39400 From: plnao Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 5:53pm Subject: Metta through the Noble Truths Hello all I was at the supermarket this morning when a feeling of great friendliness washed over me. I get that quite often at the supermarket. All the people coming to buy things to satisfy their needs, both wholesome needs for nutrition, and all those cravings. This got me thinking - again- that if and when we have insight into the Noble Truths, doesn't metta arise naturally? How can we not have a friendly "we're in the same boat" feeling when we see the way people (including ourselves) are hurried through life by craving for being, cravings for sensual pleasure, how we are all swung this way and that by the worldly concerns. How can we not feel friendliness when we realize, yet again, that we will all get sick, grow old (if we're lucky) and die, that we will be torn away from the things we love, and forced to be with things that cause us displeasure? It is so hard to be a human being. How can we not feel friendliness when understanding of the above arises in even a shallow way the way it does for me. We often see phrasing like "that person wants the same things I do, he fears what I do, he wants to be happy the way I do....why shouldn't I wish him happiness", or words to that effect. Dhammapada has "all beings tremble at the the rod etc". And it seems to me that when we realize "that person wants the same things I do" there is no need to go on to that next step of wishing him happiness. That metta will arise conditioned by any degree of insight we have in to the First and Second Noble Truths, or so it seems to me, lately. My insight into the Noble Truths is very shallow indeed, as demonstrated by the supermarket metaphor. As my insight deepens into the Noble Truths, I have a hunch metta will arise all the more easily. How could it not? As our insight deepens into the brilliance of the Buddha's teaching as revealed in his first discourse, as our appreciation for the way of liberation that He offers us through this teaching deepens, how can we not have friendly thoughts for all living beings? I know that the Buddha *did* teach the Metta Sutta, so there is a good reason for it. Perhaps it's for the days when metta does not arise through insight. But I would rather do without metta on those days and see the dosa-drenched stretches for what they are - annica, dukkha, anatta. Again, I know I am just repeating myself here, and it's pretty trite, but wanted to get this down. Metta, Phil p.s does anyone know how to say "we're in the same boat" in Pali? (only half joking!) Does a similar phrase appear in the Suttanta anywhere? I guess that "all beings tremble at the rod" comes close. p.p.s hello and thanks to all who sent me messages. Busy days here. I have flagged them and will get back gradually! 39401 From: Andrew Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 6:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's account of smiling cittas Dear Bhante Thank you indeed for your advice which I will take time to ponder and experiment with. I don't expect your post will incite a riot on DSG but if it does, I too will have a laugh about it. I will make one comment at the moment just for the sake of clarity. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Bhante Vimalaramsi wrote: [trim]> It may help to stop trying to be so analytical and demanding that reality > arise the way you want it to. This is one area I have been exploring with interest - how does reality arise? Conditionality. To what extent do conditioned states arise because of willing them to arise? To what extent do states arise when right understanding is present (and strong willing is not)? Many suttas tell us that "right understanding comes first". My belief (at present and speaking conventionally) is that when there is right understanding, I seem to have no inclination to for example break sila. Analysis is not required. But when I "force" myself to keep a precept in the face of an inclination not to, I experience feelings of aversion or shame or inferiority conceit (and probably a strong sense of self). I usually have to convince myself to behave using analysis. Thus, my experience links analytical-ness to heavy willing; and non-analytical-ness to understanding. But I believe there is a link between the two - that hearing and reflecting upon the true Dhamma is important to conditioning right understanding, periods of which then have no need of analysis. With respect Andrew 39402 From: Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 1:46pm Subject: The Rose [James] Hi, James - In a message dated 12/5/04 4:09:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > However, to go so far as to say that the rose doesn't even > exist, that it is nothing more than the dhammas of color, hardness, > cohesion, etc., is going way too far! ==================== Yes, there is a rose, but with an existence even more tenuous and ungraspable than the color, hardness, cohesion etc that interrelatedly underlie it and the mind that strains to see it as a unity. The rose is empty of own being and is never directly encountered. Yet it is not nothing. A host of past and presently observed phenomena underlie what we name "rose". Our mind imputes upon that aggregate of passing bubbles the name 'rose' and treats it as a self-existent entity. The rose exists, and yet ... how exactly it exists is important to see. In one sense, it exists as the universal flux proclaiming "See me here and now in this form that joins mind to fellow flashings in the void. Now you see me, now you don't. Catch me if you can!" 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) 39403 From: robmoult Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 6:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Andrew, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > Bit slow this morning (not surprising after our Dhamma discussion > weekend). Are you saying that the Buddha took an ontological > position, but only as a "technique" to counter one particular wrong > view? This reminds me of Ven Thanissaro's take on anatta a wee > bit ... ===== Yup! As you quoted Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary, "The Buddha's utterances at 22:94, for example, show that he did not hesitate to make pronouncements with a clear ontological import when they were called for." In SNXXII.94, it was appropriate for the Buddha to make an ontological statement to counter a specific type of wrong view. Don't know enough about Ven Thanissaro's take on anatta to comment. ===== > > I also take it that you and Howard consider that the ignorance of > being fooled by concepts is linked to self-view (which BB links to > clinging which is conditioned by craving which is conditioned by a > more basic level of ignorance). ===== Not sure about Howard :-), but being fooled by all objects (what the Abhidhammattha Sangaha calls "realities" or what the Abhidhammattha Sangaha calls "concepts") is a two-stage process (see Mulapariyaya Sutta, Mn1): First Stage (Initial Response) ============================== The uninstructed worldling is subject to perceiving (i.e. perversion of perception due to sanna-vipallasa) for all types of objects ("concept" or "reality"). This type of being fooled is linked to self-view. Learners (Sotapanna, Sakadagmi, Anagami) do not perceive, they directly know all types of objects ("concept" or "reality"). Second Stage (Conceptual / Emotive Response) ============================================ The uninstructed worldling delights in the object ("concept" or "reality") because he has not fully understood the