings who are arahats and also attained jhanas. They arise in rupa brahma arahats but not in arupa brahma as they are not in rupa jhanas. Arupavacara kiriya cittas can arise in human beings who are arahats and attain arupa jhanas. They also arise in arupa brahma arahats. They may arise in rupa brahma arahats who attain arupa jhanas. These are overviews on loki sobhana cittas. In the coming posts, each citta will be named and given a number so that we can easily quote on citta when we talk about cittas. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. Htoo 35520 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Aug 18, 2004 10:07am Subject: Bodhipakkhiya Dhamma ( 02 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, The vipassana practitioner or mahasatipatthana practitioner or Dhamma practitioner does have a good will. His goal is nibbana and his target is to achieve arahatta magga nana. In order to attain these higher nana, he has to practise in an appropriate way. As his target is to achieve magga nana, he will strive ardently and diligently without any withdrwal of faculties from his practice. As he is in the pipe line of proper practice that is as he has been practising vipassana from the first consciousness when he gets up from his sleep to the last consciousness when he is just going into sleep, he has no chance to do akusala. This is 'uppannanam papakanam pahanaya vayamo'. This is one of 4 sammappadhana which are part of 37 bodhipakkhiya dhammas. Upannanam means 'what has been done'. Papa means akusala or unwholesome actions. Pahanaya means 'to remove'. Vayamo means 'great effort' which will not withdraw at all. As he is on the practice of vipassana, his effort is putting on vipassana and there is no chance of re-arising of which is already- done akusala as new events in his mind. This kind of effort is sammappadhana. But sammappadhana as bodhipakkhiya dhmma arise at the time of arising of magga citta that is with its fullest power. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 35521 From: jwromeijn Date: Wed Aug 18, 2004 10:37am Subject: [dsg] Re: Anapanasati Sutta About judging --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Epstein" wrote: > Dear Jon, > I find this message of yours to Herman to be a great relief to me. > Iwas of the opinion that you might have considered it impossible to > judge whether you were ever making any progress or not. The idea that > you can watch for these signs over many years to see if you are on the > "right path" makes a lot of sense and makes me think that we can > perhaps have a sane and common measurement of progress. > All that you list above seems to me like good signs which I would be > in accord with. I would add that one might also develop a sense of > peace, or well-being, or subtle happiness not based on conditions, > as one moved towards greater unattachment and more refined states of > perception. I would think that if one continues to be miserable and > feel oppressed and reactive while practicing Buddhism for many years, > one might not be taking a skillful approach. > > Best, > Robert Ep. My contribution to this theme Sometimes I'm judging myself where I am on the spiritual path but I try to do it careful, otherwise there is the seduction of the desire to reach a higher level (as quick as possible). And there is the danger to compare myself with others. But with this care in mind I think judging can give motivation to continue. The different paths described in the Dhamma must be only skilful variations on the same. (A) The most important, but difficult for judging, seems to me the "Seven stages of purity" (B) In the Vipassana-meditations the sixteen nana's are used (Cf Matthew Flickstein's book "Swallowing the River Ganges". The first of them are: 1. Nama rupa pariccheda-nana 2. Paccaya pariggaha-nana 3. Sammasana-nana Etc. (I only have a dutch translation at my disposal) (C) The Ten Fetters (Samyojana's or Sanyojana's) See AN X.13 1. Sakkaya-ditthi is translated as personality belief; self-identity views. 2. Vicikiccha means skeptical doubt; uncertainty. 3. Silabbataparamasa means adherence to wrongful rites, rituals and ceremonies. 4. Kama-raga means sensual desire. 5. Patigha; the meaning of this term is ill-will, hatred. 6. Rupa-raga is attachment to the form realms; passion for form. 7. Arupa-raga is attachment to the formless realms. 8. Mana this means measuring" and is often translated as "conceit, arrogance, self-assertion or pride. 9. Uddhacca means restlessness. It is the confused, distracted, restless state of mind 10. Avijja means ignorance. One who has eradicated the first three Fetters is a Sotapanna, Stream Enterer. … The last stage is the Arahant, and is marked by the eradication of the last five Fetters. I'm sure that I'm not (yet) a stream enterer so only the first steps are relevant; looking at the higher fetters is only important for understanding to whole path. In this system they can not be eradicated now; but .. But when I look at 7 and 8, rupa-raga and arupa-raga I'm nearly sure I don't have that passions (to be born in that realms) Is that possible? Metta Joop 35522 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Aug 18, 2004 2:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anapanasati Sutta Dear Nina Thanks very much for this supplementary material from the commentary. I hope you and Lodewijk enjoy your few days away! Regards Jon --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Jon, > As to the monks to whom the sutta was addressed the Sutta gives already > so > many details. I read in the Co about the reason why the Buddha waited > one > month with the Invitation ceremony: > in > Savatthi, to have the Invitation ceremony, the pavarana. He waited > because > otherwise the bhikkhus would go away and travel all over Savatthi. ... > As to the different meditation subjects that were mentioned: > very interested in. ... 35523 From: Herman Hofman Date: Wed Aug 18, 2004 3:16pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Are dreams real enough? Hi Guys and Gals, My little contribution to the dream thread. ================ -----Original Message----- From: ericlonline [mailto:ericlonline@y...] Sent: Thursday, 19 August 2004 1:43 AM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Are dreams real enough? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nori" wrote: > ... a minor correction on last post: > > Howard mentioned that a dream seems real until you wake up; But this > is not true. There is no consistency in a dream. That is, there is no > consistency of results from 'tests', which are in accord with a > model, which was built from analysis and observation... that is, > experience. Ever hear of dream yoga? The Tibetans have a long history of 'practice' within the framework of the dreamstate. Imagine that practicing 24 hours a day!! ================= It seems to me that the dream content is reacted to within the dream, so it is taken for real. Within a dream there are emotional reactions to all sorts of scenarios, that, given those reactions, have been given all sorts of meanings. The evaluation of a nightmare from a waking state does not alter the reality of the anxiety that was experienced. Kind Regards Herman 35524 From: nori Date: Wed Aug 18, 2004 5:30pm Subject: Re: Imponderables which alone give meaning to our existence Hi Antony, Antony: > What are some of these imponderables? I think that karma is one. > No mathematical modelling will calculate the benefit of donating > money to Buddhist charities or practising precepts and mental > development. What is good about Buddhism is that there is no 'Faith' involved. All things can be observed in the 'here' and 'now'. To mention one aspect: If one does what he feels is right; he feels good, he observes the feelings on himself. If one does what one hates; he suffers, and this he can also observe. All of the defilements one has, he can feel and experience it upon himself. There is nothing imponderable or hidden about this, there is no mystery to it. peace and metta, nori 35525 From: Herman Hofman Date: Wed Aug 18, 2004 7:49pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Bagels, Forests & Happy Walks (was: Repulsiveness of the body meditati Hi Sarah and Andrew, Some latter-day thoughts about posture. Sarah wrote: ============== Posture ======= You say it can be known and that it is 'a thorough knowledge of the position of the body'. In the texts, 'body' and 'posture' are concepts representing complex combinations of elements. We read in suttas about these elements and in the commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta, it clearly explains that while walking and so on, there are merely rupas experienced through the body sense and so on. I've just mislaid my copy of the Satipatthana Sutta and commentaries, but if you look under this title in U.P., you'll find lots of extracts in support of this point;-). Test it out - how is posture known at this very moment? ============== Modern anatomy and physiology has discovered a sixth, unconscious sense named proprioception. It allows for the unconscious sensing of the position and location and orientation and movement of the body and its parts. Its functioning is best tested by observing a person in whom this sense no longer works. They literally fall in a heap if they are unable to see the body. Thinking about posture is conceptual. But in a healthy body, posture is known without reference to concepts, without thinking. The body is mapped onto the cortex of the brain. This explains why an amputated limb can still be sensed (phantom pain), but a brain or spine injured person cannot sense a limb that is still physically attached. Kind Regards Herman 35526 From: Robert Epstein Date: Wed Aug 18, 2004 11:06pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Anapanasati Sutta About judging --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jwromeijn" wrote: > I'm sure that I'm not (yet) a stream enterer so only the first steps > are relevant; looking at the higher fetters is only important for > understanding to whole path. In this system they can not be > eradicated now; but .. > But when I look at 7 and 8, rupa-raga and arupa-raga I'm nearly sure > I don't have that passions (to be born in that realms) Is that > possible? > > Metta > Joop I don't know, Joop. I can tell you for myself it is very easy for me to feel the attachment to being in form. I can imagine attachment to the formless realms as well, as I have experienced "lucid dreaming" in several forms many years ago, and being in the etheric body, a point of consciousness, etc., can be very exhilarating. I stopped such practices as I found them to have a depleting quality that eventually made me less mindful and more cloudy-headed, at least for me. At that time, whatever forces were involved did not seem healthy. I can imagine a healthy use of etheric travel, etc., if one were inclined to sit at the feet of a Buddha, or a similar activity. Practicing mindfulness in the etheric form while asleep might be a good use of one's time. : ) Form and formless and all the realms inbetween, all seem to me to be attractive to the ego which wants to exist in whatever way it can. Best, Robert Ep. 35527 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 0:16am Subject: [dsg] Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Dear Sarah and Nina, Thank you for helping me with this `natural decisive support' condition. I have no doubts about any of the explanations you have given or referred me to. How much I actually understand is another matter. By the way, it was interesting to look up the dictionary meanings of pakata and pakati, especially where Nyanatiloka talks about pakati- sila as being distinct from pannatti-sila. Kind regards, Ken H > "A natural decisive-support is a decisive support causal condition by its > very nature (pakati), by its own intrinsic nature irrespective of any > other kind of causal condition. it is said to be an individual decisive > support, apart, that is, from object and contiguity. Or else, a natural > decisive-support causal condition is a decisive-support causal condition > that is `ready' (pakata), where the `pa' in pakata is a prefix. It shows > that it is something, with its capacity to give rise to its own effect, > that has been produced and practised in a [mental and physical] > continuity. Therefore natural decisive-support causal conditions consist > of greed, etc, or faith, etc, that have been produced in one's own mental > continuity, or seasonal change and food, etc, that have been repeatedly > experienced." > .... 35528 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 0:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nama and Rupa as a 'gift' (was: very disturbing sutta) Dear Antony (& Matt), When I wrote last time, I had overlooked another of your posts to me. You wrote: --- Antony Woods wrote: > So although nama and rupa are dukkha the Buddha didn't deny > conditioned happiness. There are the sobhana (sp?) beautiful cetasikas > which are sankhara dukkha right? .... Right. All conditioned dhammas are dukkha. When I suggested nama and rupa could be considered as ‘gifts’ to be known right now, it was in the sense of the opportunities we have for developing wisdom in this rare human life.This is regardless of whether it is happiness or sadness, kusala or akusala or whatever citta, cetasikas or rupas are arising now. .... <...> Thx for A.Sumedho’s quote. I understand the message but the ‘loving quality in the pure joy of being’ and ‘it’s just the natural way of things’ are not how I’d put it. Certainly A.Sumedho is a fine example of someone, who by nature, always seems very cheerful, kind and compassionate. .... > Is Nibbana, the deathless, a living presence that gives us happiness and > peace of mind? .... I don’t think you’ll find any suggestion of a ‘living presence’ in the texts. I’m not quite clear what you mean. While nibbana hasn’t been experienced, it doesn’t ‘give’ us anything. When it is experienced, by object condition the cittas that experience it are supramundane path factors - the culmination of the path factors which can be developed and known at this moment. .... > Is it something we can already be grateful for as a gift or do we have > to be enlightened first? .... We can appreciate intellectually that there is a ‘way out’ but I see little value in speculating about nibbana. We can be grateful that the Buddha taught all the Truths. .... > May we receive and give the gift of Dhamma and the peace and bliss > of Nibbana! ... Indeed. One step at a time. May all your kind deeds and offerings that you told me about in detail (off-list) also bring great fruits. You asked there whether ‘recollection of one’s generosity one of the meditations taught by the Buddha’. Certainly, recollection of generosity is an object of samatha development and at these moments the mind is pure and calm. It can arise anytime. However, as with all kinds of samatha (or vipassana) development, understanding is the key. Mostly when we recollect our own generosity, it’s more likely to be with subtle attachment much of the time. Only panna can known when it is really kusala without the least attachment to ‘being generous’, ‘the gift given’, ‘the appreciation of the recipient’, the ‘expecting of acknowledgement’ and so on. Even when the cittas are pure, subtle attachment creeps in between all the time, I find. This is another reason I paused before responding as you requested with any information about any dana of my own. There’s no rule and you gave me the opportunity to anumodana (appreciate your kindness). Why not reflect on any generosity, rather than one’s own? Or even more precious is to understand the kusala cittas involved as conditioned dhammas, not self. It’s an interesting area and as I know you’ve considered a lot about dana, I’ll be glad to hear any more of your reflections. In another post on ‘dhammanupassana’ you asked for examples of concepts that can be replaced. I’d like to stress that the dhammas under this heading of dhammanupassana, including the five aggregates, are realities not concepts. I don’t think it’s so much a matter of replacing one set of concepts with another set, especially if there’s any idea that a self can do this, but of understanding the presently arising dhammas, such as the thinking you refer to, for what it is. As for ‘becoming a living embodiment of the Dhamma’, I think this may be a little dangerous. It sounds like the priority is ‘to be a certain way’, rather than ‘understanding the way it is’ already by conditions. I particularly liked Matt’s post to you (35196) and these comments of his: “When the reality of thinking arises, the concept it creates may be of the present, of the past or of the future. It does not matter what the concept is, because the concept is not real. What is real is the thinking. When wisdom arises with the cita it will know those moments of thinking for the reality they are. When it does not arise then there is just the story, which conditions attachment and aversion and more thinking.” and: “Wisdom doesn’t discriminate as to whether a thought is about a pretty girl or an ugly corps, it just knows the reality of thinking for what it is.” Antony, I’d be grateful for any of your comments and considerations on any of these points. If you kindly share them with us all here, then others can also benefit and contribute if they wish too. Matt, I’d be grateful for any more of your succinct and pertinent reminders and support! Metta, Sarah ====== 35529 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 0:28am Subject: [dsg] Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Hi Howard, Thanks for explaining your understanding of concepts. Apparently, you do not regard any kind of concept as a reality. If that is so, I apologise for misunderstanding you over the past two or three years. ------------------------ H: > I believe there are at least two senses to 'concept'. One of these is a) a kind of thought or mental construct, and the other is b) the alleged referent of the first. > ----------------------- Fair enough, although, the `alleged referent' is not necessarily a concept: there can be a concept of a paramattha dhamma. For example, I may have the concept of pain in my foot. (I see you cover that later.) ---------------------- H: > In the case of a), it is often the situation that what we think of as a thought-concept is actually not a single event, but an entire sequence of thoughts/concepts, mistakenly thought of as a single idea. In that case, the culminating idea is, itself, a single thought-concept whose referent is a collection of mental phenomena. > ---------------------- I'm not sure I follow, It would help if you could give an example. ----------------------- H: > That "collection," though well grounded in that it consists individual mental events that are interrelated, is mentally constructed, with the "collecting" being done by mental operation. There is illusion involved here, namely in thinking that there is but a single mental event or thought that is the concept. > ------------------------ Sorry, I am missing the point. A concept is always experienced in one moment -- one citta. Whether we realise that, or whether we have a concept of a concept that lasts for several moments, it is still a concept that is experienced in one moment. -------------- <. . .> H:> The bottom line on all this, as I see it, is that there is more than one sense of 'concept', that all senses of it have some illusory aspects to them, but concepts are not entirely illusory in that they often have a directly experienced phenomenon (such as hardness or heat or an itch) as *intended* referent, and even when that is not so, they often codify networks of actual relations among directly experienced phenomena, and they serve as the means for us to grasp relations, to engage in thought, and to communicate with others. > --------------- When I say concepts are illusory, I don't mean to lightly dismiss them. The Dhamma does not tell us that concepts are useless: it tells us that concepts are the products of paramattha dhammas (sanna, vitakka, vicara and so on). We need to know that dhammas are different from concepts: the former are real, the latter are illusory. Only then can we understand each arisen dhamma as being mental (as distinct from physical) or physical (as distinct from mental). From there, understanding of dhammas continues in stages until their anatta characteristic is directly known. In summary, I am sorry to have misunderstood your take on concepts for so long. But I am glad I was mistaken and you are not following the Access-to-Insight line. That is, you are not saying that concepts and dhammas are equally real (or unreal). Kind regards, Ken H 35530 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 0:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] King Milinda -5 Aggregates-Conventional Reality Hi Stephen, --- alpha16draconis wrote: > Thank you for your remarks. I want to think about my reply for a > while. Until then, I did post something about myself about a year ago > today. It is post #24290. ... Thank you for kindly reminding us and referring back to your interesting intro. Nashville, TN. I remembered that there was also some discussion on kasina and found your post #24267 as well. I hope you’ll contribute more often so that I don’t forget again;-). I’m very glad to hear that you’re studying the Abhid. Sangaha and please don’t wait too long for your replies - none of us wait til we have all the answers here. Metta and thanks again, Sarah p.s As this is a busy list, we’d be grateful if everyone would kindly make it clear whom they are addressing in posts, even if it’s ‘All’. ========================================= 35531 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 1:29am Subject: Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Hi Eric, Thanks for your help. You wrote: ----------------- > > Maybe it is more fruitful > to think of concepts as real > but illusory but not as > illusion per se. > > This way they exist (i.e. as > an aggregate) and > condition the illusions > (which are not real) > that we are under. ----------------- That's not the way I understand it. It is important to know that concepts are different from realities. The five aggregates of clinging (khandhas) are realities. Concepts are illusions, and so they are not included in the five khandhas. Being illusory, concepts do not have characteristics. Therefore, there is no use in looking to them for a direct understanding of conditionality or of anicca, dukkha and anatta. There is no point in concentrating on either the bodily activities or the thoughts arise in the course of the day. It is only the khandhas (conditioned realities (nama and rupa)) that form the four foundations of right mindfulness (satipatthana). Kind regards, Ken H 35532 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 1:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Phantom Limbs give insight into Vedana/Feeling & Sensation... Hi Herman, --- Herman Hofman wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > Thanks for all the time and consideration that goes into your replies: ..... S: You're very welcome and thank you for your feedback, questions and contrary comments! Again I have a bundle of your posts in front of me -- so will see how this goes. ... > H > I agree that by way of intelligence, using memory and a few other > mind functions, a whole experience (citta) can be carved up into > components. When one considers only visual object (rupa), there is > mental carving up of a whole experience (citta), then ignoring some > component of seeing in favour of an other component. ... S: this is all just thinking. ... >But at no time do > these components stand alone in reality, only in thought do they take on > a separated existence. The chief characteristic of nama and rupa in > general is that they don't exist outside of thinking. ... S: As concepts no, as realities yes. Whether or not there is any thinking about it, seeing consciousness still arises and sees visible object. Attachment, aversion, pleasant and unpleasant feelings experience their objects regardless of the concepts thought about. .... >They are concepts. > What is real is *experience", which when compared to what follows > becomes "that experience", which when dissected becomes "that visual > experience" and with further post-mortem examination it becomes "that > visual object" "that seeing" "in that context". And then later on you > can preface all those "that"s with "my". ... S: I agree that this is just thinking about concepts. .... > > As Howard and I discussed yesterday,... ... S: I thought Howard’s comments to you in post 35455 were spot on and clearly put and also most his comments to me in 35453. He doesn’t question the reality of hardness as a dhamma that can be directly experienced. When sati begins to arise and be aware of namas and rupas, there is less and less confusion or doubt that this is all merely intellectual understanding. The fact that you’re asking questions about realities and the Abhidhamma shows that there is a foundation of intellectual understanding developing. .... > Abhidhamma is the Indian science of 2000 years ago. And, contrary to how > it is sometimes portrayed, it does not limit itself to experience only. > For example, it goes into detail of physiology of sense bases. .... S: Realities. Just because there is no direct understanding or experience now doesn’t mean they are not realities experienced, known and fully understood by the Buddha and others who have followed his path. As Andrew T put it before (but more elegantly), we can’t say that what we read or hear from the Buddha’s teachings is not about realities or directly known because for us it isn’t. ..... >However, > the investigating of the nature of reality did not reach a peak with the > description of cakkhu pasada. And while I am very happy for people to > have a profound affection for specific antique physiologies and > psychologies, I have not yet heard the claim that this has led them to a > "full understanding". ... S: On the contrary, I read many accounts in the texts about those who developed an understanding for the very profound truths taught by the Buddha, including what you refer to as ‘specific antique physiologies and psychologies’, leading to a ‘full understanding’. When dhammas begin to be known directly, not just theoretically, doubts about other aspects not yet realized begin to fall away. I’d like to refer you to Ken H’s post (35187) to be read in full, particularly the passage at the end of this post. [Groan, I know, Herman. Btw, I do hope you get to meet him in Noosa one day and glad to hear about Tim, your son;-)] OK, back to your ‘me again’ posts. Seclusion ======== Everyone, even pacceka Buddhas in previous life-times, have to hear the teachings. If they have been fully heard and comprehended 'the all', the path will become apparent regardless of the social life or physical seclusion one lives in. The same applies to wrong view and the wrong path. We have to be careful when reading about the value and importance of seclusion in the texts as I've tried to show in other messages. For example, in the anapanasati series, Nina wrote this message: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/28184 N:> “We read in the anapanasati sutta (transl by ven. Nyanatiloka): .... S: So what is meant here by 'dependent on seclusion' in this context here in the anapanasati sutta? Nina goes on to explain (with more detail in the rest of her post at the link). ..... N:>With regard to the word seclusion (viveka), which is seclusion from defilements, we read about the meaning in the Co to the ?Root of Existence (Mulapariyaya sutta, as tr. by Ven. Bodhi)that there are five kinds of seclusion, or abandoning: by substitution of opposite factors(tadanga pahana), by suppression (in jhana), by eradication (by the four paths), by tranquillization ( by the four fruitions) and by escape (nibbana).”< ..... S: Perceptions & Afflictions ===================== The experiencing of sights and sounds depends on kamma for sure (and other conditions). As you suggest, the ‘affliction’ is in the perception and reaction to these common ordinary sense objects. These perceptions and reactions to them are not results of kamma but of accumulated tendencies and reactions, particularly the perversions of consciousness, perception and view. It’s important to appreciate that while each sound and sight is different and unique (as Howard stressed), it is not any special characteristic of these rupas that causes any of our difficulties. Again I'd like to stress that developing understanding does not lead to less understanding or use of concepts. It leads to less ignorance and wrong view whilst living in a conventional world and using all these concepts. That’s all. Metta, Sarah ===== KenH: >“Far from being a conventional activity, studying the Dhamma (as described by the Buddha as a factor for enlightenment) is a specific paramattha, kusala activity that conditions satipatthana. By `kusala activity' I mean wholesome citta with wholesome cetana. Being paramattha dhammas, these fleeting, ephemeral things are known only to the wise and there is no control over them – they arise when the conditions for their arising are present. When there is Dhamma study, in the form of kusala citta and cetana, there will also be the conventional reality of Dhamma study – that is, the reality of a person who is reading a book (or listening or considering and so on). However, that same conventional reality can also be seen when a person is reading a Dhamma book with evil intent – that is, with belief in a self who has something to gain. Or it can be seen when a person is reading with heedlessness or with attachment. At these times, the citta and cetana are akusala and definitely not what the Buddha described as factors for enlightenment. So the conventional activity known as `reading' is not ultimately real and it has no real characteristics. Therefore, it has no conditioning influence on the attainment of enlightenment (or on any other reality). Are we clear on that? :-)”< ============================= 35533 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:10am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Bagels, Forests & Happy Walks (was: Repulsiveness of the body meditation) Hi Herman, Me again;-) You introduced the Sankhaarupapatti Sutta, MN120 and suggested it contradicts my comments here (to AndrewL). Naturally, I don’t find such a contradiction;-). > Sarah wrote: > > Proceeding > ========= > The most important point to understand is that there is no 'me' or 'you' > that can ever proceed. If you're sitting at your computer now or in the > day centre or eating bagels even, it's by conditions and there are only > ever the presently arising dhammas -- the namas and rupas -- at these > times which can be known. ..... S: commentary note to the Sankhaarupapatti Sutta as given by Nanamoli/Bodhi: “MA initially explains ‘sankhaarupapatti’ as meaning either reappearance (i.e. rebirth) of mere formations, not of a being or person, or reappearance of the aggregates in a new existence through a meritorious kamma-formation.” ..... S:>Thinking that it would be better somewhere > else > or proceeding in a different manner or having a particular focus is > merely > that -- thinking. .... S: Sutta: “a bhikkhu possesses faith, virtue, learning, generosity, *and wisdom*. He thinks: ‘Oh, that on the dissolution of the body, after death, I might reappear in the company of well-to-do nobles!’ etc” “MA: ‘The Way’ is the five qualities beginning with faith, together with the aspiration. One who has either the five qualities without the aspiration, or the aspiration without the qualities, does not have a fixed destination....” ..... S: Like the reflections in the Mahanama Sutta, by developing these 5 qualities, there can be a growing appreciation for the great value of hearing and reflecting on the teachings and for those who have performed meritorious kamma, especially the noble ones and the value of listening to these ‘sappurisa’ or superior persons. Still no self or control or moving of the deck-chairs in order to develop these qualities. ..... H:> The intentional effort culminates with "Again the Bhikkhu is endowed > with faith, virtues, learning, benevolence and wisdom. It occurs to the > Bhikkhu: 'Oh, I should destroy desires, for without desires, the mind is > released and it is released through wisdom! Here and now by myself > realizing, I should abide.' He, destroying desires, becomes without > desires and the mind is released and released through wisdom here and > now. By himself realizing, he abides. Bhikkhus, this Bhikkhu is not born > any where for any reason." .... S: There is less ‘should-ing’ in the Nanamoli/Bodhi translation, but again like the sutta Nina is writing on (‘Overcoming Distracting Thoughts’ with the teeth-clenching passage), the key phrase here is *released through wisdom*. Whatever we read in the texts has to be read in the light of sankhara dhammas- conditioned dhammas and anatta as stressed above. I hope this helps. My same comments apply to your other post and helpful link on ‘present moment and control’ (35073). Please feel free to quote an extract from any of the suttas in ‘Everyman’s Ethics’ for further consideration. They are all useful. Metta, Sarah ===== 35534 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:37am Subject: HEY! SHAKTI! Hello Shakti, If you are browsing the List nowadays, could you check your In Box please? I need to contact you. cheers, Chris 35535 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 2:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Samatha, Vipassana, Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta, Magga, Phala, Nibbana Dear Htoo (& Sukin at end), You’ve been very busy and I particularly appreciate the series on cittas, as I’ve said. A few brief comments on this one. --- htootintnaing wrote: > Samatha is concentration pointing at a single object and stay there > as long as possible. Do not ask at this stage for cannonical support. > Crystal ball contemplation, word citation which is not from Buddhism, > and still there there are many kind of practices that may lead to a > good concentration. .... S: I’m concerned that this sounds like any concentration on a single object is samatha. ... H: > Kayanupassana satipatthana is 'looking at bodily things in detail'. > Kaya means 'body' or 'combination'. Anupassana means ( anu- in detail > + passa- to look ). This is a form of vipassana. This is breath, it > is long, it is short, it is in it is out, it is calm, this is such > position, such is this movement which is preceeded by thought and > such is such content, such is such element, such is such foulness etc > etc and all are connected and combination. Such contemplation is > vipassana. .... S: As we’ve agreed before, only realities -- namas and rupas -- can be the objects of satipatthana. So when you say ‘this is breath’....’this is such position’, what are the namas and rupas known by the development of satipatthana? .... H: > The object of vipassana is anything. It may be kaya. It may be > feeling. It may be citta or mind. It may dhamma. It may be nature. > And anything. .... S: I’d be grateful if you’d elaborate on this ‘anything’. What is ‘nature’? ... H: > While Vipassana mind is following any given event at the very present ... S: Again, please elaborate. .... > Samadhi or concentration also needs to be understood. > > When you taste salt solutions, you will say solution A is much more > concentrated than solution B. The more concentrated, the more > contents of salt. > > The more concentrated the mind, the more you are at the directed > object and this is one-pointedness and this is samadhi of samatha. ... S: Why? Would an Olympic gymnast be developing a high level of samatha? .... S: It’s a little unfair, Htoo, because I’ve just picked out a few comments and snipped all the helpful detail you included and which I appreciated. (You’re used to me, I know;-)). With the jhana series you’re writing, some of these same comments or questions would apply. Basically, I feel you’re putting the cart before the horse and giving ‘steps to follow’ which may just lead to more concentration, ignorance and special experiences rather than to the growth of wisdom which is essential as I see if from the very outset for the development of samatha. There can be wrong as well as right jhana factors and when the emphasis is on concentration and various actions to be taken, rather than really understanding what the nature of calm and kusala is, the practice is bound to be following wrong concentration and I'm sure we've all heard or read many examples of this. Also, no ‘driver’ to start any journey. Even when we talk about samatha and jhana, the dhammas are conditioned and anatta. I liked some comments Sukin wrote before (post 31689) which I’ll add below as I’ve been waiting for a chance to requote them. I’ll look forward to any further discussion, Htoo, but apologies in advance for any slow replies. (Maybe Sukin will help me out;-)). Metta, Sarah Sukin: > jhana too cannot be *aimed* at if one's natural inclinations and hence lifestyle does not accord with the fact of the `danger in sense objects'. This too requires panna of a very high level. I believe also that those who practice what they call jhana or absorption, are doing something they have accumulated for many lifetimes, some form of Samadhi or the other. The fact that they come across the Buddha's teachings and are attracted, does not mean that their views will be corrected, in fact the chance of making wrong connections are very high since they are attached to certain mental states. Anyway, the main point is that, panna that sees the danger in sense objects and vipassana panna are totally different, though the former can be a base for the latter. And related to this, is the idea that `concentration' has to be developed at least by `constant mindfulness', so as to finally be able to `penetrate' realities. This is another wrong view. Panna of Buddha kind understands any and every reality. The idea is not to chase after `ideals' and `ideas', but to grow slowly in understanding the present moment. Jhana on the other hand sees danger of `sensuality' and so seeks to `block out' such experiences. But Buddha's teachings understood correctly should lead one not `away' but to face what `is' as much as the accumulated panna can know and understand. In the beginning it is going to be `intellectual' but only this would be consistent with what it means to *learn* and *grow in understanding*. Anything else looks to me like a pipe dream.< =================== 35536 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bagels, Forest & Happy Walks Hi Andrew L. --- Andrew Levin wrote: > Should I take this to mean you guys like the thread going between > Sarah and I or is it the counters to my position you like? :P ... In any case, I find it very 'therapeutic' and appreciate your counters and astute questions very much :P. Planned to get back to you today, but out of time.....it'll be in the next few days anyway. Greatly appreciated your last posts to Connie and myself. Just go slowly with the reading meanwhile - it can't all make sense at a first hit :P. Up to you how you'd like to proceed in any 'formal study' corner. More later...must dash. Metta, Sarah ======= 35537 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:20am Subject: Re:Samatha, Vipassana, Anicca...Nibbana & Discussion ( 01 ) Dear Sarah, Thanks for your clarity-finding questions. I can sense what you asked. Regarding 'jhana' series, it is pure jhana. it may or may not be within the boundries of Buddhism. If this list is not for that I will stop the series on jhana. It will not be exactly like samatha of buddhism. Samatha in buddhism are all intended for development of panna or insight. My jhana series is not for that. Just pure jhana. Even someone asked my permission for that series so that he or she can translate it into another language. I told that person this is not of what buddhism is like even though there may be overlapping. Again I reminded him or her to communicate with me for accuracy of some facts. Because translation is a great job and it may or may not carry out the functions of original intension. I think this is only one reply to the facts that you asked in your reply post. I have to separate it out so as to have a clearer view what we are talking about and what we are discussing. As usual, we have to communicate for many different facts. So here, I will stop for this part of reply and I will give this reply post as 'Samatha, Vipassana, Anicca...Nibbana & Discussion ( 01 ). With Metta, Htoo Naing PS: One of my Dhamma friends is very delighted that I have been banned from DSList. He told me to use my precious time discussing with fruitful people. DSList's rules according to moderator will remind once and then will ban. But I was reminded for more than FIVE times. I was in DSList for a LONG time. In the first few days, if I had been other people, I would have departed as early as possible. But I did not depart. I stayed there and tried to correct some stubborn habit. I did not expect success but I just made effort for the benefit of those stubborns. Lack is for compassion, full is for empathetic altruistic joy, wish to fill is for loving kindness. Sabbe satta kammassaka. ( Stephen would say this is swearing word but I do not ). I include this message for Nina and friends. 35538 From: Herman Hofman Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49am Subject: The good, the bad and the neither Hi everyone (same as noone in particular, especially not you KenH :-)) These are some thoughts based on some of the feedback from Cooran. ====== 6a.) The worst kind of wrong view is not, as we might imagine, belief in self: rather, it is the belief that there is no benefit and no detriment from good and bad actions. ====== Conventional. There is no a-priori good act. It seems to me that a good action is defined in terms of its consequences. The ethical value of an action can only be known by its results. It is not known what the consequences of an act are until into the future. So what is good and bad has to be learnt over time, as the consequences of action are identified and evaluated in line with the goal that is deemed beneficial. If goodness and badness were knowable before, or with, an act, we would all be saints. But precisely because we cannot know what all the ramifications of our actions are, nor how our own goals clash with the goals of others, nor how our own goals can change from moment to moment, we act with only partial knowledge towards an often unknown goal. And arrive at unknown goals we do constantly. Less conventional. More unconventional. There is no good act at all. One who acts remains karmically snookered as long as that is the view (which is quite different to reciting to oneself from memory about anatta and conditions while one is acting; this is simply more action). Ethics in terms of the present moment only isn't possible, or necessary. Back to conventional Kind Regards Herman 35539 From: matt roke Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:57am Subject: [dsg] Phantom Limbs Hi Howard (and Herman), Howard> I think the line between "real" and "unreal" may be too finely drawn. If we say that hardness is "real" but a tree "unreal," then what are unicorns and souls? "Very unreal"? In the world of concepts a tree is real and unicorns are unreal. In Dhamma hardness is real and tree and unicorns are unreal. I think fine lines and gray areas belong to concept not reality. __________________________ Howard> As I wrote in another post with regard to concepts: "If our vision were only locally microscopic, and not relational, we would see the trees, but not the forest, and we would not know which way to go to leave the forest. And that's dangerous, because night is approaching, and beasts are about." If there were no nama & rupa then there would be no concepts but knowing the characteristic of nama & rupa does not negate concepts. Thus we can know the characteristics of the trees and still know it is a forest. And because we have knowledge of those things that make up the forest we may be in a better position to get out of it. _______________________________ Howard>The mental compounds/constructs, specifically concepts, seem to point beyond themselves to "things" or entities. The mentally uncompounded experiences generally do not - hardnesses, sights, odors, itches, fears, etc are not referential or denotational - they are direct experiences, not pointing beyond themselves. A motion picture is a string of still images, with unique characteristics, that appear on a screen as a moving image. The still images therefore create something that they are not. The mentally uncompounded experiences that you mentioned are as you said *direct experiences*; they have their own unique characteristic and therefore they do not point beyond themselves. However, when strung together (as citas with cetasikas) they create concepts, things and entities. Like the motion picture images, the mentally uncompounded experiences are rapidly falling away one after the other, creating something that they are not. When watching a motion picture one does not see the individual still images and it is likewise for the mentally uncompounded experiences, unless wisdom arises and knows the characteristic of the moment. The still images of the motion picture create a world real enough to induce emotions. The mentally uncompounded experiences create a world with you and me in it. _______________________________ Howard> I also question the idea that insight can apply only to "the momentary". Relations are not momentary, and they are not imagined. They are aspects of reality, important aspects. Relations, like all things in life, are compounded. They are comprised of many realities and it is those realities that are momentary. What is this *reality* you speak of which relations are aspects of? Matt 35540 From: matt roke Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:59am Subject: [dsg] Phantom Limbs Hi Eric, M> It is a concept about the nature of concepts and like all concepts it is not real. E> hmm, sounds like Santa Claus writing poems about the Easter Bunny then. :-) I take it that you think Santa Clause is not real. A child, however, may think that he is real. Similar concept, but different belief. I would like to know if the *concept Santa* which you and the child have, is real or not? If a million people think about Santa does that mean that there are a million *concept Santas* or is there just the one, for the person to whom he appears as thinking? And where does *concept Santa* come from and where does he go to when he is not making his appearance in thinking? Matt 35541 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:10am Subject: Re:Samatha, Vipassana, Anicca, ...Nibbana & Discussion ( 02 ) Sarah: Dear Htoo (& Sukin at end), You've been very busy and I particularly appreciate the series on cittas,as I've said. A few brief comments on this one. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: >Samatha is concentration pointing at a single object and stay there as long as possible. Do not ask at this stage for cannonical support. Crystal ball contemplation, word citation which is not from Buddhism, and still there there are many kind of practices that may lead to a good concentration. .... S: I'm concerned that this sounds like any concentration on a single object is samatha. ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: From Buddhism point of view, it would be wrong. While I am comparing samatha with other beliefs, I am refering to 'a good concentration'. There are samma-samadhi and miccha-samadhi. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- H: > Kayanupassana satipatthana is 'looking at bodily things in detail'. Kaya means 'body' or 'combination'. Anupassana means ( anu- in detail + passa- to look ). This is a form of vipassana. This is breath, it is long, it is short, it is in it is out, it is calm, this is such position, such is this movement which is preceeded by thought and such is such content, such is such element, such is such foulness etc etc and all are connected and combination. Such contemplation is vipassana. .... S: As we've agreed before, only realities -- namas and rupas -- can be the objects of satipatthana. So when you say `this is breath'....'this is such position', what are the namas and rupas known by the development of satipatthana? .... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: You have shifted to paramattha. I think we are going into the same cycle. First you disagree then you agree next you disagree and then again you agree. :-) While you have read all about paramattha, you will definitely like it as it is real. But again, that reality is stuffed into your mind with pannatta. Every time you face some fact, you will judge with that pannatta which you think as paramattha. Unless you are a practising Yogi And have developed certain level, all you know that you think you know are all actually dhamma-ideas of pannatta which is imprinted deep into your mind. I would call this as read-knowledge or transferred knowledge. I have met many people who are discussing as if they are arahatta, but in essence they have a great deal of dosa, lobha, and moha. When I see messages such as 'Is formal sitting necessary or not?', I feel that the writers of such message are aversive to Buddha-sitting. I mean sitting in meditative position. Some are thinking as if they are going to be an arahat while they are reading dhamma deeply. Some said that there was someone who became an arahat while cooking but when I asked there failed to support. I would suggest you ( this is not I am taking the position of guru or anything like that. Sarah, you know me well. This is my pure wish. ) not to mix pannatta and paramattha. Mahasatipatthana is the only method and the only way to nibbana. I would say it is the only way and the only method for attainment of enlightenment. If there was another way, that way must be just a cut- and-copy-alternative-appearenced way. While following the path, you do not need to worry whether panatta or paramattha. Do not think anything. Leave all theories and just follow mahasatipatthana. The realisation is the only eye of yours which sees realities. Otherwise you are seeing ( :-) ) your own paramatthatized panatta in your mind. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- H: > The object of vipassana is anything. It may be kaya. It may be feeling. It may be citta or mind. It may dhamma. It may be nature. And anything. .... S: I'd be grateful if you'd elaborate on this `anything'. What is `nature'? ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Nature is dhamma. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- H: > While Vipassana mind is following any given event at the very present ... S: Again, please elaborate. .... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Example, if I went into 4th jhana, I am at 4th jhana. Do not confuse here 'I'. My object is the object of 4th jhana. So I am not doing vipassana at that moment but in between vipassana. After an unrecognized time, I fell into bhavanga. I do not know how long I was there in bhavanga. Then manodvaravajjana or mind- contemplator takes a checking tour. Only when I exited from jhana, I will be able to see what my jhana is with vipassana. This time the event is manovinnana cittas. The object of vipassana here is manovinnana cittas which is citta and cetasikas or nama which is realities. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo:> Samadhi or concentration also needs to be understood. When you taste salt solutions, you will say solution A is much more concentrated than solution B. The more concentrated, the more contents of salt. The more concentrated the mind, the more you are at the directed object and this is one-pointedness and this is samadhi of samatha. ... S: Why? Would an Olympic gymnast be developing a high level of samatha? .... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Ekaggata is a cetasika that arises with any citta including bhavanga citta, patisandhi citta and cuti citta. Gymnasts also have cittas and there are ekaggata arising at each moment. Samatha has its own object. There are 40 samatha object. Gymnasts are not concentrating at 40 objects. I am just throwing light on what is 'concentration'. People will not understand ekaggata. That is single moment ekaggata. They will only understand when there is a good simile. 1.A glass of water with no salt. 2.A glass of water with 1 teaspoonful of salt mixed. 3.A glass of water with 2 teaspoonful of salt mixed. 4.A glass of water with 10 teaspoonful of salt mixed. No 1 is pure water. There is no citta that do not have ekaggata as one of their accompanying cetasikas. So No 1 is left. No 2 has a concentration of slat. No 3 is more concentrated than No 2. No 4 is much much more concentrated than No 3. When taking the samatha object is like salt and while at other object is like water. The more time at samatha object, the more concentrated the mind. This is samadhi. I do hope this is very clear to all including very very beginners. Gymnasts' object of attention is not the object of samatha. But it is still a concentration. They are having high level of concentration without which they will fall and will be out of control. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: It's a little unfair, Htoo, because I've just picked out a few comments and snipped all the helpful detail you included and which I appreciated. (You're used to me, I know;-)). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: :-)) I also know. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: With the jhana series you're writing, some of these same comments or questions would apply. Basically, I feel you're putting the cart before the horse and giving `steps to follow' which may just lead to more concentration, ignorance and special experiences rather than to the growth of wisdom which is essential as I see if from the very outset for the development of samatha. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I have responded this in the reply 'Samatha, Vipassana,...& Discussion ( 01 ) separately as the intention for that jhana series is a bit different. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: There can be wrong as well as right jhana factors and when the emphasis is on concentration and various actions to be taken, rather than really understanding what the nature of calm and kusala is, the practice is bound to be following wrong concentration and I'm sure we've all heard or read many examples of this. Also, no `driver' to start any journey. Even when we talk about samatha and jhana, the dhammas are conditioned and anatta. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I understand. I have responded in the previous reply in Discussion (01). This is why Buddhism is said to have pariyatti, patipatti, and pativedha. I like Sukin's writing. Actually Sukin called me and invited me to this group 'dhammastudygroup', I do remember. But apart from initial posts, Sukin and I do not have more direct contact. I hope I can communicate with him soon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah: I liked some comments Sukin wrote before (post 31689) which I'll add below as I've been waiting for a chance to requote them. I'll look forward to any further discussion, Htoo, but apologies in advance for any slow replies. (Maybe Sukin will help me out;-)). Metta, Sarah ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: It is fine. But could you please remind me offline when you reply. Because I am also busy as you do. :-)) May Dhamma be with you. With Metta, Htoo Naing 35542 From: Benjamin Nugent Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 0:37am Subject: Re: flipping off the moon Warning: I am responding "conventionally." I am aware that many of you reading this can only interpret these characters as "ultimate realities." Because email technology is too infantile to properly transmit both realities at once, I ask that for the time it takes to read this post, you refrain from from perceiving any of the concepts presented as anything other than such as they are. Thank you. -------- Jon: It probably won't surprise you to learn that the 'finger pointing towards the moon' analogy has been used before to describe people like me who read the teachings as supporting the development of awareness/insight in daily life, thus making this development independent of any kind of 'formal practice'. However, I had not realised the analogy could be traced to Bruce Lee. Was it a Bruce Lee original, or is it a traditional eastern saying, I wonder (I suspect the latter)? -------- Ben: Hmm...I suspect that Bruce Lee, being a student of Chan Buddhism, would have heard it before. Maybe from the same guy calling people like you names. But you were right: It didn't surprise me to learn that. Ben: > Dry-Insight. Repeat that word to yourself and ask yourself if this is > really > something you want to invest your energy on. Sounds more like a bad rash > than anything leading to the supramundane. -------- Jon: I agree that 'dry-insight' doesn't sound particularly cool, but then, does 'absorption' (for jhana) sound a more likely way to go? ;-)) -------- Ben: I am sorry for whomever it was that told you that jhana leads to nibbana, or that meditation is something separate from 'daily-life.' They had a wrong view of practice and mislead you. But while jhana's importance has perhaps been overemphasized by other groups' expressions of the dhamma, its necessity and conduciveness to practice has never in my experience been questioned by any Buddhist tradition outside of the small subset of southeast-asian-originated abhidhamma schools. Based on my mediocre knowledge of the abhidhamma and perhaps more importantly, what streams of thought spawned from and alongside it historically, it has become pertinent for me to be skeptical of both sides of the discussion. In so doing, I have realized what has been referred to as the position of no position.[1] It has been said that it is wrong view to hold that your view is the right view, for once "true" takes a stance, "false" is bound to follow. Adherents of both the 'dry-insight' school and the 'just-sit' school tend to wobble on this point. Both admit that the other is just another path to the goal at one time, and then emphasize the incorrectness of the other's [concept, philosophy, practice] at another time; altogether marginalizing it to futility. But I see that these two extremes are not a reality for most of us, so there is no need to worry. The wisdom of the middle way still has time to blossom within us. We will realize that superior conceptual knowledge, no matter what the subject, cannot sever the roots of greed, hatred, and aversion any more than can the deepest most formless states of absorption. It takes a skillfull coordination of both. This skill [2] is our gift as human beings. Let us not waste it, for death is sooner than we think. Sabbe satta avera hontu abyapajjha hontu anigha hontu sukhi attanam pariharantu, Ben [1] - "The reality of the Dhamma has to be brought into being within ourselves through our own energies: This is called practicing the Dhamma. If we go no further than the lists, we'll end up with only concepts of the Dhamma. Our ultimate aim should be to make the mind still until we reach the natural reality that exists on its own within us, that knows on its own and lets go on its own. This is the practice of the Dhamma that will lead us to the realization of the Dhamma -- the true taste and nourishment of the Dhamma -- so that we will no longer be caught up on the ropes." - Ajaan Lee Dhammadharo in "Basic Themes" [2] - "Now, if you're not acquainted with this topic, have never attempted it, or aren't yet skilled -- if you don't know the techniques of the practice -- it's bound to be hard to understand, because the currents of the mind, when they're written down as a book, simply won't be a book. The issues involved in dealing with the mind are more than many. If your knowledge of them isn't truly comprehensive, you may misunderstand what you come to see and know, and this in turn can be destructive in many ways. (1) You may lose whatever respect you had for the practice, deciding that there's no truth to it. (2) You may gain only a partial grasp of things, leading you to decide that other people can't practice or are practicing wrongly, and in the end you're left with no way to practice yourself. So you decide to "let go" simply through conjecture and speculation. But the truth is that this simply won't work. True and complete letting go can come only from the principles well-taught by the Buddha: virtue, concentration, and discernment, which are a synopsis of the eightfold path he taught in his first sermon." "So in our practice we should consider how virtue, concentration, discernment, and release can be brought into being. Virtue forms the basis for concentration; concentration, the basis for discernment (liberating insight or cognitive skill); and discernment, the basis for release from ignorance, craving, and attachment. Thus in this book, which is a guide to developing Right Concentration, I would like to recommend to other meditators a method that, in my experience, has proven safe and productive, so that they can test it for themselves by putting it into practice until they start seeing results." - Ajaan Lee Dhammadharo in introduction to "Basic Themes" 35543 From: Andrew Levin Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:12am Subject: Re: Bagels, Forest & Happy Walks --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Hi Andrew L. > > --- Andrew Levin wrote: > > > Should I take this to mean you guys like the thread going between > > Sarah and I or is it the counters to my position you like? :P > ... > In any case, I find it very 'therapeutic' and appreciate your counters and > astute questions very much :P. > > Planned to get back to you today, but out of time.....it'll be in the next > few days anyway. Greatly appreciated your last posts to Connie and myself. > Just go slowly with the reading meanwhile - it can't all make sense at a > first hit :P. Up to you how you'd like to proceed in any 'formal study' > corner. > > More later...must dash. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= Sarah, I have started in earnest on the cetasikas work by Nina, it is going fairly well. As for other material, when the time comes we'll see how my nama and rupa will proceed with that formal study. ;) Laterz Andrew Levin 35544 From: Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:15am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Bagels, Forests & Happy Walks (was: Repulsiveness of the body meditati Hi, Herman - In a message dated 8/18/2004 10:49:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Herman Hofman" writes: >Modern anatomy and physiology has discovered a sixth, unconscious sense >named proprioception. It allows for the unconscious sensing of the >position and location and orientation and movement of the body and its >parts. > >Its functioning is best tested by observing a person in whom this sense >no longer works. They literally fall in a heap if they are unable to see >the body. Thinking about posture is conceptual. But in a healthy body, >posture is known without reference to concepts, without thinking. The >body is mapped onto the cortex of the brain. This explains why an >amputated limb can still be sensed (phantom pain), but a brain or spine >injured person cannot sense a limb that is still physically attached. > > >Kind Regards > > >Herman ============================= I suppose that most people who pay attention to what they sense and feel are aware of this proprioceptive sense, though they may not think about it or its neurophysiological basis. In any case, I would suspect that it would fall under what Buddhists call "body sense." With metta, Howard 35545 From: Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Hi, Ken - In a message dated 8/19/2004 3:28:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "kenhowardau" writes: >Hi Howard, > >Thanks for explaining your understanding of concepts. Apparently, >you do not regard any kind of concept as a reality. If that is so, I >apologise for misunderstanding you over the past two or three >years. > >------------------------ > >H: > I believe there are at least two senses to 'concept'. One of >these is a) a kind of thought or mental construct, and the other is >b) the alleged referent of the first. > >----------------------- > >Fair enough, although, the `alleged referent' is not necessarily a >concept: there can be a concept of a paramattha dhamma. For >example, I may have the concept of pain in my foot. >(I see you cover that later.) > >---------------------- >H: > In the case of a), it is often the situation that what we think >of as a thought-concept is actually not a single event, but an >entire sequence of thoughts/concepts, mistakenly thought of as a >single idea. In that case, the culminating idea is, itself, a single >thought-concept whose referent is a collection of mental phenomena. >> >---------------------- > >I'm not sure I follow, It would help if you could give an example. > >----------------------- >H: > That "collection," though well grounded in that it consists >individual mental events that are interrelated, is mentally >constructed, with the "collecting" being done by mental operation. >There is illusion involved here, namely in thinking that there is >but a single mental event or thought that is the concept. > >------------------------ > >Sorry, I am missing the point. A concept is always experienced in >one moment -- one citta. Whether we realise that, or whether we >have a concept of a concept that lasts for several moments, it is >still a concept that is experienced in one moment. ----------------------------------- Howard: What I'm saying here is that we take an entire sequence of related mental events, each a true thought, directly experienced, as a single mental event that we call a "concept". Actually, that summing-up thought has as referent the entire preceding sequence of thoughts, but that is not realized. Each individual thought-event constitutes a direct experiential content, including the culminating thought, but that culminating tought unknowingly references an entire sequence of thoughts. As far as the "momentary" business is concerned, well, I don't consider that notion to be particularly well defined or very useful. -------------------------------- > >-------------- ><. . .> >H:> The bottom line on all this, as I see it, is that there is more >than one sense of 'concept', that all senses of it have some >illusory aspects to them, but concepts are not entirely illusory in >that they often have a directly experienced phenomenon (such as >hardness or heat or an itch) as *intended* referent, and even when >that is not so, they often codify networks of actual relations among >directly experienced phenomena, and they serve as the means for us >to grasp relations, to engage in thought, and to communicate with >others. > >--------------- > >When I say concepts are illusory, I don't mean to lightly dismiss >them. The Dhamma does not tell us that concepts are useless: it >tells us that concepts are the products of paramattha dhammas >(sanna, vitakka, vicara and so on). We need to know that dhammas are >different from concepts: the former are real, the latter are >illusory. Only then can we understand each arisen dhamma as being >mental (as distinct from physical) or physical (as distinct from >mental). From there, understanding of dhammas continues in stages >until their anatta characteristic is directly known. > >In summary, I am sorry to have misunderstood your take on concepts >for so long. But I am glad I was mistaken and you are not following >the Access-to-Insight line. That is, you are not saying that >concepts and dhammas are equally real (or unreal). ---------------------------------- Howard: I absolutely do not consider them equally "real". However, as I've said before, I don't consider the real vs unreal distinction detailed enough or precise enough to be very useful. I don't even know what 'real' is truly intended to mean. Usage shifts and differs from person to person and from context to context. The facts about things are what they are. When things are seen *as* they are, then they just are what they are, with "real" or "unreal" pretty much beside the point. ============================= With metta, Howard 35546 From: ericlonline Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 10:22am Subject: Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Hey Ken, E> > Maybe it is more fruitful > > to think of concepts as real > > but illusory but not as > > illusion per se. > > > > This way they exist (i.e. as > > an aggregate) and > > condition the illusions > > (which are not real) > > that we are under. > ----------------- K> That's not the way I understand it. It is important to know that > concepts are different from realities. The five aggregates of > clinging (khandhas) are realities. Concepts are illusions, and so > they are not included in the five khandhas. Huh? A concept is a thought which is a mental formation which is one of the 5 khandhas which are affected by clinging. You seem to have a more stringent definition of mental formations that excludes the mental formations of thought and concepts? K> Being illusory, concepts do not have characteristics. Therefore, > there is no use in looking to them for a direct understanding of > conditionality or of anicca, dukkha and anatta. There is no point in > concentrating on either the bodily activities or the thoughts arise > in the course of the day. It is only the khandhas (conditioned > realities (nama and rupa)) that form the four foundations of right > mindfulness (satipatthana). Double huh? If people are ruled by their ideas i.e. concepts, then dont you think it is good to investigate them? Even if they are 'not real' they still have people under their spell. A thing can be 'real' and 'illusory', that is capable of creating illusions eg. hot air from far away creates the illusion of water at a distance. Similary concepts are real but illusory. If clung too they create the illusion of I and mine. So that is why I said that concepts are real but illusory and not an illusion per se. PEACE E 35547 From: Herman Hofman Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 4:31pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Phantom Limbs Hi Matt, Good to be reading your posts again. ============= Matt > A motion picture is a string of still images, with unique characteristics, that appear on a screen as a moving image. The still images therefore create something that they are not. ================ Herman > This example demonstrates the Dhamma-Sangani method perfectly. It is reductionism. To me, a motion picture is a motion picture. What it becomes when you do certain things to it does not make it truer or realer than in another context. Motion pictures don't exist in a vacuum. Neither do dhammas. Motion pictures viewed in a cinema are different to rolls of film looked at with the naked eye. Dhammas require a body to spring into existence. The body/mind is capable of many modes. When an experience "E" occurs, to properly describe that experience, you need to describe the context in which it occurred. If you are watching a film, then you are experiencing whatever you are making of it. When you are looking at a roll of film, likewise. To say that one is real, and the other isn't, is to overlay one experience from one context with an experience had in another context. You are replacing experience with past analysis. You are "concepting". Nothing wrong with concepting. It may lead to the discovery of logic/ structure in reality. Concepts are the basis for intelligence. And intelligence is opposed to momentarily arisen wisdom. A being capable of momentarily arisen wisdom only is doomed to forever examine *each* arising moment in turn and see whether it is anicca, anatta and dukkha (possibly in the hope of finding one that is to their liking). A being capable of concepting can conclude, on discovering the structure of the arising moment, that *all* arising moments, ever, will be anicca, anatta and dukkha. The Buddha's discovery of Dependent Origination is a discovery of structure, of relations, of the logic of experience. Once that is seen, there is no need to keep looking. I encourage all of us to ardently "concept". Kind Regards Herman 35548 From: antony272b2 Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 6:54pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Bagels, Forests & Happy Walks (was: Repulsiveness of the body meditati Dear Herman and Howard and all, See my article "The Alexander Technique in relation to Satipatthana Vipassana practice". http://www.buddhanet.net/filelib/medbud/alextech.txt It is based on a book called "The lost sixth sense" by a physiologist. Here is a short extract: "To these the eminent anatomist of last century, Charles Bell, added a "Sixth (Physical) Sense"; that of the sense of limb and body position (proprioception) and movement (kinaesthesia) - referred to below as the "muscle sense".(2) In addition to the traditional five physical sense doors plus the mind, Buddhist meditators can incorporate into their practice being consciously attentive at the "muscle sense" door. This means mindfulness on the postures of the body (referred to in the Satipatthana Sutta) and movement of the body in daily activities with attention to the use of the various muscle groups, with particular attention to the balance of the head, neck and trunk (known as the "primary control"). The Alexander Technique is the practice of cultivating a conscious orientation to this particular sense door in all daily activities (e.g. sitting, standing and walking). The Technique brings into consciousness appropriate and inappropriate (excess) muscle tension previously unnoticed due to habitual "use". 2) The lost sixth sense - faulty sensory appreciation There is evidence that this muscle sense has become "lost", or suppressed, in our modern civilisation. Our minds become occupied with so many inputs and outputs to do with the outside world that signals from the body are suppressed or "gated out" before reaching consciousness.(3) The body tends only to be noticed when pain or pleasure arise and the "ordinary" sensations associated with sitting, standing and walking tend to go unnoticed." http://www.buddhanet.net/filelib/medbud/alextech.txt with metta / Antony. > In a message dated 8/18/2004 10:49:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Herman Hofman" writes: > > >Modern anatomy and physiology has discovered a sixth, unconscious sense > >named proprioception. It allows for the unconscious sensing of the > >position and location and orientation and movement of the body and its > >parts. 35549 From: connieparker Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:43pm Subject: Re: trouble is... Hi, Christine, Sorry to hear about your brother's friend, but I think it's great that your brother's doing what sounds like our 'Meals on Wheels' program. I've tried to volunteer at our Food Bank, but they have all the regular help they need so I've only been able to help out one day so far, when they were having a rummage sale. peace, connie 35550 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu Aug 19, 2004 10:04pm Subject: Re: Bagels, Forest & Happy Walks Hi Andrew L (and Connie), First of all, welcome to DSG from me. > > Just wanted to say that I really appreciate this and another > > > recent post (probably the last one) of yours very much. :-)) > > > > > > Please keep more of such posts coming! > > Should I take this to mean you guys like the thread going between > Sarah and I or is it the counters to my position you like? :P My comment above was for neither of these two reasons, though I am enjoying the thread. Connie's remarks reflected my own general understanding but I need to be reminded again and again. Besides, when the same thing is coming from someone else, it seems to give my own understanding a boost. Also I wanted to encourage Connie to post more in general. I appreciate many of your own points too and especially your sincere wish to be rid of kilesas. So to you too I want to say, keep posting! ;-) Metta, Sukin 35551 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 1:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anapanasati Sutta Hi Rob Ep & Steve, Steve quoted from the Anapanasati sutta: > > "Monks, this assembly is free from idle chatter, devoid of idle > > chatter, and is established on pure heartwood: such is this community > > of monks, such is this assembly. **The sort of assembly that is > > worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy > > of respect, an incomparable field of merit for the world: such is > > this community of monks, such is this assembly.** ... Steve continued: > > A section of this passage also occurs in the Mahanama sutta, in > > which it is describing Noble disciples> > > > > "Furthermore, there is the case where you recollect the Sangha: 'The > > Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples who have practiced well... who > > have practiced straight-forwardly... who have practiced > > methodically... who have practiced masterfully -- in other words, the > > four types [of noble disciples] when taken as pairs, the eight when > > taken as individual types -- **they are the Sangha of the Blessed > > One's disciples: worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of > > offerings, worthy of respect, the incomparable field of merit for the > > world.'** > > > > Would it be right that all the monks at the anapanasati sutta > > assembly were at least sotapannas? .... Sarah: It sounds like that to me. I'd be glad to hear more of your reflections and any implications, Steve. This is the standard definition of the noble Sangha as I understand that is used in recollections and chants. >RECOLLECTION OF THE SANGHA Supa.tipanno bhagavato saavaka-sa"ngho Uju-pa.tipanno bhagavato saavaka-sa"ngho ~Naaya-pa.tipanno bhagavato saavaka-sa"ngho Saamiici-pa.tipanno bhagavato saavaka-sa"ngho Yadida"m cattaari purisa-yugaani a.t.tha purisa-puggalaa Esa bhagavato saavaka-sa"ngho Aahuneyyo paahuneyyo dakkhi.neyyo añjali-kara.niiyo Anuttara"m puññakkhetta"m lokassa ..... They are the Blessed One's disciples who have practised well, Who have practised directly, Who have practised insightfully, Those who are accomplished in the practice; That is the four pairs, the eight kinds of noble beings, These are the Blessed One's disciples. Such ones are worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of respect; They give occasion for incomparable goodness to arise in the world ***** Sarah: We also find exactly the same paragraph in SN55:1 Wheel-Turning Monarch, sotapattisamyutta (Connected Discourses on Stream-Entry). ... Rob Ep wrote: > to shift to a slightly different aspect of this passage: Lauding those > who "have practiced methodically" certainly suggests that the Buddha > advocated "formal practice," something that has been of controversy > here. I am interested to hear how Jon, Nina, Sarah or others might > interpret this statement in light of the sense that many have > expressed against such "practicing methodically." ... Sarah: In the above sutta, B.Bodhi translates the relevant lines as: “He possesses confirmed confidence in the Sangha thus: ‘The Sangha of the Blessed One’s disciples is practising the good way, practising the straight way, practising the true way, practising the proper way.......” Here, ‘practising the true way’ (‘practiced methodically’/ ‘practiced insightfully’ above) are translations of “~Naaya-pa.tipanno”. The PTS Pali dict gives: ‘~nayapa.tipanna’ - ‘walking in the right path’ ‘pa.tipanna’ means ‘entered upon the path’, a ‘pa.tipannaka’ is path-attainer is one ‘who had reached one of the 4 supramundane paths of holinesss (ariya-puggala)’ (Nyantiloka). ‘~naya’ means ‘right or true’. I hope this helps. The right path is of course the eightfold path, the one path of satipatthana. Comments welcome! Metta, Sarah Rob - hope you saw my earlier post appreciating your posts. I am delighted to seeing you ‘hanging in’ longer this visit;-). Steve, thanks for the recent Cooran update. ====== 35552 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is real (reply to Sarah, Howard, MattR) Hi Nori, --- nori wrote: > Sorry to bring this topic up again, but I given it more thought. ... Please don’t be sorry for bringing up any dhamma topics - this is what the list is for!! Delighted when you do and we all ned to hear and consider and reflect over and over again, so repetitions of themes are useful. Just a couple of brief comments from me -- I’ll leave the rest to Howard and Matt as I think most your comments were picking up on their points. N:> And so, in guessing (that is making an assumption) as to what is the > correct view, we take all evidence (i.e. observations and experience) > into consideration and form what is what we believe to be correct > view ... a concept. ... S: And the best that can ever be developed as a result is intellectual understanding of the Teachings. When it is ‘right’ and firm, it is ‘pariyatti’. However, the Buddha also taught ‘patipatti’, the direct knowledge or insight and ‘pativedha’, the direct realization of the Path. Satipatthana is the develolopment of the direct understanding or insight into paramattha dhammas. It is not conceptual. ... N:> Now I would like to distinguish the idea of concepts and imagination. > Now I agree, all concepts and imagination are not reality. However > this does not mean that all concepts and imagination do not reflect > certain aspects of reality. And I also believe that just because > concepts and imagination are not reality, does not give anyone any > foundation to dismiss the true independent existence (in some related > manner) of what is experienced. ... S: Agreed with the first parts, but would you elaborate on what you mean by ‘the true independent existence (in some related manner) of what is experienced’ <...