object. This delighting in the object is not rooted in self-view because the learner (Sotapanna, Sakadagmi, Anagami) also has the possibility of delighting in the object and the learner has uprooted self-view. This type of being fooled by an object (all types of object, "concept" or "reality") is rooted in ignorance. ===== > You have searched in vain for a > reference where the Buddha states that this basic ignorance includes > an inability to distinguish the *existent* 5 sense-bases and mind > ("the world in the Noble One's Discipline") from the *nonexistent* > rest. Therefore, you conclude that an ability to so distinguish is > not an important part of the Dhamma. ===== I have searched in vain (well amost vain, Rob K did identify one example) of the Buddha making ontological statements of "existence". I therefore conclude that focusing on ontological issues is not a key to understanding the Buddha's teaching. ===== > > How does this sit with your view expressed to Mike that the object of > citta doesn't matter (presumably it's the understanding that matters). > > Can you have your cake (it's the understanding that matters) and eat > is as well (it doesn't matter if you don't understand the difference > between existent and nonexistent)? ===== The Mulapariyaya Sutta states that the uninstructed worldling takes delight in the object because he has not fully understood the object. The learner is encouraged not to take delight in the object in order that they may fully understand the object (of course, the Arahant and the Buddha fully understand the object). So what does it mean to "fully understand" an object (again, this applies to all types of objects, both "realities" and "concepts")? The commentary to the Mulapariyaya Sutta lists three progressive stages of "full understanding" (parinna): - the full understanding of the known (nataparinna) - the full understanding of scrutinization (tiranaparinna) - the full understanding of abandoning (pahanaparinna) The full understanding of the known means to analyze the object into constituent 'dhammas' and delimit the specific characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause of each dhamma. This process allows one to overcome the delusion of substantial unities. In other words, all things are made up of impersonal components brought together by conditions. Please note that in this series of messages, I am not rejecting the value of breaking things into constituent dhammas, I am only rejecting the value of attributing an ontological "reality" to these dhammas. The full understanding of scrutinization involves seeing the three characterisitic (impermanence, suffering and non-self) to overcome the delusion of permanance, pleasurable and self. At the stage of the full understanding of abandoning, desire and lust of objects is eliminated. ===== > > I don't know for sure if this is a fair question to pose to you, but > I'll post it anyway with apologies in advance! (-: ===== I hope that I answered your questions. Metta, Rob M :-) 39404 From: m. nease Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 7:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sarah: "One path" Hi Sarah, ----- Original Message ----- From: "sarah abbott" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 12:10 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sarah: "One path" > S: I'm not sure which translation of the Kitagiri sutta you're using. Is > 'reflective understanding' 'dhammŕ nijjhŕna.m khamanti' in the text below? > Usually where it gives 'he memorizes', I think the Pali is 'upaparikkhati' > which according to the Buddhadatta dictionary, means 'he investigates or > he examines'. For 'nijjhaayati', this dictionary gives 'he reflects'. I am > not familiar enough with the Pali to know whether it is conceptual or not > necessarily so. > From the PTS Pali dict: > Nijjhayati1 (p. 356) [Sk. nidhyayati, ni+jhayati1] to meditate, reflect, > think S III.140 sq. (+passati, cp. janati), 157; M I.334 (jhayati n. > apajjhayati); III.14 (id.). Cp. upa°. > > Perhaps you can give us your comments or translation of the key Pali terms > in the passage, Mike! For nijjhaayati, I have 'meditates; frets; reflects'. Like you I simply don't know if this refers to cetasikas or to pa.n.natti. > Btw (and as a diversion from the main thread), of interest is a line in > MN50 referring to a group of ascetics with wrong view and practice (BB > transl here) which uses the same word nijjhaayati, I think: > .. > "'These bald-pated recluses, these swarthy menial offspring of the > Kinsman's feet, claim: "We are meditators, we are meditators!" and with > shoulders drooping, heads down and all limp, they meditate, premeditate, > out-meditate, and mismeditate. > > "Just as an owl on a branch waiting for a mouse meditates, premeditates, > out-meditates, and mismeditates, or just as a jackal on a river-bank > waiting for fish meditates, premeditates, out-meditates, and mismeditates, > or just as a cat by a door-post or a dust-bin or a drain, waiting for a > mouse, meditates, premeditates, out-meditates, and mismeditates, or just > as a donkey unladen, standing by a door-post or a dust-bin or a drain > meditates, premeditates, out-meditates, and mismeditates, so too, these > bald-pated recluses, these swarthy menial offspring of the Kinsman's feet, > claim: "We are meditators, we are meditators!" and with shoulders > drooping, heads down and all limp, they meditate, premeditate, > out-meditate, and mismeditate.'" > *** > The Pali for these terms used here is 'jhaayanti, pajjhaayanti, > *nijjhaayanti*, apajjhaayanti'. Interesting...certainly doesn't sound like they're practicing either jhaana or satipa.t.thaana...more like thinking and fretting...describes the appearance of several of my fellow meditators back when to a 'T'--of course my own appearance was exemplary...! > See also MN108 which uses the same terms in: > > "'What kind of meditation did the Blessed One not praise? Here Brahmin, > someone abides with his mind obsessed by sensual lust, a prey to sensual > lust, and he does not understand as it actually is the escape from arisen > sensual lust. While he harbours sensual lust within, he meditates, > premeditates, out-meditates, and mismeditates.'" > *** Since the someone here has not even suppressed the defilements, he obviously isn't in jhaana-- > It continues with a description of 'the meditation of one whose mind is > obsessed by the five hindrances', to quote from B.Bodhi's note. Right-- > Back to the Kitagiri sutta (where of course the Pali terms are referring > to 'samma' ditthi) - all I can say is that the passage is a description of > suta mayaa pa~n~naa, cintaa mayaa pa~n~naa and bhaavanaa mayaa pa~n~naa, > as I see it, which Sukin referred to in his recent helpful post on > pa~n~naa to Bhante V. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/38585 > > These are all kinds of pa~n~naa/samma di.t.thi, but only the latter refers > to the development of satipatthana which is not conceptual. The > pin-pointing is not as important as the understanding that these three > kinds of samma ditthi reinforce each other. Well, that's the assumption you and I have been making, I think--but is it justified by the texts? I'm still not convinced that I've seen a citation supporting the idea of a 'right view' as opposed to the cetasika that 'views rightly', in other words a conceptual, a priori, presumptive view that is right. If I understand Dan and others correctly, such a view is inevitably wrong because it is alakkha.na asabhaava etc. > Without hearing/listening/having 'wise' access to the teachings (suta > mayaa pa~n~naa), there won't be any wise reflection (cintaa mayaa > pa~n~naa). Without the latter, there won't be any development of the path > (bhaavanaa mayaa pa~n~naa). Wise reflection here is the wise consideration > about concepts of dhammas (i.e namas and rupas) such as now while we talk. From Khun Sujin's 'Deeds of Merit' at http://www.buddhadhamma.org/book/Deeds_of_Merit/Chapter2.htm : We read in the Dialogues of the Buddha (III, 33, The Recital ), under the Threes (item 43) of the Recital: Three kinds of knowledge: cinta-mayaa-pannaa, pannaa accomplished by thinking, sutta-mayaa-pannaa, pannaa accomplished by listening, bhaavanaa-mayaa-pannaa, pannaa accomplished by mental development. This seems unequivocal, does anyone think that the first two are di.t.thi in the sense of micchadi.t.thi, or that this is a bad translation? If anyone thinks that these are somehow antithetical to sammaadi.t.thi (or even to the bhaavanaa-mayaa-pannaa), I'd like to know how... > ..... > M:>..and that the concept >> might be a decisive support condtion (upanissaya paccaya*) for >> satipa.t.thaana or even maggacitta? I think this is more or less the >> way I've been thinking about it. If so it hardly matters whether it's >> called 'sammaadi.t.thi' or not, it is conceptual, unique to the >> Buddhadhamma and priceless, or so it seems to me. > ..... > S: I couldn't agree more with you and all your comments. I've always > understood sammaadi.t.thi and pa~n~naa to be synonyms. Suan and I went > through some passages in the Vibhanga (2nd Abhidhamma text). For example, > here, under 'anupassati' : I do find your agreement very encouraging, still-- > 357. Anupassitiiti. Tatha katamaa anupassanaa? Yaa pa~n~naa > pajaananaa..pe..am oho dhammavicayo sammaadi.t.thi - aya.m vuccati > "anupassanaa".. > > PTS transl: > 357. 'contemplating' means: Therein what is contemplation? That which is > wisdom, understanding, ...absence of dullness, truth investigation, right > view. This is called contemplation.. These all sound like cetasikas to me as opposed to conceptual understanding-- > *** > Of course there are many kinds of pa~n~naa (as referred to in Vism XIV,1) > and degrees too. When it refers to sammaadi.t.thi of the fivefold or > eightfold path, we all agree there is nothing conceptual about it. > > A couple more 'gems' for you which support your comment above nicely: > > From Sammohavinodanii 1008, (translated as 'Dispeller of Delusion, comy to > the Vibhanga, PTS, Classification of the Structure of Conditions): > > "After stating it in many divisions > For profitable, unprofitable and indeterminate states, > Again, however, by the Best of Speakers > The structure of conditions is stated in single manner only > By way of decisive support [condition] > In regard to result of the profitable and unprofitable, > For the purpose of producing the variety > Of knowledge about "which states are condition for which", > And [so] since the variety of knowledge > Regarding that will never come about in those in whom > Is found lacking the Order [of Succession] > Consisting of Competency(pariyatti)-Learning > (savanaa)-Reflection(cintana)-Practice(pa.tipatti) > [Therefore] in accordance with the Order > Consisting of Competency-Learning-Reflection-Practice > The wise act always in regard thereto > For there is nothing other than that which more needs to be done." Well, of course this is all very pleasing, but not for the right reasons probably. I think you and Jon did send me a copy of the Dispeller--I'll have to drag it out next (if for no other reason, to support my Views...). > Of course, we also read in other passages and texts about the importance > of right reflection. For example, in the same text under the > Classification of the Foundations of Mindfulness, we read about the six > things which lead to the abandoning of ill-will: > > "1) the acquiring of the sign of amity, 2) devotion to the development of > amity, 3) reviewing ownership of kamma, 4) *much reflection*, 5) good > friendship, 6) suitable talk." Thanks for all of this Sarah, and my apologies for the long delayed reply. mike 39405 From: robmoult Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 7:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Mike, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > > Wouldn't a sotaapanna think about wrong view, envy, avarice and doubt > differently from the way a puthujjana would? Or do I misunderstand what you > mean by 'the way they think'? Never mind, I think I see what you mean--so a > learner of any level would, let's say, 'see' the three characteristics in > such as 'beings' just as in PD's? Would that learner be able to experience > insight--satipa.t.thaana vipassanaa--with regard to what the ADS calls > 'concepts'? Would insights founded on what ADS calls concepts eradicate > defilements? > ===== I just posted a message to Andrew that went into a bit more detail on the Mulapariyaya Sutta. It might help clarify a few points. ===== > > I think the 'pattern of thinking' may be my sticking point here. I'm > talking about sabhaava, I guess--and assuming that a learner would think > about sasabhaava dhammas differently from asabhaava dhammas (if such a > distinction can be properly said to exist). Could you explain what you mean > by 'pattern of thinking'? > ===== "Pattern of thinking" is described in a two-step process in my message to Andrew. ===== > Now that I think of it, this has implications for 'the learner', the arahant > and the Buddha, too--in sammuti sacca, the learner, the arahant and the > Buddha exists and thinks; in vohaara sacca, the thinking (vitakka- vicaara?) > exists but not the thinkers. ===== I am confused. Are you saying that in a conventional sense (vohara / sammuti), the Buddha exists and thinks while in the ultimate sense the thinking exists but not the thinkers? If this is what you are saying then I agree with your statement but I don't see the link to this thread. ===== > Do you think this sammuti/vohaara distinction > is an error in the texts? Or do you think its basis is in something other > than pa~n~natti/paramattha dhamma? Do continue, please... ===== Nyanatiloka says that sammuti and vohara mean the same thing. Metta, Rob M :-) 39406 From: m. nease Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 7:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sarah: "One path" [Sukin] Hi Howard, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sarah: "One path" [Sukin] >> Dear Sukin, >> My idea is esentially that sammaditthi is "right viewing" rather >> than "correct theory". The "samma" derives from the mode of seeing or >> understanding rather than the character of the object. >> > ========================== > This is a very interesting perspective to me - novel, fresh. > However, > much as I like it, MN 9 seems to indicate that that right view consists of > the > understanding (that's al it says, "understanding") of the following: 1) > the > wholesome and unwholesome, and their roots, 2) nutriment of all sorts, and > its > origin, cessation, and the path leading to that cessation, 3) the 4 noble > truths, and 4) every factor of the dependent origination of suffering, it > origin, > cessation, and the path leading to its cessation. This is about where I've got to with this, too. It seems to me that everything in this list can refer either to Dhamma concepts or to naama and ruupa, so it seems to me not to clearly state whether right view can be conceptual or not--my habitual interpretation is that there may be a correct theoretical view but that Dan's 'right viewing' (which I also think is correct) takes only naama and ruupa as aaramma.na. If I understand your take on