> N: > Secondly, I do not see any sort of knowledge to be gained from > the 'Abhidammic' analysis of 'rupas' and breaking them up into > different categories of sensations. > > What is to be gained, what is the profit in that ? .... S: The aim is not to build a quasi scientific model for analysis, but simply to directly understand what is being experienced at this instant. When we refer to heat or cold which is experienced through the body-sense, for example, the labels are irrelevant and simply for communication between us. However, if we’ve never heard that the temperature experienced is different from other rupas or different from bodily consciousness and feelings and other namas, they will continue to be experienced (or perceived as being experienced) as a whole, a conglomeration of experiences by a self. In the post I wrote to Herman yesterday, I was stressing that only a) when awareness begins to be aware directly of dhammas and b) understanding begins to grow to know when there is and isn’t awareness, will the confidence really begin to grow which knows that the Teachings and the Abhidhamma in particular, are not theoretical constructs, but descriptions of what can be known right now to wisdom if it has been developed. Comparing the Teachings with scientific models or other theoretical constructs won’t help. Metta, Sarah p.s Look forward to any more repeat topics, questions and feedback, Nori! Do you have a pic for the album so that new members don’t mistake your name for being a female one;-) Grateful if so! =============================================== 35553 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Still more Cooran Hi Ken H, Christine, Steve & All from Cooran, Thanks for the further reports. I’ll be coming back to Nina’s qu and conditions, but not rushing as she’s gone away. Meanwhile, a couple of quick comments here on other points: --- kenhowardau wrote: > 2) "The object of stealing is in another's possession." ... I think it always comes back to the citta at the time and the intentions that count. It’s like the taking baby birds, milk and other questions where there are so many factors involved. We can never know exactly which acts will be kamma-patha or what results will follow from our own, let alone others’ behaviour. Is it useful to speculate (fun though that can be) rather than know more about the presently arising cittas? When we’re concerned about results of kamma-patha, is it because of attachments to self again, I wonder? Just a few thoughts - happy to hear any objections! .... > 9.) No Cooran meeting would be complete without this next > question: "Can a citta that takes the concept of oneself as object > possibly be kusala?" > The answer was `no; although there can be instances that come very > close.' In those instances, self is taken as an example: e.g., "Just > as I want to be happy, so too do others." .... If we’re talking about the brahma viharas, the object must be another person or people, but there can be other cittas with alobha, with detachment, which have oneself as object. For example, Antony and I were discussing reflections on one’s acts of generosity or other kusala. There can be kusala cittas which reflect on how ‘oneself’ doesn’t exist, wise reflection with detachment on one’s sickness or old age or on sila. Usually, of course, as soon as oneself is the object, attachment is there immediately. In the above example you give, there could be kusala cittas when one reflects in such a way when there isn’t metta. Again, it’s a question of really sincerely knowing the cittas for what they are and of course they are changing all the time. Only panna can know, not another person. Christine and Steve, a question for you two: Chris wrote: >I also recall Steve and I digging out the quotes from the Visuddhimagga to see if (yet again) Metta could be radiated to self< .... Qu: This comes up quite often. May I ask why you would like metta to ‘be radiated to self’? I’d be glad to hear as much detail as you can share. Metta, Sarah ===== 35554 From: Herman Hofman Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:13am Subject: RE: [dsg] Phantom Limbs give insight into Vedana/Feeling & Sensation... Hi Sarah, ..... S: You're very welcome and thank you for your feedback, questions and contrary comments! Again I have a bundle of your posts in front of me -- so will see how this goes. ... > H > I agree that by way of intelligence, using memory and a few other > mind functions, a whole experience (citta) can be carved up into > components. When one considers only visual object (rupa), there is > mental carving up of a whole experience (citta), then ignoring some > component of seeing in favour of an other component. ... S: this is all just thinking. ======== H > Precisely. We are not so different after all, you and I :-) ... >But at no time do > these components stand alone in reality, only in thought do they take on > a separated existence. The chief characteristic of nama and rupa in > general is that they don't exist outside of thinking. ... S: As concepts no, as realities yes. Whether or not there is any thinking about it, seeing consciousness still arises and sees visible object. Attachment, aversion, pleasant and unpleasant feelings experience their objects regardless of the concepts thought about. ============ H > There is seeing consciousness without awareness there is seeing consciousness. But knowing that in itself is inference, otherwise known as our good friend thinking. The only realities that are known are the known ones. Awareness of seeing is different to seeing, no? To me, awareness of seeing is already conceptualized. It may well be that we are totally in agreement on the concepts v reality issue, but that I am just using different words to you. How to go about testing this I have no idea, but I'm open to suggestions..... Sarah > Seclusion ======== Everyone, even pacceka Buddhas in previous life-times, have to hear the teachings. If they have been fully heard and comprehended 'the all', the path will become apparent regardless of the social life or physical seclusion one lives in. =========== Herman > What are the conditions under which full comprehension arises? If the hearing of the Teachings is a precondition than the Teachings must have always existed, which sounds very non-Buddhist. I reject that insight and understanding will sprout under just any old condition. We are all a living testimony to that, no? ..... S: Perceptions & Afflictions ===================== The experiencing of sights and sounds depends on kamma for sure (and other conditions). As you suggest, the 'affliction' is in the perception and reaction to these common ordinary sense objects. These perceptions and reactions to them are not results of kamma but of accumulated tendencies and reactions, H> I don't understand how an accumulated tendency is different to repeated action (kamma). How does a tendency accumulate but by repeated action? S > particularly the perversions of consciousness, perception and view. H > What conditions these perversions to occur ? S > Again I'd like to stress that developing understanding does not lead to less understanding or use of concepts. It leads to less ignorance and wrong view whilst living in a conventional world and using all these concepts. That's all. H > Developing understanding, how does this occur? Hearing the dhamma, association with the wise etc etc? How long does one need to associate with the wise before a lack of development of understanding forces the realisation that you've been hanging around with the wrong crowd, or hearing the wrong dhamma? :-) Cheers, Herman 35555 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:59am Subject: Re: Anapanasati/ Sukin Hi Eric, I have little time, so this will be a somewhat rushed response. > S: Are you Eric, interested in the Master's words? > >Eric: Less and less with each day! S: I hope you are saying this only to draw my attention to `attachment' and `clinging'. Surely you would not be underestimating the importance of Teachings would you? In my view in fact, every word uttered by the Buddha is extremely precious, given that only one Sammabuddha arises in many aeons. Also isn't it obvious that those who valued his words most would be those who understood him best, i.e. the arahats, and therefore if *we* can't appreciate then as much, we should at least have some sense not to downplay their importance? > S: But first we need to recognize them (the Master's words) don't we? > > Eric: Then what? S: Recognizing them would require that we understand what they mean. And if understanding is correct, then panna is accumulated as sankhara. And when panna does arise, there is a degree of detachment and no questions such as, "Then what?". > S> How will this happen if we are not told `about' them? > > Eric: How many times do we need to be told? S: Until and unless we have become enlightened, in which case the sati that has experienced the tilakkhana is so firm that there is no more wrong sanna arising, then we need to be reminded again and again. Don't you think that avijja arise almost all the time for us puthujanas? > S> And whose words would you rather listen to regarding ultimate > objects of experience, your own or the Buddha's? > > Eric: Neither, I am more interested in the knowledge > and vision as things actually are. S: Yes, but being interested in direct experience does this mean that we should not listen any more to the teachings? Again it is `panna' which can state anything meaningful about "knowledge and vision as things actually are", and this panna I believe will *never* judge as meaningless, `words descriptive of truth'. It is more likely some other reality which will say "no" to words of wisdom. But here again you may be trying to point me to `attachment and clinging'? > > J> Not as I see it. I think what is being discussed here is how a > > person who is developing anapanasati can *also* develop satipatthana > > at the highest levels. > > Rather than equating the two, he is explaining how the two can be > > developed in tandem (quite a different matter). > > > > E: In theory yes. In practice quite a different matter. > > S: In practice, miccha or samma? > > Eric: Does it make much of a difference? > Who is to draw the line? S: Not lobha or wrong view for sure, but panna will recognize the right from wrong. And if we realize that panna is still weak and self- deception quite likely to happen, should we not try to determine what the Buddha has said? As to if this makes much of a difference; both right and wrong are accumulated and condition more of the same. Besides wrong view arises with lobha so it is even harder to see beyond it. > S: And we have to interpret too. So what if a commentator says it more > clearly and elaborately than the Suttas, the interpreter in me still > functions. In the end it would be the function of panna to understand > what has been read, no? And would saying `yes' to the Suttas and `no' > to commentaries because the former are the direct words of the > Buddha and the latter are those of the so called `interpreters' > necessarily a reflection of panna? Often it seems to me reading some > people's insistence on relying solely on the Suttas that a seeming > increase in trust and confidence in the Suttas arose not due to any > insight or profound understanding, but rather because that person > does not agree with the commentaries. Would changing the labels make > any difference? I guess not, after all Saddha is in direct > proportion to the level of panna and has little to do with which > stories about the Buddha to believe. > > >Eric: Nor about the belief about what > a commentator has to say. Remember > the advice to the Kalamas? S: Blind acceptance is no good, but dismissing them based on the simple reason that they are `second hand' is not necessarily any better. When I read the Kalama Sutta about not blindly accepting authority, I always remember the most notorious of them, namely "me", my own subjective interpretation. > S> Seeing the Dhamma is seeing the Buddha, not the other way round. > And the commentaries have surely made the slow ones like me, have > better understanding of the dhamma, hence I believe, closer to the > Buddha. > > Eric:The Buddha or the Buddha's words? S: The wisdom behind the words. > S: Are we skilled in Anapanasati? > > Eric: One tries and tries again... S: Anapanasati or something else that you believe to be anapanasati? And there is also the question, "Why practice Anapanasati in the first place?" > S: Jon has hinted at this all along and you must have sensed it too, > but personally I think the question of whether to practice > anapanasati or not is not so much a matter of personal choice or > whether any of us is proficient at taking breath as object of `calm' > or not, but rather whether we `believe' that it is essential or at > least think that it accelerates the development of sati and panna. > To state it directly, I think to make this > kind of connection is `wrong view'. In which case, even if we *are* > proficient at Anapanasati, we are not getting any closer to the > attainment of vipassana. > > > Eric: Read the post from Nori...i.e. ONE FACTOR!!! S: Panna is the leader and when it arises during a moment of satipatthana, then the other factors are also present and being developed. There is no development of individual path factors without the rest of them. Hence it is a BIG mistake to identify `right effort' and `right concentration' for example, with any conventional practice. If one `exerts' and `concentrates' with akusala mental factors, then no `rights' are being developed. > S> In fact at our level of understanding, the `self' has so much > been built around the breath, `my breath', `heavy > breathing', `choking', `nose', `mouth', `chest' and so on, that it > is most likely that lobha, dosa and moha will be conditioned to > arise each time there is any thinking about it. And if we don't see > this danger but instead think that it will lead us to detachment > from the idea of self, then we are encouraging wrong view and wrong > practice. > > > Eric: Dont be afraid Sukin. Your breath wont harm you. S: But the view that I need to concentrate on it in order to reach liberation will. ;-) > S: The first step is `right intellectual understanding', and this has > nothing to do with `attachment to `texts'', and whether if this has > conditioned subsequent steps in the direction of actual experience > or not is another matter. However if this first step is not > appreciated, then any steps and leagues covered would more likely to > have been in the wrong direction, imo. As for Ken's not taking the > step that you prescribe, is I believe not because of uncertainty and > doubt, but rather the perception that this would be looking in the > wrong direction. (Ken if I am wrong about you, then just change that > to Sukin. :-)) > > Eric: The only reason there is a first step > is to take a 2nd step. Are we to be like > those who practice aerobics in a gym i.e. > continuously taking the first step? S: But every time I consciously take a step thinking that I will get someplace, I find myself going backwards. On the other hand, when I do not think about the next step, sometimes there is a brief forward movement, though perhaps the kilesas will then arise to drag me back. In any case there is already a glimpse of what could be expected and I am happy to leave it all to conditions as before. :-) > S: What about "understanding" Eric? Isn't there always a danger of > increasing one's ignorance, attachment and wrong view if there is no > understanding of the object of meditation? And note, I am *not* > talking about "theory" here! > > > Eric: Nothing is for certain Sukin. > What have you got of value to lose? S: But dhammas behave according to fixed laws regardless of whether we know them or not. So I would prefer to study those laws, not so as to be able to manipulate or predict, but so that I can better understand the present moment. And from my understanding thus far, I know that this present dhamma is anatta and whatever has been conditioned has already fallen away, so what ever I "do" in relation to what appears is equivalent to being driven by an illusion. Metta, Sukin. 35556 From: jonoabb Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 7:07am Subject: Re: Experiencing Pain Hi, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear All, < snip of sad tale of poor Rusty the dog ...> > Abhidhammically speaking (or am I?) - considering mental and > physical phenomena, what controls the intensity of 'the experience' > of physical pain? I mean, there doesn't seem to be any set scale > whereby if *this* amount of damage is done to a body by 'this' > method, then *that* amount of pain is experienced. Your observation is correct. Of course, much depends on what we include in our definition of 'pain'. However, to the extent that it refers to the experience of unpleasant object through body-door, accompanied by painful bodily feeling, it is vipaka and so is conditioned by kamma. Hence, if no conditions for particular akusala kamma from the past to ripen, no pain of that kind experienced, regardless of the degree of 'damage' in conventional terms. Jon 35557 From: Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is real (reply to Sarah, Howard, MattR) Hi, Sarah (and Nori, and Matt, and all) - In a message dated 8/20/2004 5:23:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarah abbott writes: >Hi Nori, > > --- nori wrote: >> Sorry to bring this topic up again, but I given it more thought. >... >Please don’t be sorry for bringing up any dhamma topics - this is what the >list is for!! Delighted when you do and we all ned to hear and consider >and reflect over and over again, so repetitions of themes are useful. > >Just a couple of brief comments from me -- I’ll leave the rest to Howard >and Matt as I think most your comments were picking up on their points. > >N:> And so, in guessing (that is making an assumption) as to what is the >> correct view, we take all evidence (i.e. observations and experience) >> into consideration and form what is what we believe to be correct >> view ... a concept. >... >S: And the best that can ever be developed as a result is intellectual >understanding of the Teachings. When it is ‘right’ and firm, it is >‘pariyatti’. >However, the Buddha also taught ‘patipatti’, the direct knowledge or >insight and ‘pativedha’, the direct realization of the Path. --------------------------- Howard: Just for the record, Sarah, I don't identify patipatti with pa~n~na. I take patipatti to be practice - that is, cultivation of calm and wisdom on a base of pariyatti. Wisdom is a consequence of pariyatti and patipatti, and liberation of wisdom. --------------------------- > >Satipatthana is the develolopment of the direct understanding or insight >into paramattha dhammas. It is not conceptual. ------------------------- Howard: I agree. Wisdom is direct, true, and undefiled knowing. ------------------------- >... > N:> Now I would like to distinguish the idea of concepts and imagination. > >> Now I agree, all concepts and imagination are not reality. However >> this does not mean that all concepts and imagination do not reflect >> certain aspects of reality. And I also believe that just because >> concepts and imagination are not reality, does not give anyone any >> foundation to dismiss the true independent existence (in some related >> manner) of what is experienced. >... >S: Agreed with the first parts, but would you elaborate on what you mean >by ‘the true independent existence (in some related manner) of what is >experienced’ ------------------------- Howard: I also think an elaboration would be useful. I see indispensable value in concepts, as they constitute the non-arahant's primary means of cognizing relations and of living in "the world." But conceptual knowledge, *all* conceptual knowledge, is defiled and poses danger if grasped wrongly. ------------------------- ><...> >N: > Secondly, I do not see any sort of knowledge to be gained from >> the 'Abhidammic' analysis of 'rupas' and breaking them up into >> different categories of sensations. >> >> What is to be gained, what is the profit in that ? >.... >S: The aim is not to build a quasi scientific model for analysis, but >simply to directly understand what is being experienced at this instant. >When we refer to heat or cold which is experienced through the body-sense, >for example, the labels are irrelevant and simply for communication >between us. However, if we’ve never heard that the temperature experienced >is different from other rupas or different from bodily consciousness and >feelings and other namas, they will continue to be experienced (or >perceived as being experienced) as a whole, a conglomeration of >experiences by a self. --------------------------- Howard: The Abhidhammic and Suttic pointing out of the differences between the sense doors and their objects serves as a reminder when attending to experience, and it fosters "seeing" phenomena as impersonal as well as distinguishing direct experience from conceptual experience. --------------------------- > >In the post I wrote to Herman yesterday, I was stressing that only a) when >awareness begins to be aware directly of dhammas and b) understanding >begins to grow to know when there is and isn’t awareness, will the >confidence really begin to grow which knows that the Teachings and the >Abhidhamma in particular, are not theoretical constructs, but descriptions >of what can be known right now to wisdom if it has been developed. > >Comparing the Teachings with scientific models or other theoretical >constructs won’t help. > >Metta, > >Sarah ============================ With metta, Howard 35558 From: ericlonline Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Are dreams real enough? Hey Herman, ================ E> Ever hear of dream yoga? The Tibetans have a long history of 'practice' within the framework of the dreamstate. Imagine that practicing 24 hours a day!! ================= H> It seems to me that the dream content is reacted to within the dream, so it is taken for real. Within a dream there are emotional reactions to all sorts of scenarios, that, given those reactions, have been given all sorts of meanings. The evaluation of a nightmare from a waking state does not alter the reality of the anxiety that was experienced. Tis true. To awaken from a nightmere is a very liberating experience. We can also flip this around, when we awaken from the waking dream, how we will then look at the 'reality' we have been living? Will we still adhere to views about words in books that have no substantiality on their own? Time to wake up dreamers, you have been sleeping long enough! :-) PEACE E_enjoying_this_dream_with_you_all 35559 From: ericlonline Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:46am Subject: Re: Anapanasati/ Sukin Hey Sukin, > S: Are you Eric, interested in the Master's words? > >Eric: Less and less with each day! S: I hope you are saying this only to draw my attention to `attachment' and `clinging'. Surely you would not be underestimating the importance of Teachings would you? In my view in fact, every word uttered by the Buddha is extremely precious, given that only one Sammabuddha arises in many aeons. Also isn't it obvious that those who valued his words most would be those who understood him best, i.e. the arahats, and therefore if *we* can't appreciate then as much, we should at least have some sense not to downplay their importance? Are there really any 'sacred' words? > S: But first we need to recognize them (the Master's words) don't we? > > Eric: Then what? S: Recognizing them would require that we understand what they mean. And if understanding is correct, then panna is accumulated as sankhara. And when panna does arise, there is a degree of detachment and no questions such as, "Then what?". Panna will accumulate if the other 7 path factors are also in effect, yes? It seems you are trying to revolve yourself around views and thought. How do you cultivate samadhi (i.e. concentration, effort and mindfulness)? > S> How will this happen if we are not told `about' them? > > Eric: How many times do we need to be told? S: Until and unless we have become enlightened, in which case the sati that has experienced the tilakkhana is so firm that there is no more wrong sanna arising, then we need to be reminded again and again. Don't you think that avijja arise almost all the time for us puthujanas? Comes and goes like everything else. > S> And whose words would you rather listen to regarding ultimate > objects of experience, your own or the Buddha's? > > Eric: Neither, I am more interested in the knowledge > and vision as things actually are. S: Yes, but being interested in direct experience does this mean that we should not listen any more to the teachings? How many times do you need to read the instruction manual? S: Again it is `panna' which can state anything meaningful about "knowledge and vision as things actually are", and this panna I believe will *never* judge as meaningless, `words descriptive of truth'. It is more likely some other reality which will say "no" to words of wisdom. But here again you may be trying to point me to `attachment and clinging'? I am not interested in statements about truth but the truth! The truth outside of words! You see we are caught in a matrix of words. Some of us feel like that there is a combination of words that will unlock some secret that is hidden or open up some door to the real. So, we go round and round in a sea of samsara of words. > > J> Not as I see it. I think what is being discussed here is how a > > person who is developing anapanasati can *also* develop satipatthana > > at the highest levels. > > Rather than equating the two, he is explaining how the two can be > > developed in tandem (quite a different matter). > > > > E: In theory yes. In practice quite a different matter. > > S: In practice, miccha or samma? > > Eric: Does it make much of a difference? > Who is to draw the line? S: Not lobha or wrong view for sure, but panna will recognize the right from wrong. And if we realize that panna is still weak and self- deception quite likely to happen, should we not try to determine what the Buddha has said? If this is still conditioned by a context of wrong view, how will a right view arise? > S: And we have to interpret too. So what if a commentator says it more > clearly and elaborately than the Suttas, the interpreter in me still > functions. In the end it would be the function of panna to understand > what has been read, no? And would saying `yes' to the Suttas and `no' > to commentaries because the former are the direct words of the > Buddha and the latter are those of the so called `interpreters' > necessarily a reflection of panna? Often it seems to me reading some > people's insistence on relying solely on the Suttas that a seeming > increase in trust and confidence in the Suttas arose not due to any > insight or profound understanding, but rather because that person > does not agree with the commentaries. Would changing the labels make > any difference? I guess not, after all Saddha is in direct > proportion to the level of panna and has little to do with which > stories about the Buddha to believe. > > >Eric: Nor about the belief about what > a commentator has to say. Remember > the advice to the Kalamas? S: Blind acceptance is no good, but dismissing them based on the simple reason that they are `second hand' is not necessarily any better. When I read the Kalama Sutta about not blindly accepting authority, I always remember the most notorious of them, namely "me", my own subjective interpretation. So you have a commentators subjective interpretation which you are subjectively interpretating and this is forming the basis or your 'Right View'? Do I understand you correctly? > S: Are we skilled in Anapanasati? > > Eric: One tries and tries again... S: Anapanasati or something else that you believe to be anapanasati? And there is also the question, "Why practice Anapanasati in the first place?" Indeed! I enjoy it. The body calms down, the mind calms down beyond vitaka and vicara and one's inner states come clearly into view. Sometimes dukkha vedana ceases altogether all the while I am not harming myself or others. At times 'me' disappears and a radical seeing unconditioned by thoughts or emotions takes its place. Quite liberating actually. > S: Jon has hinted at this all along and you must have sensed it too, > but personally I think the question of whether to practice > anapanasati or not is not so much a matter of personal choice or > whether any of us is proficient at taking breath as object of `calm' > or not, but rather whether we `believe' that it is essential or at > least think that it accelerates the development of sati and panna. > To state it directly, I think to make this > kind of connection is `wrong view'. In which case, even if we *are* > proficient at Anapanasati, we are not getting any closer to the > attainment of vipassana. > > > Eric: Read the post from Nori...i.e. ONE FACTOR!!! S: Panna is the leader and when it arises during a moment of satipatthana, then the other factors are also present and being developed. There is no development of individual path factors without the rest of them. Hence it is a BIG mistake to identify `right effort' and `right concentration' for example, with any conventional practice. If one `exerts' and `concentrates' with akusala mental factors, then no `rights' are being developed. Of course, that is why the proof is in the pudding. To be able to create wholesome states of mind at will means you are practicing correctly with all the other path factors in alignment. How do you know this occurs? When there are no hindrances to be found in awareness. > S> In fact at our level of understanding, the `self' has so much > been built around the breath, `my breath', `heavy > breathing', `choking', `nose', `mouth', `chest' and so on, that it > is most likely that lobha, dosa and moha will be conditioned to > arise each time there is any thinking about it. And if we don't see > this danger but instead think that it will lead us to detachment > from the idea of self, then we are encouraging wrong view and wrong > practice. > > > Eric: Dont be afraid Sukin. Your breath wont harm you. S: But the view that I need to concentrate on it in order to reach liberation will. ;-) How do you develope concentration, effort and sati in your practice? How do you try and develope Right Concentration i.e. jhana? > S: What about "understanding" Eric? Isn't there always a danger of > increasing one's ignorance, attachment and wrong view if there is no > understanding of the object of meditation? And note, I am *not* > talking about "theory" here! > > > Eric: Nothing is for certain Sukin. > What have you got of value to lose? S: But dhammas behave according to fixed laws regardless of whether we know them or not. So I would prefer to study those laws, not so as to be able to manipulate or predict, but so that I can better understand the present moment. And from my understanding thus far, I know that this present dhamma is anatta and whatever has been conditioned has already fallen away, so what ever I "do" in relation to what appears is equivalent to being driven by an illusion. Indeed. Then you are ready to begin to sit alone and do nothing but watch the breath and see if the mind stream is ripe for panna to arise. To see if understanding is indeed true i.e. if all liking and disliking for the world has been released! What are you waiting for? PEACE E 35560 From: agriosinski Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:24pm Subject: Profit of --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: [..] > N:> And so, in guessing (that is making an assumption) as to what is the > > correct view, we take all evidence (i.e. observations and experience) > > into consideration and form what is what we believe to be correct > > view ... a concept. > ... > S: And the best that can ever be developed as a result is intellectual > understanding of the Teachings. When it is `right' and firm, it is > `pariyatti'. > However, the Buddha also taught `patipatti', the direct knowledge or > insight and `pativedha', the direct realization of the Path. [...] Hi Sarah (and Nori), gotta jump here with my 2 cents. How do I know there is right understending (pariyati), since there is no direct realization (patipatti)? [...] > N: > Secondly, I do not see any sort of knowledge to be gained from > > the 'Abhidammic' analysis of 'rupas' and breaking them up into > > different categories of sensations. > > > > What is to be gained, what is the profit in that ? > .... > S: The aim is not to build a quasi scientific model for analysis, but > simply to directly understand what is being experienced at this instant. > When we refer to heat or cold which is experienced through the body-sense, > for example, the labels are irrelevant and simply for communication > between us. However, if we've never heard that the temperature experienced > is different from other rupas or different from bodily consciousness and > feelings and other namas, they will continue to be experienced (or > perceived as being experienced) as a whole, a conglomeration of > experiences by a self. All I can see with direct but personal realization, right now this hunt for rupas is plain dukkha. I would really like to know profit of it. metta, Agrios 35561 From: john duncan Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:11am Subject: flippin' off the moon Hello Ben and Jon Sorry to butt in, but have been reading this dialogue and felt a need to comment. Indeed the 'finger pointing to the moon' is an old saying in Ch'an, or Zen, referring to the need not to take the appearance of truth as truth itself. In other words, Buddhism is the finger, not the moon. Enlightenment is the moon. The teacher's words are not moon but finger, regardless of whether one's teacher is Yun-Men or Chou-Chou or Buddha or Joe Bob Whoever, and strict adherence to the words instead of the reality to which they point is perhaps a fatal mistake. I have heard it said that ignorance is a sickness, and dispelling that sickness is the reason for practice. The teachings are medicine for the sickness. It seems to me that if a medicine cures your dis-ease, it was worthwhile, and if not, perhaps one needs to examine the way in which it was taken, and perhaps the medicine itself. I have had a long road to get to my limited understanding, and still have far to go, but I do understand that the Dhamma is proper medicine if administered correctly, and that it comes in many forms. Please disregard my babble and nonsense, but if there is anything useful in it, I am happy to have provided it. If I have misunderstood what the two of you were discussing, please delete this whole message. With metta and respect... Duncan 35562 From: Herman Hofman Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:37pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Bagels, Forests & Happy Walks (was: Repulsiveness of the body meditati Hi Antony, Thank you very much for your post and the link. I found it very interesting and useful (I always find it very encouraging to find modern-day confirmation of old wisdom) As I was reading your linked article, I became aware of various knots of tension in my body, which I promptly released. It is such a great reminder to be aware of the body in all activities. Thanks again Herman ============ See my article "The Alexander Technique in relation to Satipatthana Vipassana practice". http://www.buddhanet.net/filelib/medbud/alextech.txt It is based on a book called "The lost sixth sense" by a physiologist. Here is a short extract: "To these the eminent anatomist of last century, Charles Bell, added a "Sixth (Physical) Sense"; that of the sense of limb and body position (proprioception) and movement (kinaesthesia) - referred to below as the "muscle sense".(2) In addition to the traditional five physical sense doors plus the mind, Buddhist meditators can incorporate into their practice being consciously attentive at the "muscle sense" door. This means mindfulness on the postures of the body (referred to in the Satipatthana Sutta) and movement of the body in daily activities with attention to the use of the various muscle groups, with particular attention to the balance of the head, neck and trunk (known as the "primary control"). 35563 From: agriosinski Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:50pm Subject: How am I? I am not sure if questions on rupa and other let say "me and the world" questions are not to be dropped. I would like to know your opinion on subject of attending questions: "How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'" as stated in Sabbasava Sutta (MN2). If there is no me, no world, no cosmos, we may still have this need to name each aramana. As we name them, we would like to think about what we named and make sense of it. But that would just be "something" sensed. No more. Whole category of "being" would just disappear. metta, Agrios 35564 From: Herman Hofman Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 4:12pm Subject: RE: [dsg] What is real (reply to Sarah, Howard, MattR) Hi Sarah, I'm not picking on you, honest :-) You wrote to Nori (which is Iron spelled in reverse): ============== .... S: The aim is not to build a quasi scientific model for analysis, but simply to directly understand what is being experienced at this instant. ============= The following is purely descriptive. From a momentary perspective, every moment has aim. The aim of each moment can be known. But in a short time space, there are many different aims, and even aims that conflict with immediately preceding aims. And many moments arise that have aims quite different to direct understanding of the present moment. I cannot say from experience that this process of unceasing becoming has an overriding aim or purpose. It seems to just go wherever it goes. Momentary intentions from billions of beings set the scene for the next momentary intentions. Not to mention all that non-intentional stuff, like matter. At best, I can surmise that this becoming is hell-bent on keeping on keeping on. Any sense of purpose or aim in an enduring sense would directly contradict what is discovered by the Buddha. Buddhism is not teleological. But you knew that :-) Kind Regards Herman 35565 From: gleblanc108 Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 4:16pm Subject: Nose vs. Abdomen It is my understanding that the nostrils are the place of concentration in Mindfulness of Breathing given by the Buddha (Visuddhimagga), but that the abdomen is also often used (Burma revival movement). What are the differences between the two, is there an advantage in using one over he other. Thank you Greg 35566 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 4:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] flippin' off the moon Hi, Duncan Thanks for this info. It is very much to the point of our discussion. I particularly appreciate the clarification that the teaching is the finger, and enlightenment the moon. I think the analogy is often misused to infer that those who value study of the teachings as a necessary basis for correct practice are somehow barking up the wrong tree. I appreciate the confidence you obviously have in the teachings. We are all of limited understanding, with a long way to go. Please feel free to keep butting in! Jon PS It seems like you're 'Duncan' for this list ;-)) --- john duncan wrote: > Hello Ben and Jon > Sorry to butt in, but have been reading this dialogue and felt a need to > comment. Indeed the 'finger pointing to the moon' is an old saying in > Ch'an, or Zen, referring to the need not to take the appearance of truth > as truth itself. In other words, Buddhism is the finger, not the moon. > Enlightenment is the moon. The teacher's words are not moon but finger, > regardless of whether one's teacher is Yun-Men or Chou-Chou or Buddha or > Joe Bob Whoever, and strict adherence to the words instead of the > reality to which they point is perhaps a fatal mistake. I have heard it > said that ignorance is a sickness, and dispelling that sickness is the > reason for practice. The teachings are medicine for the sickness. It > seems to me that if a medicine cures your dis-ease, it was worthwhile, > and if not, perhaps one needs to examine the way in which it was taken, > and perhaps the medicine itself. I have had a long road to get to my > limited understanding, and still have far to go, but I do understand > that > the Dhamma is proper medicine if administered correctly, and that it > comes in many forms. ... > With metta and respect... > Duncan 35567 From: Herman Hofman Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 4:43pm Subject: RE: [dsg] flippin' off the moon Hi Jon, I cannot resist it, sorry :-) But this follows on from what I wrote to Sarah a little while ago. Jon wrote > I appreciate the confidence you obviously have in the teachings. We are all of limited understanding, with a long way to go. =========== Where are we going? Kind Regards Herman 35568 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 5:55pm Subject: Implication of mahasatipatthana Dear Dhamma Friends, Energy cannot be created and energy cannot be destroyed. Calmness cannot be created and calmness cannot be destroyed. Calmness is a cetasika, passaddhi. If I say this some would say I am stick to abhidhamma. But this is real dhamma. Citta cannot be created. Citta cannot be destroyed. Cetasika cannot be created and cetasika cannot be destroyed. The breath comes in. Just watch. One..two..three..four. One touch the nostril. Two touch the nostril but much more sensitive than one. Three touch the nostril but less sensitive than two. Four seem to touch but very very subtle and nearly stop and merge with stop. You all can watch right now. Just close your eyes right now and breathe in please. ..1..2..3..4.. The breath is now just going to come out again. Just watch. One..two..three..four. This again applies the same as when the breath comes in. One, two, three, four is just for beginners. Sometimes, it is just 1 and 2. Sometimes, it is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. We do not have to say in mind as 'breathing in long' 'breathing in short' 'breathing out long' 'breathing out short'. 1, 2, 3, 4 just shows temporal sequence of events at nostril. Here nostril is not a reality. Breathing or breath is not a reality. But at the time of touch there arises kayappasada rupa. And phottabba rupa also arises and kayavinnana arises. Three three things happen at the same time. They happen at 'one', 'two', 'three' , 'four'. Both in and out. There is nothing real except rupa ( kayappasada rupa and photthabba rupa ) and nama ( kayavinnana citta ). In real terms, between 'one' and 'two', 'two' and 'three', 'three' and 'four', there happen many many cittas and many many rupa. But these matters do not need to be considered while you meditate. 'Breathing long as long and short as short.' This sentence is simple and easy to understand. But very very difficult to penetrate. As verbal words they mean nothing. If you now can recognise the whole process that is from In-1,2,3,4 and out-1,2,3,4 this is the whole. This is sabba kaya. Kaya here is combination. Not body part of head and body. This is experiencing the whole body. There is nothing that make sense to contemplate on head to toes the whole human anatomical body which in real is just pannatta. Next calming. Can you control yourselves? Who will say yes? Who says yes is not The Buddha's disciple and not an anattavadi. I cannot calm down the whole process. I cannot relax my whole body. It is anatta. But but but.. When you all are stick to 1,2,3,4 that is you are at the whole process of breathing and touching all the events at the nostril... Please answer. Are there any worry? No. This is temporary stoppage of ill will (byapada / I would prefer to spell byapada instead of vyapada ). Are there any desire? No. this is temporary stoppage of craving thought ( kamacchandha ). Did you or your mind go away while you are at 1, 2, 3, 4? No. This is temporary stoppage of upset and spreading mind( uddhacca ). Did you or your mind again take any worry that you did in your past and not doing any good in your past at the exact time of 1, 2, 3, 4. No. This is temporary stoppage of worry ( kukucca ). Did you lose your concentration when you know all the process of breathing? Or did you feel sleepy or did your alertness disappear while you can exactly know 1, 2, 3, 4? No. ( thina and middha ). Did you disbelieve in your practice while you yourselves can exactly know your breath from the start to the end when 1, 2, 3, 4? No. (vicikicca ). If you all know the whole process of breathing from 1234-in and 1234- out, then you are free of hindrances. This is samma-samadhi. No absorption is needed. If absorbed, there is no way to discern the realities. Every citta has only one object. Mahasatipatthana takes only one object. It does not take the object of jhana. The object of all rupa jhana are panatta. What suttas say is samma-samadhi in the authority of 1st jhana, 2nd jhana, 3rd jhana, 4th jhana. This means that when in 4th jhana, jhana citta will take jhana object which is panatta. But when mahasatipatthana does it job, that mahasatipatthana has already emerged from jhana but still free from nivarana or hindrances. What is importance is to be free from nivarana or hindrances without which magga citta will never arise. All jhana are free of nivarana. So all jhana are samma-samadhi. But samma-samadhi does not necessarily to be absorbed. If totally absorbed, anicca-dukkha-anatta will not be able to be discerned. Sukkavipassaka. Sukka means white. Pure. Vipassaka means those who penetratively see. They are those who attain arahatta magga nana without any absorptive states. But they all have cleared away all hindrances. People always confuse and always argue samatha and vipassana. Because they do not understand jhana, samadhi, samatha, and vipassana. Mahasatipatthana. Calming down the process.. We cannot control our body to calm down. But when you can yourselves take your attention ( yoniso manasikara ) at breath properly in full process, there you will notice free of hindrances. As soon as you know you are free of hindrances, you will feel great joy. It is well calm. Actually calmness arises earlier but you will know at a later time. If you are doing kusala there arise kusala citta that is somanassa sahagatam nanasampayuttam asankharika citt arises. This citta is always always accompanied by kayapassaddhi and cittapassaddhi. These two cetasikas are calmness. Breathing in long as long and short as short/ out long as long and short as short. This is just instruction that you should know the whole process from the start to the end of in-breath and from the start to the end of out-breath. Between the start and the end, ther are countless citta happen. you do not need to know them and do not need to contemplate that they are happening because you cannot know them. Only The Buddha will know them all. The whole process should be attended. But 'experiencing the whole body from head to toes' which is totally impossible and if think in this way, you are just thinking and this is not mahasatipatthana. Calming down. Again, you do not need to calm down, but nama dhamma that arise due to their conditioning factors will calm down if you are free of hindrances. Iriyapatha pabba. When you sit, you have to know that sit. Stand as stand. walk as walk. Lie as Lie. There are 4 positions. But these positions are just ideas and panatta. Nothing to do with mahasatipatthana. But it is the instrauction in mahasatipatthana. Why did The Buddha instruct in this way? There is pure reason present. It is to practise mahasatipatthana. When you change your position, you will first notice that you want first. That is your will. Next arises movement. This is cittaja rupa. Next changes into another position. If you know you are sitting, you know the vayophotthabba as a sense at you body where kayappasada does exist while kayavinnana citta arises. So iriyapatha pabba makes total sense of mahasatipatthana. But your ideas must not be stick to 'I' who is a real body is 'sitting' all of which are nothing and pannatta. When you really practise iriyapatha pabba portion of kayanupassana satipatthana you will know that there are realities that vayophotthabba arises. Kayappasada arises. Both are rupa. Kayavinnana citta arises. It is nama. This is mahasatipatthana. Sampajanna pabba. This again involves any change any movement. But we do not have to follow the words and their influences. But just follow the instruction. Later parts in kayanupassana satipatthana are for those who are full of kama desire or sexual attachment. These are good for the young. There are separate sutta such as kayagatasati sutta. Vedananupassana or feeling contemplation, cittanupassana or contemplation on mind, dhammanupassana or contemplation on dhamma are all mahasatipatthana. Vedana is a cetasika. It is reality. If you can see right know and follow it, it is mahasatipatthana and this will develop vipassana nana. Cittanupassana and dhammanupassana all the same as vedananupassana in terms of giving the result. There is no tension. No head-ache. Nothing to let it go. Nothing to calm down. If you can develop jhana of both rupa and arupa, it is fine. But as long as you are in jhana that is jhana samapatti, it is impossible to discern realities and to discern anicca, dukkha, and anatta. But when emerge from jhana, then it is yes possible. If there is no jhana, is it possible to attain magga nana? Yes. Of course. As long as you are free of hindrances and you can discern the realities and see what their implications are then vipasana nana will arise and these nanas will finally add to cumulative building up as potentials and when perfected, magga nana will arise. When? This is the question. If you are born of dvihetuka patisandhi citta, you will never attain jhana in this very life and so also you will never attain magga nana in this very life. Who knows who are born of tihetuka cittas and who are born of dvihetuka cittas? No one knows except The Buddha. You can start mahasatipatthana right now. it is not late as you are now a human being and you can read and understand. There are sukkavipassaka. If you are perfected you can attain magga nana. If not perfected, at least you will gain parami or your own perfection in this very life. If you want to test whether you are tihetuka patisandhi puggala, then you can test yourself whether you can practise jhana samapatti. Jhana samapatti can take very very long time. Hours, days. Any comment or any query are welcome. If I have time, I will be happy to answer. May all you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 35569 From: connieparker Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 7:14pm Subject: Re: Bagels, Forest & Happy Walks Yes, AndrewL, I've always been a prisoner and expect I'll be one for ages - paraphrasing KenHoward's 'Still more Cooran' post point 8: getting free is not something we're entirely willing to commit to. So, no, I guess I don't really practice for my own freedom. I can't even get my mind around what that freedom might be like. I don't even tell myself I'm a Buddhist, just someone trying to get a better idea of what Buddhist right view is because our views/beliefs are going to be what we follow... can't be helped, we're prisoners of that, too. Sure, we're sometimes in a position to chase after what we like, but it's a limited freedom dictated by conditions, desire and our views - other times we're "free" to indulge disliking. But who or what is really "in control" or "free"? The liking and disliking, I think, are part of what keep us from finding 'seclusion', whether we're sitting alone at the foot of a tree or eating bagels in a noisy crowd of other fools. My reading might be a little off, but the simile about the man at the foot of a mango tree and the sensory process makes me think the base of the tree is wherever we happen to be whenever there is any kind of sensory input. He is just sleeping there (bhavanga/life continuum) when a mango falls and brushes against his ear (sense object contact) and the sound wakes him up (5-sense door adverting) so he looks around (sensory consciousness function) and grabs up the mango (receiving consciousness), squeezes it (investigation), smells it (determining), takes a bite (javana/"swift understanding", "impulsion", kammic activity), swallows it (registration) and goes back to sleep (bhavanga). The whole story is just about those different cittas acting out their own functions (again, according to a natural order/law - no freedom) and 'the man' is just their stage/physical support/base, but definitely not the director. If we're going to keep on with the prisoner thing, maybe we have to think about the parole board questions, or as you said: "prisoner who will go along with it until he gets his act together" role. On paper at least, the guards are called corrections officers and their job isn't really to keep you in jail but to play their part in reforming you so you can be free... I'm thinking about the 'guarding your senses' thing, not running off after every little whim, but paying attention to what those whims are rooted in and making judicious choices. Still, that's only going to be by conditions and according to the nature of the cittas, too - not because we want the guards putting us in lock down or allowing us some privilege, but because that's their job and they've shown up to work. The thing about running off to a forest all alone is that there are a lot of snakes and you don't always know when you've been bit. peace, connie 35570 From: m. nease Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Profit of Hi Agrios, ----- Original Message ----- From: "agriosinski" To: Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 2:24 PM Subject: [dsg] Profit of > All I can see with direct but personal realization, > right now this hunt for rupas is plain dukkha. > I would really like to know profit of it. The point of understanding naama and ruupa is simply detachment, I think. I also think this is clearly consistent with all the nikaayas. Just my opinion! Nice chatting with you again. mike 35571 From: m. nease Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 8:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bagels, Forest & Happy Walks Hi Connie, ----- Original Message ----- From: "connieparker" To: Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 7:14 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Bagels, Forest & Happy Walks > don't really practice for my own freedom. I can't even get my mind around > what that freedom might be like. I don't even tell myself I'm a Buddhist, > just someone trying to get a better idea of what Buddhist right view is > because our views/beliefs are going to be what we follow... can't be > helped, we're prisoners of that, too. Liked your whole post and I'm not a Buddhist either (Buddhism seems so far removed from what the Buddha taught, to me). You've probably seen this but thought you might enjoy it anyway (since you mentioned you "don't really practice for my own freedom"): "Monks, these four types of individuals are to be found existing in the world. Which four? The one who practices neither for his own benefit nor for that of others. The one who practices for the benefit of others but not for his own. The one who practices for his own benefit but not for that of others. The one who practices for his own benefit and for that of others. "Just as a firebrand from a funeral pyre -- burning at both ends, covered with excrement in the middle -- is used as fuel neither in a village nor in the wilderness: I tell you that this is a simile for the individual who practices neither for his own benefit nor for that of others. The individual who practices for the benefit of others but not for his own is the higher & more refined of these two. The individual who practices for his own benefit but not for that of others is the highest & most refined of these three. The individual who practices for his own benefit and for that of others is, of these four, the foremost, the chief, the most outstanding, the highest, & supreme. Just as from a cow comes milk; from milk, curds; from curds, butter; from butter, ghee; from ghee, the skimmings of ghee; and of these, the skimmings of ghee are reckoned the foremost -- in the same way, of these four, the individual who practices for his own benefit and for that of other is the foremost, the chief, the most outstanding, the highest, & supreme. "These are the four types of individuals to be found existing in the world." Anguttara Nikaya IV.95 Chavalata Sutta The Firebrand By the way, I completely concur with your post and especially re the importance of 'right view'. mike 35572 From: connieparker Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 9:25pm Subject: Re: Bagels, Forest & Happy Walks Wow! Thanks a lot, Mike! I was trying to remember just that quote the other day. peace, connie "These are the four types of individuals to be found existing in the world." Anguttara Nikaya IV.95 Chavalata Sutta The Firebrand 35573 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:47pm Subject: Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Hi Eric, ------------------------ <. . . > KH: > > Concepts are illusions, and so > > they are not included in the five khandhas. ----- E: > Huh? A concept is a thought which is a mental formation which is one of the 5 khandhas which are affected by clinging. > ------------------------- KH: This is a vitally important point. According to the Pali Canon, a concept, or thought, is NOT a mental formation (sankhara) and it is NOT included in the 5 khandhas. This makes the Dhamma found in the Pali Canon ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from modern-day, populist, Buddhism. ----------------------- E: > You seem to have a more stringent definition of mental formations that excludes the mental formations of thought and concepts? > ------------------------ KH: Yes, and it is the only definition found in the Pali Canon and its ancient commentaries. ----------------- <. . .> KH: > > There is no point in concentrating on either the bodily activities or the thoughts that arise > in the course of the day. It is only the khandhas (conditioned > realities (nama and rupa)) that form the four foundations of right > mindfulness (satipatthana). > > ----------- E: > Double huh? If people are ruled by their ideas i.e. concepts, then dont you think it is good to investigate them? Even if they are 'not real' they still have people under their spell. ------------------ KH: In every philosophy and social science outside of the Buddha's Middle Way it is good, as you say, to investigate concepts. In the Middle Way, it is good to investigate the five khandhas. ----------------- E: > A thing can be 'real' and 'illusory', that is capable of creating illusions eg. hot air from far away creates the illusion of water at a distance. Similary concepts are real but illusory. If clung too they create the illusion of I and mine. So that is why I said that concepts are real but illusory and not an illusion per se. ----------------- KH: That is true in a conventional manner of speaking, but it is not what the Buddha taught. He taught that concepts are illusory: at best, they are conventional designations that refer to the five khandhas (paramattha dhammas). Only paramattha dhammas have the inherent characteristics known as anicca, dukkha and anatta, and so only they are to be investigated and known with right understanding. But there is no self who can do this: dhammas can be known only by other dhammas. And so the Middle Way is like no other way: no rite or ritual can have any effect. The only way of following it is to hear and understand the words of the Buddha. Kind regards, Ken H 35574 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 4:09am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 043 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, The 31st citta of 89 cittas in its full name is called 'somanassa sahagatam nana sampayuttam asankharika citta'. This citta is a citta that arises when we do kusala action. As this thread has left behind, I will repeat some meanings. Somanassa here is made up of 'so' and 'manassa'. 'So' means good, acceptable, desirable, pleasurable. Manassa again is made up of 'mana' and 'assa'. Mana means mind. Assa shows grammatical possiveness. Here, please do not confuse with the word 'mana' which is written as m~ana or maana which is conceit. When there is no special character on the key board of PC m~ana is written as mana. Somanassa means 'mental joy'. Sahagatam means to arise together. Gata or gati means 'to go' and 'saha' means in community with, in parallel with, in common with, together. Somanassa sahagatam means this citta arises together with mental joy. Nana here means amoha cetasika. This cetasika helps citta that the citta knows the sense without obstruction. Sampayutta means 'mix with'. This means citta and nana cannot be separated and they are like Hydrogen and Oxygen in water. Asankharika means there is no sankhara. Sankhara here is cetana cetasika. Asankharika means there is no special volition in arising this citta. This means there is no prompt. No stimulation. When we offer food to The Sangha in a long queue, we are offering with this citta. We feel joy. Our mind is alart and cheerful as we are offering. We are offering unobstructively that is with a clear mind which know realities. We act ourselves and behave ourselves. There is no one urging to do so. This citta is kamavacara sahetuka mahakusala citta. Here maha is used because there are three lokiya kusala cittas. They are kama kusala citta, rupa kusala citta, and arupa kusala cittas. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. Htoo 35575 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 4:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bagels, Forest & Happy Walks Hi Andrew L, --- Andrew Levin wrote: > I'm ecstatic to be able to be here and have access to such wonderful > minds and to be able to develop a solid understanding of the teachings > I hope to put into practise, but just as the Buddha said with virtue, > it's through knowing one a long time that his > virtue/understanding/sanity/intelligence is known, not for a short > time. .... S: Exactly so and it’s a joy to discuss the Dhamma with you and I'm glad you're finding it as helpful as I am to discuss the teachings. Awareness (sati). ============== You suggested it ‘can either be cultivated or can appear sontaneously’. I’d suggest that even when it seems to ‘appear spontaneously’, it is in fact arising as a result of many intricate conditions, not least of which is having heard about its characteristic and objects. You mention that you’re ‘not really able to make awareness come through reflection or understanding....’and I’d suggest that this is a kind of understanding in itself. The truth is that we cannot make awareness arise by any method ever. Why? No self to do so. However it’ll become apparent when sati begins to arise and develop naturally as a result of the reflections and understanding. You asked about studying the Abhidhamma. Perhaps the main benefit as I see it is in dispelling wrong views about what has to be known and how it’s known. In other words, if it is right reflection and consideration, it helps panna develop and see what appears as elements, namas and rupas appearing so very briefly and then disappearing, never to arise again. We need all the assistance we can get to really appreciation the profundity of the Teachings such as in the suttas. Satipatthana Sutta - body and posture - more =================================== You asked good questions. From the commentary to the sutta (Soma transl): “There can be nothing apart from the qualities of primary and derived materiality, in a body.” S: what is primary and derived materiality? CMA, ch V1, Compendium of Matter. “Matter (rupa) is twofold, namely: the four great essentials, and material phenomena derived from the four great essentials.....” Guide “The four great essentials (mahabhuuta) are the primary material elements - earth, water, fire, and air......Derived material phenomena (upaadaaya ruupa) are material phenomena derived from, or dependent upon, the four great essentials. These are twenty-four in number.” Back to the sub-commentary to the Satipatthana sutta, a quote here on the meaning of ‘shackled’ for you: “ ‘Not seeing properly he is shackled’ = Not seeing this body as it actually is, with the eye of wisdom, he thinks: ‘This is mine, this am I, this is my self.’ and is bound with the fetter of defilement.” Just before this we read in the commentary: “In this body, apart from the above mentioned collection (S: of rupas), there is seen no body, man, woman or anything else. Beings engender wrong belief, in many ways, in the bare groups of things mentioned above. Therefore the men of old said: ‘What he sees that is not (properly) seen; What is seen, that he does not (properly) see; Not seeing (properly) he is shackled clean; And he, the shackled fool, cannot go free.’ “ ..... S: As Connie implied, we’re all shackled fools, Andrew;-) In the commentary to the Mulapariyaya sutta (Bodhi transl, BPS), we read about how the worldling is like a madman . “He seizes upon anything he can in whatever way he can.” He perceives a piece of earth and through a ‘perversion of perception’, seizes ‘upon the conventional expression’ and thinks ‘it is earth’. “Like a madman his image in a glass the fool takes the self to be real, And so too property of this self - These are his conceivings in terms of views,” ..... S: So what we call posture, is made up of the experience of various namas and rupas too. Again from the Satipatthana sutta commentary: “One conscious state arises And quite another ceases, In sequence, like a river’s flow, These states (of mind and matter -- nama and rupa) go.” And: “ ‘Who is the one that goes forward?’ Just no one [ko eko abhikkamati naabhikkamati yeva]” ..... S: Practice according to a Conventional Understanding of the Suttas ==================================================== Simply, the more understanding there is of paramattha dhammas, the less inclination there is for any idea of self or confusion whilst reading or using conventional language. However the Buddha addressed his listeners, he was teaching about conditioned dhammas which are anicca, dukkha and anatta. Without an understanding of these conditioned dhammas, there cannot be a realization of the unconditioned dhamma. Feelings ======= A feeling arises with every citta. This doesn’t mean that every feeling can and should be known. Only one reality can ever be known at a time -- in the case of namas such as feelings, this is only when a particular nama is the object of cittas in the mind-door process. In other words, it’s impossible to select and be aware of a chosen reality, because it entirely depends on conditions what is being experienced at anytime by the mind-door processes. There can be thinking about specific concepts of realities, but not selected awareness at all. You asked where the cittas are ‘which experience bodily feeling’. Also you wrote: A: > To me it seems like body feeling should be > a nama, just as I should be identifying 'earth' and 'fire' elements > when the wind hits my skin, I should be identifying 'pleasant' for the > feeling. It seems very rupa-ish to me. But I am not in the know, so > please inform me. ..... S: Good questions. Bodily feeling is a nama, accompanying the citta which experience certain rupas through the body-sense. The feeling itself or the citta itself can only be experienced by a subsequent mind-door process -- in other words, these namas then become objects and ‘appear’ to further namas. Of course it’s sati which is aware and panna which knows these characteristics or qualities when they appear. So just to stress the point, rupas can only ever be the objects of namas, they can never experience in turn. Namas, on the other hand, can experience rupas and in turn be experienced by other namas. Feelings -- whether pleasant, unpleasant or neutral -- are always namas, quite distinct from the rupas experienced through the body-sense. .... A: > ...what other method of increasing awareness > is there? Is there any, or do we just have to increase understanding > and wait for awareness to come as it may? ... S: Truly, Andrew, there is no self to have a choice or say in the matter;-) if you’d like a method, I’d say the only method is satipatthana, the awareness and knowing what is real at this instant we speak. So now there is thinking or confusion or seeing of visible object appearing, for example. Awareness can be aware now...and then gone. Would we like it to arise again or more often? Attachment can be known instantly. Kurus & New Yorkers ============ A: > Same as why there aren't so many arahants now compared to an assembly > that consisted of bhikkus who had all reached at least the first stage > of enlightenment. There was a Buddha, a teacher. This is one major > factor. They may have had more earnest efforts in arising > mindfulness, but then again, don't some of us earnestly try, at least > at times? .... S: Good answer. Earnest efforts can of course be kusala as well as akusala. When you come to viriya (effort) in ‘Cetasikas’ you’ll find it arises with most cittas, including all unwholesome ones too. This is why right view is so important. No credits according to the strength of effort or concentration, but only according to the ‘samma’ (right) qualities. Metta, Sarah p.s. Andrew, there are a few other bits and pieces which I’ll put in another post as this is long enough AND it’s time to watch (hopefully with a little sati) little Hong Kong go for gold in table-tennis double against big China;-) =============== 35576 From: gazita2002 Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 5:00am Subject: Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Dear KenH, Have been reading and enjoying your posts: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi Eric, > ...snip.... > > KH: That is true in a conventional manner of speaking, but it is not > what the Buddha taught. He taught that concepts are illusory: at > best, they are conventional designations that refer to the five > khandhas (paramattha dhammas). Only paramattha dhammas have the > inherent characteristics known as anicca, dukkha and anatta, and so > only they are to be investigated and known with right understanding. > > But there is no self who can do this: dhammas can be known only by > other dhammas. And so the Middle Way is like no other way: no rite > or ritual can have any effect. The only way of following it is to > hear and understand the words of the Buddha. > > Kind regards, > Ken H While bush walking today, I was thinking about this understanding of the Buddha's teaching. Even tho we have to use conventional language to discuss the words of the Buddha, there seems to be a point where no concept can really describe the understanding of a reality. That moment of really knowing maybe cannot be described to someone who hasn't experienced 'knowing'. Kind of an existential event - 'of or grounded in existence' [english dictionary] however in this event the 'existence' is ever so transitory, likewise the experience. What do you think? Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 35577 From: robmoult Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 5:24am Subject: I'm back... Hi All, Haven't signed into DSG for three weeks while on vacation. I am keen to collect any feedback on "Abhidhamma - The Theory Behind the Buddha's Smile" (see files section). Metta, Rob M :-) 35578 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 5:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] I'm back... Hi Rob M, Good to see you back. Hope you had a good holiday and enjoyed the Canadian summer -- really hot and humid here in Hong Kong right now;-( --- robmoult wrote: > Hi All, > > Haven't signed into DSG for three weeks while on vacation. > > I am keen to collect any feedback on "Abhidhamma - The Theory Behind > the Buddha's Smile" (see files section). .... To get the ball rolling, pls see two recent posts from Joop which I mentioned I'd bring to your attention: #35457 #35518 Have you heard more from Philip and when he'll be back? Metta, Sarah ====== 35579 From: agriosinski Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 5:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Profit of --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: [...] > > > All I can see with direct but personal realization, > > right now this hunt for rupas is plain dukkha. > > I would really like to know profit of it. > > The point of understanding naama and ruupa is simply detachment, I think. I > also think this is clearly consistent with all the nikaayas. > > Just my opinion! Nice chatting with you again. > > mike Hi Mike, I see no detachment where there is a search, do you see this some other way? metta, Agrios 35580 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] I'm back... p.s RobM, Why not put some briefish extracts on list in a series for further feedback from the group and general discussion? S. > I am keen to collect any feedback on "Abhidhamma - The Theory Behind > the Buddha's Smile" (see files section). 35581 From: Andrew Levin Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 7:28am Subject: Re: Bagels, Forest & Happy Walks Connie, Good conversing with you. I may not reply to all the points in your post due to the way you formatted it and the fact that I am more addicted to DSG right now than engaging in useful commentary on it. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connieparker wrote: > Yes, AndrewL, I've always been a prisoner and expect I'll be one for ages > - paraphrasing KenHoward's 'Still more Cooran' post point 8: getting free > is not something we're entirely willing to commit to. So, no, I guess I > don't really practice for my own freedom. I can't even get my mind around > what that freedom might be like. I don't even tell myself I'm a Buddhist, > just someone trying to get a better idea of what Buddhist right view is > because our views/beliefs are going to be what we follow... can't be > helped, we're prisoners of that, too. > Sure, we're sometimes in a position to chase after what we like, but it's > a limited freedom dictated by conditions, desire and our views - other > times we're "free" to indulge disliking. But who or what is really "in > control" or "free"? The five aggregates. There is walking but no walker. There is the experiencing of the result of good and bad deeds, but no doers. Empty phenomenon roll on along. I'm really interested in this Machine Head stuff, and I shoulnd't take it from an angle like I've already implemented but it really fits me. They are quite amazing and set an example for what I *think* I would like to be if I had the guts and wherewithal to do it and that is to take a stand up to the powers that be that have taken hold of one's life that was once belonging to one's own self (or once wasn't in the hold of the powers that be if you don't like hearing self). All of their stuff is good. Again, http://www.geocities.com/t3nt0nhammer/ is the site. Their music is even more amazing than their lyrics, it goes together perfectly. I wish you could hear the song 'imperium' off their newest album, 'Through the Ashes of Empires.' You might take a look through the lyrics anyhow. It's pretty literal, I mean, I was once practising dharma at my house, then social authorities came in picked me up, put me in a locked facility, put me back at home and proposed I go to this place (liT: slave to this place and their routine.., and there is a big difference between their proposal for how my life should go and how I would choose to run it) and whose ultimate goal is to run my life how they see fit (expressed by their continued desire for me to go along with this and to put me in vocational training which is moot for social reasons and doesn't suit me anyhow). What we want here is freedom from bondage, in Majjhima Nikaya it is said "For those who are ready, the door To the deathless state is open. You that have ears, give up The conditions that bind you, and enter in." So it's outer bondage and inner bondage, bondage to our own aggregates and views and attachments and in our case bondage to those who decide what becomes of our lives. Now in looking at this world not as the modern society we have set up but as planes of existence, and recognizing what is 'really' going on, ie not just doing computer work or checking websites but realizing that this human state is mere coincidence and that we could easily be having our mouths pryed open and eating molten copper, it strikes me that there may be a 'pleasantville' phenomenon going on here, in which I could go along with program, come home to the computer, do DSG, E-Sangha, #buddhism/EFNET, do my 15, 40 minutes of meditation, go to temple services once a week, and pretend like everything is OK, but in reality I may just as well be eating that molten copper. And this is why Machine Head is so important. Only walking a path in the world is what will set me free. I know my path. All I need is to develop a mind full of good-will, some more understanding of Abhidharma and study, and one meditation session of momentary concentration to get up and start practising. You know I was out last night walking and I heard the word 'meditating' in passing and I started changing my walking into walking meditation, and the passage 'Meditate constantly, seeker, or you will eat fire and cry out 'No More!' from dhammapada returned to my memory. Well there are still a few more conditions that have to be met before I'm "good to go" but I continued on nonetheless, walking, having reflected on the idle chatter I do on EFnet as just that, and having abandoned it, seeking to establish myself in virtue, and I made a turn to come home and that's when I realized I have some *heavy fucking shackles* on my ankles, like a pair of shackles with a prison ball. And this is not a game like I thought it was, just music and DSG talk, I have real shackles on my feet and that is not good. What did I do for this? Well to start with I didn't have the best meditation on my bedroom floor as I went through different techniques and literate (are we allowed to mess up? Isn't that part of the course?) and further in a fit and out of hatred I through my medications out on the floor and down the toilet one time (dhammapada does say hatred is the foremost crime, what of acting on it?), but as if I should do time for this. I was at *by far* my healthiest without this medication, it's not necessarily true that I need it to be healthy, and I am a former illicit drug user and taking these medications *is* a problem for me. This is what really set the ball in motion. I look back.. is it my responsibility for these chains, or is it