all this, concept is always an obstacle to understanding. Do I misunderstand you? Please excuse the long delayed reply. mike 39407 From: m. nease Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 7:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] More Tales from India: Detachment & Bitter Medicine Very nicely put, Sarah, ----- Original Message ----- From: "sarah abbott" To: Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 1:50 AM Subject: [dsg] More Tales from India: Detachment & Bitter Medicine > So detachment means not minding at all what is conditioned and not wishing > for any particular states to arise. All right! Now I want that detachment! I'd LOVE not to mind at all what is conditioned or to wish for any particular states to arise...how do I start?! Oh yes, moving in slow motion towards the roots of trees and so on...wait! No... 39408 From: Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 2:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's account of smiling cittas Hi, Ken - In a message dated 12/5/04 8:53:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > ------------------- > H: >If you do not > think that the view that there is no practice to be willfully done, > and none that *can* be so done, is not a view of helplessness and > hopelessness, then simply dismiss my perspective as nonsense. That > is certainly your prerogative. > > -------------------- > > Dhamma-practice (satipatthana) does contain the mental factor, > cetana (volition). So does every other moment of consciousness. > But it would be wrong to read into that, the idea of a free will (a > will free from the constraints of conditionality). ---------------------------------------- Howard: I do not believe in a cetana free of conditionality. No phenomena arise randomly. And a free will that is random is a particularly absurd notion, as I see it. --------------------------------------- When I say 'it > > would be wrong' I mean that interpretation of the Tipitaka would > certainly be contrary to the interpretation spelt out in the ancient > commentaries. > > In an age when just about everyone claims to be an interpreter of > the Tipitaka and an authority on Buddhist meditation, the ancient > commentaries are a rare bastion for right view. I shouldn't appoint > myself as "Defender of the Commentaries" but nor should I feel > obliged to hold my tongue. --------------------------------------- Howard: No one here should feel obliged to hold his tongue. I agree. I certainly didn't suggest anything to the contrary in the post to which you are replying. -------------------------------------- > > James has said he would rather I didn't respond to his posts, and I > gather you, too, are tired of my "gainsaying." > --------------------------------------- Howard: If I should feel that way, please be assured that I will say so. I have not said so, and I do not say so. ------------------------------------ But, in the eyes of > > some readers, silence does give consent. ------------------------------------ Howard: It is often so that silence signifies assent, and it therefore makes good sense to speak up when the matter is deemed important. My perspective is still the same as before. Yours is different. That's fine. ------------------------------------ In a group portraying > > itself as "Tipitaka and Commentaries based" the inference that the > commentaries peddle hopelessness, helplessness and wrong view will > not go unnoticed. So, again, for the record, I disagree. :-) ------------------------------------- Howard: Duly noted and understood. That's perfectly fine. You disagree, and you say so. No problem with that as far as I'm concerned. ------------------------------------------ > > Kind regards, > Ken H > > > ======================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 39409 From: m. nease Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 7:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Rob, ----- Original Message ----- From: "robmoult" To: Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 7:05 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts > I am confused. Are you saying that in a conventional sense (vohara / > sammuti), the Buddha exists and thinks while in the ultimate sense > the thinking exists but not the thinkers? If this is what you are > saying then I agree with your statement but I don't see the link to > this thread. Yes, but never mind... >> Do you think this sammuti-vohaara distinction >> is an error in the texts? Or do you think its basis is in > something other >> than pa~n~natti/paramattha dhamma? Do continue, please... > > ===== > > Nyanatiloka says that sammuti and vohara mean the same thing. Thanks for the correction--of course I meant 'sammuti-vohaara/paramattha' (convention-usage/ultimate). mike 39410 From: Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 2:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sarah: "One path" [Sukin] Hi, Mike - In a message dated 12/5/04 10:08:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, mlnease@z... writes: > If I understand your > take on all this, concept is always an obstacle to understanding. Do I > misunderstand you? > > ========================= I see concept as a kind of two-edged sword. It cuts both ways. On the one hand, concept reveals, on the other hand it obscures. Without concept but also still unpossesive of genuine pa~n~na, we would be, as William James has said, little more than a sessile sea anemone. On the other hand, the means of knowing provided by concept is inherently distorted compared to the direct knowing of wisdom, and concepts are the primary carriers of ignorance. 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) 39411 From: robmoult Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 7:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Mike, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > >> Do you think this sammuti-vohaara distinction > >> is an error in the texts? Or do you think its basis is in > > something other > >> than pa~n~natti/paramattha dhamma? Do continue, please... > > > > ===== > > > > Nyanatiloka says that sammuti and vohara mean the same thing. > > Thanks for the correction--of course I meant 'sammuti- vohaara/paramattha' > (convention-usage/ultimate). > I have been continuing my search of primary texts. Nyanatiloka says that the term "paramattha" is first used in the opening paragraph of the Kathavatthu (Points of Controversy). I checked my copy of the Kathavatthu and found that the term paramattha is used twice and both times it is used in the context of "is a being an ultimate reality?" (not to keep you in suspence, the answer is No! :-) ). The more generic use of the term paramattha to refer to the ultimate reality of dhammas is not in the primary texts (though it is the starting point for the struture of the Abhidhammattha Sangaha). In other words, the assigning of "ultimate reality" status to constituent dhammas is not found in the primary texts. Metta, Rob M :-) 39412 From: plnao Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 7:35pm Subject: I tried it and liked it! (was Re: Bhante and Smiling ) Hello Bhante > The reason that I have my students smile is to help them have a more > uplifted mind. With this lighter type of mind, joy has a better chance to > arise. With joy in one's mind one's awareness sees much more clearly when > the joy disappears and a heavier type of mental state arises > (unwholesome). Smiling very much helps my students to recognize what is > happening in the present moment. You have been very patient in your insistence on this practice, so I tried it this morning. It