the psychiatric system, which is in bed with the pharmeceutical companies that finance it, or does it go back to the people I see in court, who when I see in court this monday the MH passage "our lives are not your toys" will come to mind for? Frankly I think it goes back to the psychiatric system, being sick is not a reason for being a slave. Disease is part of life, we in Buddhism are especially supposed to accept this. It should not hinder my practise of Dharma and I certainly won't relinquish control over my life to other people over the long-term. Im thinking in that analogy of slavery Buddha said "eventually, after some time that man would be freed from bondage, subject to himself, and because of that he would experience happiness and joy. I dont think Im going to be free of these chains any time soon unless I take some initiative to act against the injustice that has befallen me. But in the meantime I need to reflect on some things that arent going right in my life, and develop more understanding of the teachings so that I can walk a path with confidence that I'm on track to the goal. PHEW. > The liking and disliking, I think, are part of what > keep us from finding 'seclusion', whether we're sitting alone at the foot > of a tree or eating bagels in a noisy crowd of other fools. > My reading might be a little off, but the simile about the man at the foot > of a mango tree and the sensory process makes me think the base of the > tree is wherever we happen to be whenever there is any kind of sensory > input. He is just sleeping there (bhavanga/life continuum) when a mango > falls and brushes against his ear (sense object contact) and the sound > wakes him up (5-sense door adverting) so he looks around (sensory > consciousness function) and grabs up the mango (receiving consciousness), > squeezes it (investigation), smells it (determining), takes a bite > (javana/"swift understanding", "impulsion", kammic activity), swallows it > (registration) and goes back to sleep (bhavanga). The whole story is just > about those different cittas acting out their own functions (again, > according to a natural order/law - no freedom) and 'the man' is just their > stage/physical support/base, but definitely not the director. Yet the mango is real and so is the man, and in my case so is the man telling me what he's doing to do with my life and so are the shackles on my ankles. > If we're going to keep on with the prisoner thing, maybe we have to think > about the parole board questions, or as you said: "prisoner who will go > along with it until he gets his act together" role. On paper at least, > the guards are called corrections officers and their job isn't really to > keep you in jail but to play their part in reforming you so you can be > free.. And what of the Nassau County Dept of Mental Health Psychiatric who said on paper his job is to ensure the safety of myself and the community and enable me to acheive my goals who in reality is TELLING me what will happen with my life? Thye're not interested in hearing my goals. The staffers at hospital might be but not the higher ups. > I'm thinking about the 'guarding your senses' thing, not running > off after every little whim, but paying attention to what those whims are > rooted in and making judicious choices. Still, that's only going to be by > conditions and according to the nature of the cittas, too - not because we > want the guards putting us in lock down or allowing us some privilege, but > because that's their job and they've shown up to work. I forget where you're getting this from. As to whims, yeah, sometimes I give in, my discipline seems to have vanished into the wind sometimes. I'm really quit eat a loss to explain it. > The thing about running off to a forest all alone is that there are a lot > of snakes and you don't always know when you've been bit. > peace, > connie Yeah But I've been to APP in NYC and you could almost say it's my home turn. Plenty of time and free space to practise. I'm lovin it already and I'm not even there yet :) PEACE AL. 35582 From: Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 9:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Hi, Ken (and Eric) - I believe, Ken, that while speaking truly for the most part, you are yet speaking in a manner that lends itself to confusion. I believe that you are overstating. I will add more below, in context. In a message dated 8/21/2004 1:47:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "kenhowardau" writes: > >Hi Eric, > >------------------------ ><. . . > >KH: > > Concepts are illusions, and so >> > they are not included in the five khandhas. > >----- >E: > Huh? A concept is a thought which is a mental >formation which is one of the 5 khandhas which >are affected by clinging. > >------------------------- > >KH: This is a vitally important point. According to the Pali Canon, >a concept, or thought, is NOT a mental formation (sankhara) and it >is NOT included in the 5 khandhas. This makes the Dhamma found in >the Pali Canon ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from modern-day, populist, >Buddhism. ------------------------------- Howard: The "concept vs reality" dichotomy is most particularly an Abhidhammic topic, and I think it is important to point that out. The Buddha taught throughout his discourses using conventional concepts, and he did not make much of a point there in distinguishing concepts from so called realities. ----------------------------- > >----------------------- >E: > You seem to have a more stringent definition of mental >formations that >excludes the mental formations of thought and concepts? > >------------------------ > >KH: Yes, and it is the only definition found in the Pali Canon and >its ancient commentaries. ------------------------ Howard: Again, this means the Abhidhamma as regards pitaka. Also, the Buddha *did* recognize paramattha dhammas that amount to elementary thoughts/ideas. There *are* paramatthic mind-door objects. These do arise at the mind-door, but we typically are not consciously aware of them, and they are sankharically combined into amalgams that reference entire sequences of these "mental atoms" but seem instead to refer to "external objects". We think we have a single idea of "tree" - but that is just a mental summing up, by name, of many mental and physical phenomena, each mental one of which, individually, is a paramattha dhamma pointing to a real or alleged phenomenon other than itself. ----------------------------- > >----------------- ><. . .> >KH: > > There is no point >in concentrating on either the bodily activities or the thoughts >that arise >> in the course of the day. It is only the khandhas (conditioned >> realities (nama and rupa)) that form the four foundations of right >> mindfulness (satipatthana). > > ---------------------------- Howard: Don't be precipitous here, Ken. For the most part, where we are "situated," we are unaware of paramattha dhammas, but live in a world of concept. Where, then, are we to find the khandhic elements? By analogy: If a chemist wishes to observe hydrogen and oxygen atoms, where is he to look? It would be good if he were to examine water! Now one might say that water is unreal, as it is an amalgam of oxygen and hydrogen. But that is not known until that amalgam, itself, is studied, and an electric current is passed through the water revealing its composite nature. Similarly, we must apply the analytic current of attention and mindfulness to our experience in order to see its true composite nature. In order for us to uncover the hardness, visual aspect, etc underlying our "tree constructs," we need to examine our "tree experiences." That's where the paramattha dhammas lurk, "within" pa~n~natti. When the Buddha taught his disciples to attend to the the breath - and he *did* so instruct them - he knew what he was doing. When his students did as he instructed, they came to discover that all that really arose, interrelatedly, were earth (to some extent), air, fire, and water, and derivatives of these that were body-door sensations such as touchings, tinglings, itchings, etc. ----------------------------- > >----------- >E: > Double huh? If people are ruled by their >ideas i.e. concepts, then dont you think it >is good to investigate them? Even if they are >'not real' they still have people under their >spell. >------------------ > >KH: In every philosophy and social science outside of the Buddha's >Middle Way it is good, as you say, to investigate concepts. In the >Middle Way, it is good to investigate the five khandhas. > >----------------- >E: > A thing can be 'real' and 'illusory', that is >capable of creating illusions eg. hot air from >far away creates the illusion of water at a distance. >Similary concepts are real but illusory. If clung >too they create the illusion of I and mine. So >that is why I said that concepts are real but >illusory and not an illusion per se. >----------------- > >KH: That is true in a conventional manner of speaking, but it is not >what the Buddha taught. He taught that concepts are illusory: at >best, they are conventional designations that refer to the five >khandhas (paramattha dhammas). Only paramattha dhammas have the >inherent characteristics known as anicca, dukkha and anatta, and so >only they are to be investigated and known with right understanding. ---------------------------- Howard: Pa~n~natti appear to have the tilakkhana as well (derivatively), and seeing these in pa~n~natti constitutes a first step on the path. When the Buddha said that birth is dukkha, death is dukkha, not getting what one wants is dukkha, etc, he was talking about pa~n`natti! ---------------------------- > >But there is no self who can do this: dhammas can be known only by >other dhammas. ---------------------------- Howard: Yes, but this is to be directly known, not just recited. ---------------------------- And so the Middle Way is like no other way: no rite >or ritual can have any effect. The only way of following it is to >hear and understand the words of the Buddha. > >Kind regards, >Ken H ============================== With metta, Howard 35583 From: Andrew Levin Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 10:17am Subject: [dsg] Re: Bagels, Forest & Happy Walks --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Hi Andrew L, > S: Exactly so and it's a joy to discuss the Dhamma with you and I'm glad > you're finding it as helpful as I am to discuss the teachings. I'm not doing terribly well right now but if you say understanding and awareness will go I will trust that they will. I hope they do. Joy to post with you as well. > > Awareness (sati). > ============== > You suggested it `can either be cultivated or can appear sontaneously'. > I'd suggest that even when it seems to `appear spontaneously', it is in > fact arising as a result of many intricate conditions, not least of which > is having heard about its characteristic and objects. Can you give an example? Again, the way I learned to cultivate it is to be mindful of the bare tactile sensation of the breath at the rims of the nostrils, this eventually creates an awareness that you can shine on mental states like depression, miserliness, etc, as if it were a spotlight, and you can clear these states away. It also goes a long ways for experiential awareness in daily life, something I yearn to have. > You mention that > you're `not really able to make awareness come through reflection or > understanding....'and I'd suggest that this is a kind of understanding in > itself. The truth is that we cannot make awareness arise by any method > ever. Why? No self to do so. Ah, but the aggregates can do work in and of themselves to cultivate awareness, yes? Yes. > However it'll become apparent when sati > begins to arise and develop naturally as a result of the reflections and > understanding. Reflections on what, might I ask? I wonder if you're referring to Abhidharmic cittas and cetasikas. I would love to have awareness of those. So, help would be cool. :0) > You asked about studying the Abhidhamma. Perhaps the main benefit as I see > it is in dispelling wrong views about what has to be known and how it's > known. In other words, if it is right reflection and consideration, it > helps panna develop and see what appears as elements, namas and rupas > appearing so very briefly and then disappearing, never to arise again. We > need all the assistance we can get to really appreciation the profundity > of the Teachings such as in the suttas. > So it's reflecting, or knowing, or seeing the truths expounded in the texts to be extant in and of themselves that preceeds right understanding? > Satipatthana Sutta - body and posture - more > =================================== > You asked good questions. > > From the commentary to the sutta (Soma transl): > > "There can be nothing apart from the qualities of primary and derived > materiality, in a body." > > S: what is primary and derived materiality? > > CMA, ch V1, Compendium of Matter. > "Matter (rupa) is twofold, namely: the four great essentials, and material > phenomena derived from the four great essentials....." > > Guide > "The four great essentials (mahabhuuta) are the primary material elements > - earth, water, fire, and air......Derived material phenomena (upaadaaya > ruupa) are material phenomena derived from, or dependent upon, the four > great essentials. These are twenty-four in number." > What about materiality-mentality? Doesn't this have to be the first insight of the insight knowledges? And how is it cultivated so as to experience that insight? Note: I am still very interested in studying Vism. especially about learning the stages of purification and the insight knowledges. > Back to the sub-commentary to the Satipatthana sutta, a quote here on the > meaning of `shackled' for you: > > " `Not seeing properly he is shackled' = Not seeing this body as it > actually is, with the eye of wisdom, he thinks: `This is mine, this am I, > this is my self.' and is bound with the fetter of defilement." > > Just before this we read in the commentary: > > "In this body, apart from the above mentioned collection (S: of rupas), > there is seen no body, man, woman or anything else. Beings engender wrong > belief, in many ways, in the bare groups of things mentioned above. > Therefore the men of old said: > > `What he sees that is not (properly) seen; > What is seen, that he does not (properly) see; > Not seeing (properly) he is shackled clean; > And he, the shackled fool, cannot go free.' " > ..... > S: As Connie implied, we're all shackled fools, Andrew;-) Not all of us, but most of us, for now. Work for your freedom. What else is there to do? > > In the commentary to the Mulapariyaya sutta (Bodhi transl, BPS), we read > about how the worldling is like a madman . "He seizes upon anything he can > in whatever way he can." He perceives a piece of earth and through a > `perversion of perception', seizes `upon the conventional expression' and > thinks `it is earth'. > > "Like a madman his image in a glass > the fool takes the self to be real, > And so too property of this self - > These are his conceivings in terms of views," > ..... > S: So what we call posture, is made up of the experience of various namas > and rupas too. > > Again from the Satipatthana sutta commentary: > > "One conscious state arises > And quite another ceases, > In sequence, like a river's flow, > These states (of mind and matter -- nama and rupa) go." > > And: > > " `Who is the one that goes forward?' Just no one [ko eko abhikkamati > naabhikkamati yeva]" > ..... There is still a 'feel' for posture or a deeper or thorough knowledge of how the limbs are deported that I can get while doing my meditations, I know this because I can do mindfulness of breathing, of feelings, etc, separately, or try to get them together. Surely it's better to be aware of the constituent rupas, which I will be in time, but posture is to-be-knownable as a whole not just as smaller pieces. This leads into the next topic... > S: Practice according to a Conventional Understanding of the Suttas > ==================================================== > Simply, the more understanding there is of paramattha dhammas, the less > inclination there is for any idea of self or confusion whilst reading or > using conventional language. However the Buddha addressed his listeners, > he was teaching about conditioned dhammas which are anicca, dukkha and > anatta. Without an understanding of these conditioned dhammas, there > cannot be a realization of the unconditioned dhamma. Right. This brings me to another question. I am under the impression that we might need a breath nimitta, or a sign of 'momentary concentration,' that is, the level of concentration needed to observe phenomenon happening in the present moment (lower level of concentration than access or absorption), and then can go on to use that concentration even for other bodily moments, the abdomen, getting intimate with the motions of walking, what have you. So I'm waiting on that before I begin my solid practise. I did take some walking meditation yesterday but I know that without momentary concentration it cannot culminate in the insight that leads to liberation. > > Feelings > ======= > A feeling arises with every citta. This doesn't mean that every feeling > can and should be known. To me it does. My goal is to be aware of everything that is happening in the psycho-physical organism known as Andrew at one time, even if that knowing is bottlenecked with a single citta. > Only one reality can ever be known at a time -- > in the case of namas such as feelings, this is only when a particular nama > is the object of cittas in the mind-door process. In other words, it's > impossible to select and be aware of a chosen reality, because it entirely > depends on conditions what is being experienced at anytime by the > mind-door processes. There can be thinking about specific concepts of > realities, but not selected awareness at all. So are you saying we should switch between knowing feelings, and other nama and rupa? If so, I'd have to disagree. I take the Buddha's statement "whoever is practising these four foundations of mindfulness" to mean practising them concurrently. > > You asked where the cittas are `which experience bodily feeling'. Also you > wrote: > > A: > To me it seems like body feeling should be > > a nama, just as I should be identifying 'earth' and 'fire' elements > > when the wind hits my skin, I should be identifying 'pleasant' for the > > feeling. It seems very rupa-ish to me. But I am not in the know, so > > please inform me. > ..... > S: Good questions. Bodily feeling is a nama, accompanying the citta which > experience certain rupas through the body-sense. The feeling itself or the > citta itself can only be experienced by a subsequent mind-door process -- > in other words, these namas then become objects and `appear' to further > namas. Of course it's sati which is aware and panna which knows these > characteristics or qualities when they appear. > > So just to stress the point, rupas can only ever be the objects of namas, > they can never experience in turn. Namas, on the other hand, can > experience rupas and in turn be experienced by other namas. Feelings -- > whether pleasant, unpleasant or neutral -- are always namas, quite > distinct from the rupas experienced through the body-sense. One thing I'm not clear on and still having some difficulty with: when the wind hits my skin, and I contemplate on the Earth element in that contact, isn't that softness experienced through the body sense, so it's nama too, not rupa? Or is the contact phassa, therefore nama? And then feeling is also nama, even though it feels like it's being experienced outside of mind? > .... > A: > ...what other method of increasing awareness > > is there? Is there any, or do we just have to increase understanding > > and wait for awareness to come as it may? > ... > S: Truly, Andrew, there is no self to have a choice or say in the > matter;-) if you'd like a method, I'd say the only method is satipatthana, > the awareness and knowing what is real at this instant we speak. So now > there is thinking or confusion or seeing of visible object appearing, for > example. Awareness can be aware now...and then gone. Would we like it to > arise again or more often? Attachment can be known instantly. Attachment to awareness, yes, but what is awareness? Checked the UP, some agree with you that it's satipatthana, but I had some kind of awareness that resembled an LSD trip, just being aware of all my surroundings, not identifying a bird as bird, but being more in tune with nature. I can't explain it more than that. But it seems distinctly different from satipatthana though maybe it is associated with sati, which would bring the two one step closer. > > Kurus & New Yorkers > ============ > A: > Same as why there aren't so many arahants now compared to an assembly > > that consisted of bhikkus who had all reached at least the first stage > > of enlightenment. There was a Buddha, a teacher. This is one major > > factor. They may have had more earnest efforts in arising > > mindfulness, but then again, don't some of us earnestly try, at least > > at times? > .... > S: Good answer. Earnest efforts can of course be kusala as well as > akusala. When you come to viriya (effort) in `Cetasikas' you'll find it > arises with most cittas, including all unwholesome ones too. This is why > right view is so important. No credits according to the strength of effort > or concentration, but only according to the `samma' (right) qualities. OK. Hope I can read cetasikas and gain some understanding on it to apply to practise. > > Metta, > > Sarah > > p.s. Andrew, there are a few other bits and pieces which I'll put in > another post as this is long enough AND it's time to watch (hopefully with > a little sati) little Hong Kong go for gold in table-tennis double against > big China;-) > =============== > No prob. -AL 35584 From: ericlonline Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 11:53am Subject: Re: Nose vs. Abdomen Hey Greg, Some people cannot find sensation at the nose for various reasons (too subtle, shape of the nose, etc.) but most everyone can find the abdomen. There are a few different ways to get to the nose i.e. sweep the body, follow and then calm the breath. As concentration and awareness deepens, the breath becomes more subtle and so people suggest going to the nose. This also helps to foster ekagatta or one- pointedness. A few good teachers I can recommend are Ajahn Lee (you can find his instructions on accesstoinsight.org) and Buddhadasa (Mindfulness for Serious Beginners at wisdompubs.org) Hope this helps. PEACE E --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gleblanc108" wrote: > It is my understanding that the nostrils are the place of > concentration in Mindfulness of Breathing given by the Buddha > (Visuddhimagga), but that the abdomen is also often used (Burma > revival movement). > > What are the differences between the two, is there an advantage in > using one over he other. > > Thank you > > Greg 35585 From: m. nease Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 0:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Profit of Hi Agrios, ----- Original Message ----- From: "agriosinski" To: Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 5:57 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Profit of > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > [...] > > > > > All I can see with direct but personal realization, > > > right now this hunt for rupas is plain dukkha. > > > I would really like to know profit of it. > > > > The point of understanding naama and ruupa is simply detachment, I think. I > > also think this is clearly consistent with all the nikaayas. > > > > Just my opinion! Nice chatting with you again. > > > > mike > > Hi Mike, > > I see no detachment where there is a search, > do you see this some other way? Yes--all the Buddhadhamma leads to understanding, pa~n~naa, leads both to detachment and to the search for liberationas I see it: Majjhima Nikaya 26 Ariyapariyesana Sutta The Noble Search Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. "Monks, there are these two searches: ignoble search & noble search. And what is ignoble search? There is the case where a person, being subject himself to birth, seeks [happiness in] what is likewise subject to birth. Being subject himself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, he seeks [happiness in] what is likewise subject to illness... death... sorrow... defilement. "And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses & children are subject to birth. Men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are subject to birth. Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to birth. "And what may be said to be subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement? Spouses & children... men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver [2] are subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement. Subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement. This is ignoble search. "And what is the noble search? There is the case where a person, himself being subject to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeks the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Himself being subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeks the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, undefiled, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. This is the noble search." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn026.html 35586 From: ericlonline Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 0:36pm Subject: Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Hey Ken, E: > Huh? A concept is a thought which is a mental formation which is one of the 5 khandhas which are affected by clinging. > ------------------------- KH: This is a vitally important point. According to the Pali Canon, a concept, or thought, is NOT a mental formation (sankhara) and it is NOT included in the 5 khandhas. This makes the Dhamma found in the Pali Canon ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from modern-day, populist, Buddhism. From the Introduction to the Majjhima Nikaya, p.27 "The formations aggregate (sankhara) is an umbrella term that includes all volitional, emotive, and intellective aspects of mental life." Bhikkhu Bodhi. What am I not understanding Ken? Are you saying that concepts and thought are not part of the intelect as V. Bodhi describes above? ----------------------- E: > You seem to have a more stringent definition of mental formations that excludes the mental formations of thought and concepts? > ------------------------ KH: Yes, and it is the only definition found in the Pali Canon and its ancient commentaries. Again see V. Bodhi's defintion above. ----------------- <. . .