was very pleasant. I generated the smile, if you will, by thinking of the Buddha and his teaching of the Noble Truths. Thinking of the Buddha with a smile did make me feel like I had a more uplifted mind, that is true. And yes, I would say that I *did* have a more uplifted mind when thinking of the Buddha, and smiling. I had a physically warm feeling, even. (Quite chilly in our place.) When I started to nod off ( my main hindrane when meditating) and brought myself back to the breath, I also brought back the smile, and the pleasant feeling, and the warmth. > As Ken O says, "We live our life with patience, courage and faith even > though the eradication of underlying tendencies can be a very gigantic > challenge." Smiling is a way to help the meditator overcome the > underlying tendencies for unwholesome states to arise and this is what > 'right effort' is all about. First, recognizing that an unwholesome state > has arisen (i.e. the smile has disappeared), next to let go of that > unwholesome state and relax the tension caused by that state, next to > bring up a wholesome state (smile again), and then to keep that wholesome > state going. This is where we will disagree, again. The pleasantness I was feeling was not necessary a wholesome state. I just don't believe that the Buddha wanted to teach us how to have pleasant feelings. Liberation comes through seeing with insight into all our mental states, both the wholesome ones and the unwholesome ones. So if I "recongize that an unwholesome state has arisen", that recognizing is in itself a wholesome state. It is a small step towards detachment from the unwholesome state. When I regenerated the smile and the pleasant feeling, it was - in my opinion at this time- a lunge away from insight towards comfort. And I was aware of this, so it was OK. Life is hard, I know. I don't want to always be frowning on practices that make it easier to deal with life's hardships. So I will try this practice again. Just trying it once is not enough. I shouldn't even comment yet. But I thought you would like to know that I tried it, as you recommended. > This takes real practice to develop and putting a sincere smile on one's > face helps one to be able to recognize their mental states when they > change. Yes, I can see that this could be true. It did for me, but in my case I felt that putting the smile back did not indicate a wholesome mental state but rather an unwholesome one, an attachment to pleasant feeling. I appreciate the way you mention chanda, but from what I understanda chanda can have either a kusala or akusala object. (ss compared to viramsa(sp?) which is the investigation of realities/panna factor and can have only a kusala object - I may be wrong here.) >It is following the 8 Fold Path, because it changes one's > perspective and helps the meditator's mindfulness to become sharper. I can see this. I'm thinking these days that I will be returning to the meditation cushion one day soon for another go at insight meditation. My daily life is already a kind of meditation. Time on the cushion could be an intensification of that. We'll see. I'm a beginner, so I should keep an open mind on these things. >Joy and smiling lead to a much finer type of awareness and mindfulness, these > states help greatly to be able to watch minds tricky meanderings, so when > the recognition of this wandering arises it can be let go of more quickly > and more easily. The pleasant feeling I had from intentionally smiling and thinking of the Buddha was something, for sure, but I'm not sure it was joy. For me, joy arises at unexpected moments in a flooding way, but I have only begun to figure this out. > This is another thing that Ken O said it a previous post. It is taken > from the Visuddhi Magga: Gladness is characterized as gladdening > (produced by others' success). Its function resides in being unenvious. > It is manifested as the elimination of aversion (boredom). Its proximate > cause is seeing beings' success. It succeeds when it makes aversion > (boredom) subside, and it fails when it produces 'merriment'. > > Doesn't merriment imply smiling? To me it does! Yes, I did feel more merry while I was smiling, I'll admit that. By the way, you made a reference in another post about misquoting Vis. I didn't get what you were apologizing about, but please never mind. > Eventually, one can develop the habit of smiling and it will become an > automatic thing. But it does take practice to make perfect (if there is > such a thing as perfect). Intentional putting a smile on one's face > eventually leads to a keener awareness of the present moment. Try it > you'll like it! I did like it! And I will try it again. Metta, Phil 39413 From: m. nease Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 7:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sarah: "One path" [Sukin] Hi Howard, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 7:24 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sarah: "One path" [Sukin] > I see concept as a kind of two-edged sword. It cuts both ways. On > the > one hand, concept reveals, on the other hand it obscures. That's the way I see it too, I think... > Without concept but > also still unpossesive of genuine pa~n~na, we would be, as William James > has > said, little more than a sessile sea anemone. It's been at least thirty years since I read WJ, but I think I do take his point... > On the other hand, the means of > knowing provided by concept is inherently distorted compared to the direct > knowing of wisdom, '...inherently distorted...'--so, always moha? > and concepts are the primary carriers of ignorance. I'm not sure what you mean by 'carrier' (I'd like to know), but can you direct me to a Paali text that posits concept as, say, proximate cause (or anything similar) of moha? Sorry if you've done this already Thanks for your patience! mike 39414 From: m. nease Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 7:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Rob, ----- Original Message ----- From: "robmoult" To: Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 7:28 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts >> > Nyanatiloka says that sammuti and vohara mean the same thing. >> >> Thanks for the correction--of course I meant 'sammuti- > vohaara/paramattha' >> (convention-usage/ultimate). > > I have been continuing my search of primary texts. Nyanatiloka says > that the term "paramattha" is first used in the opening paragraph of > the Kathavatthu (Points of Controversy). Well, at least we're not initiating new ones... > I checked my copy of the > Kathavatthu and found that the term paramattha is used twice and > both times it is used in the context of "is a being an ultimate > reality?" (not to keep you in suspence, the answer is No! :-) ). What a relief...but cold comfort if there's really no difference after all... > The more generic use of the term paramattha to refer to the ultimate > reality of dhammas is not in the primary texts (though it is the > starting point for the struture of the Abhidhammattha Sangaha). > > In other words, the assigning of "ultimate reality" status to > constituent dhammas is not found in the primary texts. Thanks again, Rob, very interesting points even to a dilletante like myself--I look forward to seeing (and trying to understand) where this all leads. mike 39415 From: plnao Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 7:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] I tried it and liked it! (was Re: Bhante and Smiling ) Hello again, Bhante Vimilaramsi > I did like it! And I will try it again. I forgot to thank you for having recommended this practice. Metta, Phil 39416 From: Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 3:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sarah: "One path" [Sukin] Hi, Mike - In a message dated 12/5/04 10:53:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, mlnease@z... writes: > >and concepts are the primary carriers of ignorance. > > I'm not sure what you mean by 'carrier' (I'd like to know), but can you > direct me to a Paali text that posits concept as, say, proximate cause (or > anything similar) of moha? Sorry if you've done this already > > ======================= All elements of all khandhas in non-arahants are infected by avijja. Avijja is passed on, link by link, in the cycle of dependent origination. Concepts, formed by sankharic formation, are among the elements that are infected, and they play major role in the transmission of avijja for human beings in particular. In any case, by being a carrier of avijja, I mean being infected by it and passing it on. I'm very poor at citations, Mike. I do know there is a sutta - I always forget the reference - in whcih the Buddha says something to the effect that he uses concepts but is not fooled by them. I take that as pointing to the delusive aspect of concepts. 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) 39417 From: Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 3:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sarah: "One path" [Sukin] Hi again, Mike - In a message dated 12/5/04 11:14:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > All elements of all khandhas in non-arahants are infected by avijja > ====================== That is an overstatement. The links in D.O. are all so infected. But rupas are not. Sights, sounds, tastes, etc are, in themselves, innocent. 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) 39418 From: plnao Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 8:26pm Subject: Chanda ( was Re: [dsg] I tried it and liked it! (was Re: Bhante and Smiling ) Hello yet again, Bhante Vimililaramsi, and all > Yes, I can see that this could be true. It did for me, but in my case I felt > that putting the smile back did not indicate a wholesome mental state but > rather an unwholesome one, an attachment to pleasant feeling. I appreciate > the way you mention chanda, but from what I understanda chanda can > have either a kusala or akusala object. (ss compared to viramsa(sp?) which > is the investigation of realities/panna factor and can have only a kusala > object - I may > be wrong here.) Here's a clarification of this, from Nina's "Conditions": "Chanda, viriya and citta can be predominant in the accomplishment of an enterprise or task both in a wholesome way and in an unwholesome way, whereas vimamsa, investigation of Dhamma, which is a sobhana ctasika, can only be predominant in a wholesome way." There follows a bit later an interesting example: "Viriya can be a predominant factor in the accomplishment of our tasks. Preparing food may be part of our daily chores, and sometimes, when we like to do this, chanda may be predominant. At other times, we may find it an effort but we may still want to cook. Then we may prepare food with viriya as predominant factor. At such moments, there is likely to be lobha, but viriya is foremost in the accomplishment of cooking." At this very moment, I am boiling pasta, which will be drenched in cheese for a quick, unhealthy lunch that will satisfy my taste buds. I don't know if there is chanda involved, but there is certainly lobha. Metta, Phil 39419 From: Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 8:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Rob, The concept of concept came from the abhidhamma pitaka and there is a little discussion of it in Vism. and more in the main commentary to Vism. So I don't think we can blame or credit Acarya Anuruddha for starting this controversy. For a slightly tangential comment from a modern scholar regarding the meaning of "sa~n~naa" in the nikayas, Tilman Vetter writes, "Sa~n~naa is, at the most, perception in the sense of a specific idea stimulated by, but not necessarily correctly interpreting the object of sensory perception. Often it is mere imagination, a few times contemplation." Further on he writes, "in all cases sa~n~naa seems to be a mental phenomenon that eventually has to be overcome or no longer identified with"..."I have found no place where spiritual insight (pa~n~na and synonyms) are considered to be renounced as one has to renounce the five items [khandhas]."* L: So if you think sa~n~naa has something to do with concept you could look at its use in the suttas. Similarly sankhara khandha. Also I think the word "reality" is a little harsh. Instead of "concept and reality" we might think of this duo as impermanence and illusion. Both are to be degrasped. Sometimes teachers build up reality as an easy way to devalue concept but this can lead to a misleading valuation of reality as something superior. Inferiority and superiority will only be found in how we view these dhammas, not in the dhammas themselves, imo. Larry *Tilmann Vetter "The 'Khandha Passages' in the Vinayapitaka and the four main Nikayas" 2000 39420 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 8:48pm Subject: Re: The Rose [James] Friend Howard, > Yes, there is a rose, but with an existence even more tenuous and > ungraspable than the color, hardness, cohesion etc that interrelatedly underlie it > and the mind that strains to see it as a unity. The rose is empty of own > being and is never directly encountered. Yet it is not nothing. > A host of past and presently observed phenomena underlie what we name > "rose". Our mind imputes upon that aggregate of passing bubbles the name > 'rose' and treats it as a self-existent entity. The rose exists, and yet ... how > exactly it exists is important to see. In one sense, it exists as the universal > flux proclaiming "See me here and now in this form that joins mind to fellow > flashings in the void. Now you see me, now you don't. Catch me if you can!" > > 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) Yes, I completely agree, and nicely put. Reminds me of your sign off quote (so I decided not to snip it off this time ;-). Metta, James 39421 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 9:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's account of smiling cittas Friend Ken H., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: James has said he would rather I didn't respond to his posts, Kind regards, > Ken H I NEVER said that!! That would be a terrible thing to say (who am I to dictate who can and cannot respond to my posts??). I may not like your responses (or I may), and I may not respond in kind, but I don't think I have ever put a 'gag order' on anyone. Metta, James 39422 From: Ken O Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 9:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Metta through the Noble Truths Hi Phil P: This got me thinking - again- that if and when we have insight into the Noble Truths, doesn't metta arise naturally? How can we have a friendly "we're in the same boat" feeling when we see the way people (including ourselves) are hurried through life by craving > for being, cravings for sensual pleasure, how we are all swung this way and that by the worldly concerns. K: Beautiful. That is how compassion arise, seeing the suffering of people. k: On the note on smiling when you try it, as I said before, smiling can be conditioned by lobha mula cittas which can have pleasant feelings. So the pleasant feelings you have can be an akusala citta that arise. K: Hope you dont mind me being direct. Recollecting on Buddha and smiling are two different things. Recollection is a method but it does not ask you to smile. Joyous feeling after recollecting the Buddha is different from one that condition by a smile, because one is not overcome by passion while the other can be overcome by passion. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an11-013.html <> Ken O 39423 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 10:11pm Subject: Re: kusala and akusala. Friend Nina, Nina: It is not a question of accepting them, but: understanding them as impersonal, conditioned elements. This is the Middle Way. James: I agree. Nina: Dhamma is like a mirror. James: I like this phrase, very poetic, but I'm not sure what you mean. Nina: As you also know from your contacts with others when you were helping meditation groups in the U.S. at the Thai temple, people worry about their akusala, want to ignore it. Try to suppress it with an idea of self and this is not the solution. James: I don't recall writing anything like this in regards to my experiences as a meditation teacher's assistant. Participants didn't tell me that they were worried about their akusala, nor did I witness participants ignoring their defilements or trying to suppress them with an idea of self. We spoke often about the hindrances to meditation and how to overcome them; is that what you mean? Nina: At the same time Kh.S. helps us all not to take kusala nor akusala for self and to learn to detect our clinging to self. James: What is this `self' that you often refer to? Do you mean desire and craving for existence? You seem to speak about `self' as if a `self' really exists. My understanding is that no `self' exists, only the desire for existence. Nina: The sotapanna (first stage of enlightenment) has eradicated the wrong view of self and his/her kusala is so much purer. James: I like how you point out the possible gradations in kusala. Some people's kusala is going to be `purer' than other people's. Often times we forget this when we think in theoretical terms. Nina: James, do you see: Right view is wholesomeness. James: Yes. That's an easy one, give me a harder question. ;-)) Nina: It is an exhortation to develop pańńa. James: I have no issues with the importance of developing panna (wisdom). It is very crucial. However, the issue I have is when the development of panna supersedes or replaces the development of sila and samadhi. Sila, Samadhi, and Panna should all be developed to the greatest extent possible, this is the Noble Eightfold Path. Nina: You will see that Kh stresses what is also in the suttas: seeing and the defilements arising on account of visible object. We keep on seeing persons or things in the visible object. Or we cling to my seeing. We fail to consider them as impersonal elements and this gives rise to a great deal of akusala. James: Yes, you point to something here that I want to address: Why does A. Sujin seem to place so much importance on `seeing'? Why not place equal importance on the other sense doors, as the Buddha does? From my understanding, seeing is the most neutral of the five senses. The other senses (taste, smell, hearing, and touch) bring up the strongest reactions of like and dislike and thus craving. Why not often close your eyes and focus on where most of the problem lies? Metta, James 39424 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 10:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > > My point is that the Buddha's teaching was not focused on realities > > and non-realities (concepts). Acariya Anuruddha used ultimate > > realities as a structure to summarize the Abhidhamma when he wrote > > the Abhidhammattha Sangaha, but ultimate realities are not an > > element of the Buddha's teaching. A cursory reading of the > > Abhidhammattha Sangaha gives the incorrect impression that > > ontological issues (realities vs. non-realities) is an important > > part of the Buddha's teaching. > > ========== Dear RobM, I think seeing what is reality (dhamma) and what is not is stressed throught the teachings. The Udanaatthakatha (trans. masefield p.878)Blind from birth chapter:"since they do not know Dhamma, they do not know that which is not Dhamma either. ....... they neither know dhamma to be a thing having an owm nature (sabhava), nor do they know that which is not dhamma to be a thing lacking an own nature.(Dhammam sabhavadhammam..adhammam asabhavadhammam) And as such they declare a thing having an own nature as though it were a thing lacking an own nature....""endquote This passage was written hundreds of years before Anuruddha was born. Robert 39425 From: Ken O Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 11:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Rob M > From SNXXII.94, it is clear that the Buddha said that the five > aggregates do exist (Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary explains that they > exist as impermanent processes). As far as I know, this is the only > time that the Buddha made an ontological statement regarding > existence / non-existence. According to Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary, > the Buddha made this statement to refute a specific type of wrong > view (illusionist theories that the world lacks existence). k: So does that contradict what Buddha say that D.O exist and 4NT. In one sutta Buddha says D.O exist. The fundamental question should be is self (a concept) a reality. Self does not exist but the attachment to a view to self exist, is a reality. Buddha say there is no self in aggregates, so do self exist then? > In SNXXII.94 the Buddha did say that the five aggregates are real > (in an ontological sense) to refute a specific wrong view. I am not aware of any Sutta where the Buddha said that concepts are "not real". If you are aware of any other ontological statements proclaimed by the Buddha, please advise. k: We must first differentiat that does concepts exist - yes only in the mental construct, but do it has reality - No. Other than exist as a imaginary construct, they do not exist as a reality that can be directly known Lets look at Mulapariyaya Sutta which you quoted earlier, Worldings -- <> Arahants -- <> There is no reference that concepts exist as reality, why, please note that <>. Ken O 39426 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 11:55pm Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 67 - Perception/Sa~n~naa (n) Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.3 Perception(sa~n~naa)contd] ***** When all defilements have been eradicated there will be no more conditions for rebirth, no more conditions for being obsessed by objects. Sańńĺ is conditioned by the citta and the other cetasikas it accompanies and thus sańńĺ is different as it accompanies different types of citta. When we listen to the Dhamma and we remember the Dhamma we have heard there is kusala sańńĺ with the kusala citta. Remembering what one has heard and reflecting about it again and again are important conditions for the arising of sati which is mindful of what appears now. The sańńĺ which accompanies mindfulness of the present moment is different from the sańńĺ accompanying the citta which thinks of realities. ***** [Ch.3 Perception(sa~n~naa)to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 39427 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 0:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Metta for oneself translation question Dear Antony, Thank you for your kind comments. --- Antony Woods wrote: > The translation you quoted was more like “one who loves himself > //should// > not harm another” which really