> KH: > > There is no point in concentrating on either the bodily activities or the thoughts that arise > in the course of the day. It is only the khandhas (conditioned > realities (nama and rupa)) that form the four foundations of right > mindfulness (satipatthana). > > ----------- E: > Double huh? If people are ruled by their ideas i.e. concepts, then dont you think it is good to investigate them? Even if they are 'not real' they still have people under their spell. ------------------ KH: In every philosophy and social science outside of the Buddha's Middle Way it is good, as you say, to investigate concepts. In the Middle Way, it is good to investigate the five khandhas. Again see V. Bodhi's definition above. ----------------- E: > A thing can be 'real' and 'illusory', that is capable of creating illusions eg. hot air from far away creates the illusion of water at a distance. Similary concepts are real but illusory. If clung too they create the illusion of I and mine. So that is why I said that concepts are real but illusory and not an illusion per se. ----------------- KH: That is true in a conventional manner of speaking, but it is not what the Buddha taught. He taught that concepts are illusory: at best, they are conventional designations that refer to the five khandhas (paramattha dhammas). Only paramattha dhammas have the inherent characteristics known as anicca, dukkha and anatta, and so only they are to be investigated and known with right understanding. But there is no self who can do this: dhammas can be known only by other dhammas. And so the Middle Way is like no other way: no rite or ritual can have any effect. The only way of following it is to hear and understand the words of the Buddha. The reference to rites and rituals in the suttas are to the old sacrificial rituals of slaughtering animals to the gods and not refereneces to sitting meditation or other practices the Buddha gave as instructions! PEACE E 35587 From: agriosinski Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 1:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Profit of --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: [...] > Yes--all the Buddhadhamma leads to understanding, pa~n~naa, leads both to > detachment and to the search for liberationas I see it: > > Majjhima Nikaya 26 > Ariyapariyesana Sutta > The Noble Search [...] thank you Mike, an excellent reading for me. I'll spend some time studying this sutta to find out if further search for rupas would be in scope of the noble search. metta, Agrios 35588 From: m. nease Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 1:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Profit of Hi Agrios, ----- Original Message ----- From: "agriosinski" To: Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 1:12 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Profit of > thank you Mike, an excellent reading for me. > I'll spend some time studying this sutta to find out > if further search for rupas would be in scope of > the noble search. As I understand it, the search is for understanding (pa~n~naa) by way of insight (vipassanaa)--insight into naama and ruupa may be a result of the search but not its goal (nibbaana). I think I would agree with you that searching for naama or ruupa would be off the mark. mike 35589 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 2:33pm Subject: Re: Cooran 13-15 August, 2004 Hello Eric, all, You may find it beneficial to consider the definitions below.: sílabbata-parámása and -upádána: 'attachment (or clinging) to mere rules and ritual', is the 3rd of the 10 fetters (samyojana, q.v.), and one of the 4 kinds of clinging (upádána, q.v.). It disappears on attaining to Stream-entry (sotápatti). For definition, s. upádána. ============== upádána: 'clinging', according to Vis.M. XVII, is an intensified degree of craving (tanhá, q.v.). The 4 kinds of clinging are: sensuous clinging (kámupádána), clinging to views (ditthupádána), clinging to mere rules and ritual (sílabbatupádána), clinging to the personaljty-belief (atta-vádupádána). (1) "What now is the sensuous clinging? Whatever with regard to sensuous objects there exists of sensuous lust, sensuous desire, sensuous attachment, sensuous passion, sensuous deludedness, sensuous fetters: this is called sensuous clinging. (2) ''What is the clinging to views? 'Alms and offerings are useless; there is no fruit and result for good and bad deeds: all such view and wrong conceptions are called the clinging to views. (3) "What is the clinging to mere rules and ritual? The holding firmly to the view that through mere rules and ritual one may reach purification: this is called the clinging to mere rules and ritual. (4) "What is the clinging to the personality-belief? The 20 kinds of ego-views with regard to the groups of existence (s. sakkáya- ditthi): these are called the clinging to the personality-belief" (Dhs. 1214-17). This traditional fourfold division of clinging is not quite satisfactory. Besides kamupádána we should expect either rúpupádána and arúpupádána, or simply bhavupádána. Though the Anágámí is entirely free from the traditional 4 kinds of upádána, he is not freed from rebirth, as he still possesses bhavupádána. The Com. to Vis.M. XVII, in trying to get out of this dilemma, explains kámupádána as including here all the remaining kinds of clinging. "Clinging' is the common rendering for u., though 'grasping' would come closer to the literal meaning of it, which is 'uptake'; s. Three Cardinal Discourses (WHEEL 17), p.19. ======================== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ericlonline" wrote: > Hey Ken, > > But there is no self who can do this: dhammas can be known only by > other dhammas. And so the Middle Way is like no other way: no rite > or ritual can have any effect. The only way of following it is to > hear and understand the words of the Buddha. > > > The reference to rites and rituals in the suttas > are to the old sacrificial rituals of slaughtering > animals to the gods and not refereneces to sitting > meditation or other practices the Buddha gave as > instructions! > > PEACE > > E 35590 From: nori Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 2:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What is real (reply to Sarah, Howard, MattR) hi sarah, N: > Now I agree, all concepts and imagination are not reality. However > this does not mean that all concepts and imagination do not reflect > certain aspects of reality. And I also believe that just because > concepts and imagination are not reality, does not give anyone any > foundation to dismiss the true independent existence (in some related > manner) of what is experienced. ... S: Agreed with the first parts, but would you elaborate on what you mean by `the true independent existence (in some related manner) of what is experienced' ---- I am under the impression from what you have written in your posts (and agreement with Howard and MattR) that you do not believe in the independent existence of enduring matter/'things' that exist 'outside' of us. I gave my example of phantom limbs and have concluded that even what you believe to be "direct" experience of rupa sensations are interpretations of the mind and so ARE NOT direct experiences of reality. In my example, these subjects experience 'rupa sensations' in an arm which does not exist. In this case the 'rupa sensations' is not reality. However it is 'his' subjective reality. ---- In a past post you replied: N: > They must pass through sense organs, nerves pathways, sensory cortex. .... S: As Howard suggested, we need to distinguish these (scientific) concepts from realities. It is interesting how you refer to the fact that we (our bodies) being constructed of "sense organs, nerves pathways, sensory cortex" as being concepts and NOT realities. There it is. We can dissect a human and see and examine this with our bare eyes, without concepts or thinking. It is as though you take the direct subjective experience (heat/cold, hardness/softness, cohesion, etc.) to be the only reality, and dismiss all else as concepts. ---- It seems as though you do not want to recognize what one can see and observe, such as "sense organs, nerves pathways, sensory cortex" as reality. ... but then when you get sick or injured, you will go to the doctor who rightly employs these "concepts", which have developed from many observations, and make you better. peace and metta, nori 35591 From: m. nease Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 3:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What is real (reply to Sarah, Howard, MattR) Hi Nori, Hope you don't mind my butting in-- ----- Original Message ----- From: "nori" To: Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] What is real (reply to Sarah, Howard, MattR) [...] > There it is. We can dissect a human and see and examine this with our > bare eyes, without concepts or thinking. > > It is as though you take the direct subjective experience (heat/cold, > hardness/softness, cohesion, etc.) to be the only reality, and > dismiss all else as concepts. > > ---- > > It seems as though you do not want to recognize what one can see and > observe, such as "sense organs, nerves pathways, sensory cortex" as > reality. > > ... but then when you get sick or injured, you will go to the doctor > who rightly employs these "concepts", which have developed from many > observations, and make you better. I take your point. We do live in a world of concepts and they are useful, even the pariyatti is conceptual. The way I see it, the nature of existence or 'reality' is an interesting philosophical question, but is beside the point of Buddhadhamma. It's my view that the only important distinction between paramattha and other dhammas is that the former can be the bases of satipa.t.taana while the latter cannot. I've always found the use of the expression 'ultimate realities' problematic for this reason--it suggests physical/philosophical implications that are outside the purview of the Four Noble Truths, unrelated to suffering and the end of suffering. By the way, I also think that the investigation or analysis of concepts can be extremely valuable both as a means of gaining the understanding of the Dhamma that is conceptual Right View, and as a means of temporarily suppressing the defilements. I believe this is quite consistent with the nikayas--not sure about the Abhidhamma, offhand. Just my opinions, of course! mike 35592 From: Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 3:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What is real (reply to Sarah, Howard, MattR) Hi, Nori (and Sarah) - In a message dated 8/21/2004 5:58:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "nori" writes: > >hi sarah, > >N: >> Now I agree, all concepts and imagination are not reality. However >> this does not mean that all concepts and imagination do not reflect >> certain aspects of reality. And I also believe that just because >> concepts and imagination are not reality, does not give anyone any >> foundation to dismiss the true independent existence (in some >related >> manner) of what is experienced. >... >S: Agreed with the first parts, but would you elaborate on what you >mean >by `the true independent existence (in some related manner) of what is >experienced' > > >---- > >I am under the impression from what you have written in your posts >(and agreement with Howard and MattR) that you do not believe in the >independent existence of enduring matter/'things' that >exist 'outside' of us. > >I gave my example of phantom limbs and have concluded that even what >you believe to be "direct" experience of rupa sensations are >interpretations of the mind and so ARE NOT direct experiences of >reality. > >In my example, these subjects experience 'rupa sensations' in an arm >which does not exist. In this case the 'rupa sensations' is not >reality. However it is 'his' subjective reality. ------------------------------- Howard: The rupa sensations are all that there are at that time, and that "subjective reality" IS the reality. When a so called real limb is experienced, those bodily sensations are present and also "confirming" visual sensations, and perhaps auditory sensations, as well as mind-door activity. But no "limb" is there - only the various interrelated sense door impressions, quickly interspersed. ----------------------------- > >---- > >In a past post you replied: > >N: >> They must pass through sense organs, nerves pathways, sensory >cortex. >.... >S: As Howard suggested, we need to distinguish these (scientific) >concepts from realities. > >It is interesting how you refer to the fact that we (our bodies) >being constructed of "sense organs, nerves pathways, sensory cortex" >as being concepts and NOT realities. > >There it is. We can dissect a human and see and examine this with our >bare eyes, without concepts or thinking. > >It is as though you take the direct subjective experience (heat/cold, >hardness/softness, cohesion, etc.) to be the only reality, and >dismiss all else as concepts. > >---- > >It seems as though you do not want to recognize what one can see and >observe, such as "sense organs, nerves pathways, sensory cortex" as >reality. > >... but then when you get sick or injured, you will go to the doctor >who rightly employs these "concepts", which have developed from many >observations, and make you better. > > > >peace and metta, > >nori ========================== With metta, Howard 35593 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 4:27pm Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 044 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, The 32nd citta of 89 cittas is called.. 'somanassa sahagatam nana sampayuttam sasankharika citta'. Before going deep, I would like to re-mention what we are proceeding. We are beings. We are sattas. We are lives. All these are conventional terms and they can well be understood. As an ultimate truth, there is no being. You can check yourselves right now. There are nama dhamma and rupa dhamma. That is all that exist. There is another reality. It is nibbana. There are four ultimate truths or 4 realities. They have their own characteristics. Among these four realities. Nibbana is noble one. Other three things are related to lokiya. Nibbana is lokuttara dhamma. As nama are the leading dhamma, we have started detail investigation of nama dhamma. There are citta and cetasika as nama dhamma. At any time, there is at least a citta. In actual term, there are countless cittas. However many these cittas are in terms of character, there are only 89 characters of citta. There have to be 89 cittas because of their accompanying cetasikas. Cetasikas will be discussed in the due course. If you yourselves check, you will notice that there have been many different cittas. Once you may be angry. Once you may be happy. At other time, you may be missing and so on. So far, 31 cittas have been discussed. Now 32nd citta's turn comes. This citta is very much like 31st citta which is asankharika citta. Even though they are very similar, their implications are not the same. It is totally different, rather than not the same. Why? Both are kusala cittas. Both are nana sampayutta cittas. That is they are both tihetuka cittas. But when they do kusala actions,asankharika citta gives rise to the best kusala kamma that is tihetuka ukkattha kusala kamma. Its result may be tihetuka patisandhi citta if the resultant citta has to arise at patisandhi and 8 kamavacara ahetuka vipaka citta and 8 kamavacara sahetuka vipaka cittas if that kamma has to give rise to result while in living life. But, if 32nd citta or sasankharika citta works when kusala actions are done then kamma that arises will be tihetuka omaka kusala kamma. This kamma may result in dvihetuka patisandhi citta if the result has to arise at patisandhi and 8 kamavacara ahetuka vipaka cittas and 4 kamavacara sahetuka nana vippayutta cittas. What a different! Very dreadful. If you are born with dvihetuka citta, you will never attain any jhana in this life. You will never attain magga citta in this life. So when ever you do kusala, you should do them with greatest wish, volition and joy. 32nd citta may arise when you give properties to someone with reluctant mind and with mental withdrawal. At that time, you yourself have to prompt your mind to give things to other. Or more surely you will have to be urged by another person or other people. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS:1. Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 2. I have to say there are some people who are aversive to Pali and Pali words. They are aversive to abhidhamma and abhidhamma words. They even themselves divide Biddhists world as east and west even though The Buddha did not discriminate. Htoo Naing 35594 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 4:42pm Subject: Jhana Journey ( 01 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, This message should be read together with the series ''Setting up foundation for jhana (01) to (06). Now the jhana practitioner is quite ready to start his jhana journey as he has already set up the foundation for jhana. Now look at right at the middle of the prepared WHITE circular object sight. What the practitioner will see is just white. Place the mind at the centre. As the preparation is good there is no distraction from smudge or staining. The mind may move around the centre and it may go to the peripheries. But it should not go beyound the circumference. But we have already prepared for that the whole room is white in colour. The arammana (sense- and in this case sight) is sight which propriately in the size of 2 feet. If larger than this, mind may travel around and moha may prevail. So escalation will be delayed. If the sight is too small that is if less than 2 feet, it will become difficult to concentrate. So we have done the optimum for the sight. Now the practitioner has initiated. He will see the sight as ''WHITE WHITE WHITE WHITE.......'' or ''ODATA ODATA ODATA ODATA...''What he see will be all the white. This does not mean that he has to cite these words. Instead, he has to place his mind evenly all over the circular WHITE object of kasina. Mind has to take the kasina evenly. This is why kasina is called as kasina. First at the centre but all the mind have to evenly touch the whole object. At first the mind will go around within the circle but finally he may concentrate at the centre. He must see the whole thing as white. His mind must evenly spread all over the circle which is white. With a long practice he will be able to manage the sight as white. May you all be able to concentrate on the colour WHITE whenever you see even part of white. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 35595 From: agriosinski Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Profit of --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: [..] > > As I understand it, the search is for understanding (pa~n~naa) by way of > insight (vipassanaa)--insight into naama and ruupa may be a result of the > search but not its goal (nibbaana). I think I would agree with you that > searching for naama or ruupa would be off the mark. > > mike Hi Mike, Ariyapariyesana Sutta is about search for the truth about dukkha. Buddha's search was painfull and noble at the sam time. Profit of this search was in knowing dukkha in depth. Wanting to know is noble, but wanting to know something to keep ilusion of doing progress, is not noble. What is the source, how it starts? Is the six door process or cetana setting this targets for every wanting or not wanting? metta, Agrios 35596 From: Herman Hofman Date: Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:49pm Subject: RE: [dsg] I'm back... Hi RobM, Nice to see you back. I hope you had a great time. You make a claim in your work posted for review that tradition holds six of the seven books of the Abhidhamma were recited at the first three councils. The following is from a link to an article posted to DSG following a recent get-together at Cooran. Among the attendees was Jill Jordan, who co-authored the article. "Of the seven books, the first, second and seventh are the oldest and were recited as they stand today at the Second Council of Arahants held in the first quarter of the 4th Century B.C. The third, fourth and sixth were completed by the time of the Third Council of Arahants in about 250 B.C. and the fifth book (the Points of Controversy) dates from the third Council." http://www.abhidhamma.org/Introduction.html Tradition may well hold what you repeat as being the history of the Abhidhamma, but history reveals that much of this tradition originates from 500 AD onwards ie upto 1000 years after the facts that the tradition misrepresent. I believe that there is ample evidence to support the history of the Abhidhamma as outlined in Jill's article, while the traditional view seems to find its origins with Buddhaghosa's Atthasalini. It seems to be Buddhaghosa as well who put forward the tales you repeat re the teaching of the Abhidhamma to assemblies of devas and a mum in the Tusita heaven, as well as repeating the teaching to Sariputa at the end of each day. This to legitimize the claim that the Abhidhamma is Buddha-vacana, which does, of course, not stand up to historical scrutiny. You may, for the sake of clarity, wish to preface your work with the proviso that it is a view of the Abhidhamma in a traditional context, not an historical one. Kind Regards Herman -----Original Message----- From: robmoult [mailto:rob.moult@j...] Sent: Saturday, 21 August 2004 10:25 PM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] I'm back... Hi All, Haven't signed into DSG for three weeks while on vacation. I am keen to collect any feedback on "Abhidhamma - The Theory Behind the Buddha's Smile" (see files section). Metta, Rob M :-) Yahoo! Groups Links 35597 From: Ken O Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 0:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Nose vs. Abdomen Hi Greg Every moment is the place of concentration and sati. Why wait till we have to sit somewhere to realise it. If at this moment we are not mindful, thinking sitting in a corner, helps to improve our mindfullness, to me that is already history. Remember when one did a kamma, it is already gone and there is no way we can reverse it or change it. Likewise, a moment past, is already gone and doing it later will not help to change anything. What really matter is the presence we always have and not later or in any form of practise. the practise should be now or never and in any place and in any environment :). Cheers Ken O > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gleblanc108" > wrote: > > It is my understanding that the nostrils are the place of > > concentration in Mindfulness of Breathing given by the Buddha > > (Visuddhimagga), but that the abdomen is also often used (Burma > > revival movement). > > > > What are the differences between the two, is there an advantage > in > > using one over he other. > > > > Thank you > > > > Greg > 35598 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 0:41am Subject: The rehearsal of the Co. Dear Sarah, I remember that you mentioned texts about the Co. being also rehearsed at the Great Councils. In the Pali list I was asked to write an intro to the Co of the Mahaaraahulovaadasutta and mention the source. Please, could you help me? Is it only in the Mahaava.msa? Nina. 35599 From: robmoult Date: Sun Aug 22, 2004 0:55am Subject: Re: Comments on 'Introduction to the Abhidhamma' Hi Joop, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jwromeijn" wrote: > Comments on 'Introduction to the Abhidhamma' > > In the 'Links' of the Menu "robmoult" has put an Introduction with > the titel "Buddha's Smile" and asked for comments (end of august) > I'm not sure where to put them: if this is not the right place: > Moderator please redirect this. ====== This is the correct place to put comments. ====== > > Technical problems > This draft doesn't have a "Table of centens", no numbered structure > with chapters. > Is for example "What happens when we die" a chapter and "What is > rupa" a paragraph of that chapter? > And I don't know why but in this pdf-file the "Search"-function > doesn't work. ===== This is a draft, so I haven't added table of contents, index, chapter numbering, etc. All of this will be in the final version. For the draft, I used a free .PDF creator (CutePDF) and I guess that this software does not support indexing. Again, the final version will be more professional. ===== > > Some topics that surprised me > Page 9. 'Mental States' = Citta + Mental Factors; but is Mental > Factor = Cetasika ? ===== Yes, Mental Factor = Cetasika (I will clarify this in the text) ===== > Page 55 "Spontaneous birth - possible for all beings (human s > experience spontaneous birth only at the beginning of a world)". I > have read MN 12 ("The Great Discourse on the Lion's Roar") and can't > understand how this fits the principle "nothing happens without a > cause". Is this really Abhidhamma, do we have to take this quote > literally? (I don't). ===== There is a whole system built up of creation and destruction of worlds in the commentarial literature. According to this system, each new world system starts with beings in the Brahma plane (this is why the Maha Brahma mistakenly believes that he is the creator god). Over time, the lower realms in the world system are inhabited. The idea of a spontaneous birth in the human realm answers the question as to how the first human was born without a mother (i.e. which came first; chicken or the egg?). This is one of the obscure details that I included just to be technically accurate. ===== > > A not perfect selection > I prefer more information about "rupa": this selection gives the > impression that "nama" is much more important than "rupa". ===== I am of the opinion that, in Buddhism, nama is much more important that rupa. Rupa, when it is mentioned, is almost always either one of the five aggregates or an object of senses. I am curious, what other information about rupa would you include? ===== > Page 63/64 ("Things to be done when someone is critically ill" is > important but doesn't belong in an Introduction to Abhidhamma. ===== Agreed. I have deleted it. ===== > Page 66-81 are about the "31 planes of existence": too much pages. ===== I added this level of detail because it is a very popular topic in Dhamma talks. ===== > Page 66 quotes the words "rupa-loka" and "arupa-loka" but not the > important (from a soteriological point of view) fetters (samyojana's) > nr 6 and 7: rupa-raga and arupa-raga. ===== Interesting point. I will consider adding in references to the fetters as a driving force to rebirth in the rupa-loka and arupa- loka worlds. ===== > > I hope a second edition will come soon ===== I want to collect a lot more input so that the second edition is ready for printing. Joop, I really appreciate your comments and I welcome any further input you may have. Metta, Rob M :-)