helps. This makes a huge difference. I > think > the Buddha meant just that we should not harm others. He wasn’t saying > to > cultivate concern for oneself in order to love others. .... S: Exactly. We have no shortage of concern for ourselves. ..... > > Undue concern for oneself can be translated as “worry” which is easier > to > see as attachment and a hindrance. “Self-obsession” could also apply. > A friend of mine says affectionately “Now quit that worrying, silly > boy!” .... S: We can test out that at moments of true metta or kindness, generosity or understanding of dhammas,there is no concern for oneself at these times, no worry about 'me' and my situation, no attachment or self-obsession at all. When there is wanting anything for oneself, including metta, more wisdom, quicker results, fewer unwholesome states or a change of personality -- it's self-obsession again, as you put it. Developing such self-obsession merely results in the opposite of what we were wishing for in the first place - a life of unease rather than of ease! I've enjoyed our discussion on this topic, Antony. Do you have another one to follow with? > May you be well and happy, ... S: you too. Metta, Sarah ======= 39428 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 0:45am Subject: Re: Evil thoughts (Rob M) Hi Rob M, Thanks for your reply. We were talking about puppy training and the capacity (or incapacity) of formal practices to develop kusala habits. ------------- RM: > I just noticed a post of Nina's (39191) in which she replied to Larry's request for an example of a habit: Since we are back from India Lodewijk has formed a new habit: reading a sutta at night, and I: reading a sutta with the breakfast coffee. (Phil will like this.) We can form new habits, break old ones, form good and bad habits. Habit: what we usually do, or think. What is often done becomes a habit. What is it? Citta and cetasika, kusala or akusala. It is the action of accumulating, during the period of javana cittas. Accumulation is a difficult word. As I said it also denotes what lies dormant, and these can be: good and bad dispositions. I think that Nina and I are saying the same thing... that repeated actions will tend to repeat again. This is their nature. > --------------- Nina and Lodewijk would be the last to believe in the efficacy of pannatti-sila. When they are reading suttas in the evening and morning, it is because that is what they like to do. They do not presume to be having sila. They do not have the wrong view of 'control over dhammas.' And they do not see their habits as necessarily Dhamma practice. When panna arises to see truth in the suttas, then there is pariyatti - the intellectual stage of Dhamma practice. When panna arises to see a paramattha dhamma the way the Buddha described it, then there is patipatti - actual Dhamma practice. These things are dependent on conditions (including kusala habits), not on calculated behaviours (formal practices). --------------- RM: > One moment, I may be thinking of a self who is meditating. The next moment, I am thinking of a person with true metta. As you know, one cannot have attachment to self-view and thoughts of true metta at the same time. Will those thoughts of self-view tend to create further accumulations, a deeper habit? Yup, they will. Will those thoughts of true metta also tend to create further accumulations, a deeper habit? Yup again! > -------------- Fair enough - except for one thing: Metta arises in one who knows the difference between kindness - kusala - and attachment - akusala. Metta for others is not 'desire to have metta.' If you are a kind person, why are sitting alone on a pillow trying to have metta? Why aren't you out being kind to people? (just joking) --------------- RM: > This is where right effort of the Eightfold Noble Path comes in. Right effort is making an effort to: - Reduce akusala - Eliminate akusala - Make kusala grow - Maintain kusala > --------------- Is it? When there is right effort of the 8NP, all four forms arise at once, which is quite a feat (a supramundane effort). At mundane moments of kusala (including, I think, satipatthana) there is only one form of effort at a time. (Although it might be argued that, in satipatthana, all four kusala forms are being developed.) But I am arguing that formal practice never involves right effort. ---------- RM: > Is this not just a more technical way of saying what Nina said, "We can form new habits, break old ones, form good and bad habits." > ---------- I think "not" was a typo. In any case, Nina tells us that habits are just habits. Repeated kusala will form a habit of kusala, and repeated akusala will form a habit of akusala. Unfortunately for the meditators, there is no control: the condition that allows for kusala consciousness is understanding, not rite or ritual. -------------- RM: > The key point here is that weight of the kamma depends on the strength of the volition at the moment. 99.999% of the time, I have akusala thoughts (clinging to sense data, clinging to existence, attachment to self view, etc.) but the kamma created is very weak because the volition is very weak. In that moment of pure metta, the volition is incredibly strong because I am "going against the natural flow". This incredibly strong volition associated with the kusala action creates incredibly powerful good kamma. ----------------- I won't argue, except to say that I doubt very much if you ever have metta while you are sitting on your pillow. Sitting doesn't become a factor for metta until it is being developed as a jhana absorption (as discussed below). If sitting takes place as a ritualistic practice, only wrong view and lobha are being developed, not metta. ---------------- RM: > Let me pose you a question. I think that we both know that jhanas do not lead to enlightenment. Prior to the Buddha, others (such as Udaka, Gotama's final teacher) reached the highest levels of jhana yet were unable to get enlightened. Since this is true, why did the Buddha not dismiss the jhanas? > -------------------- Before the Tathagata arose in the world, the highest form of wisdom was (I think) jhana absorption. There were many wise men and women who could otherwise have practised vipassana but who could only aspire to jhana. (Not all wise people did, of course, some chose to live as householders.) When a Tathagata finally arose in the world, some jhana practitioners, not all, were so wise they could practise mundane vipassana in the very first lifetime in which they heard the Dhamma. A smaller number were wise enough to attain Stream-entry (and so on). A tiny minority became chief arahant-disciples, able to teach other ariyans - in other words; the greater their wisdom, the greater the strength of their attainments. If a monk had the potential to attain high levels of supramundane powers, the Buddha would encourage him to persist with his jhana development. (I *think* that's the correct explanation.) ------------------------ RM: > Why did the Buddha put so much emphasis on the jhanas (i.e. right concentration in the Noble Eightfold Path)? Could it be because jhanas (i.e. "formal meditation") ---------------------- :-O Ark! You made me choke on my breakfast cereal! Jhana is not formal meditation! :-) Jhana is developed in one who is already "established in sila" and "established in moderation." Then, "having temporarily suppressed the hindrances, ardent, clearly comprehending and mindful," he sets out on the homeless life (at the base of a tree etc.). There, sitting straight-backed and intent on nothing else, he concentrates his tremendously kusala consciousness and maintains that concentration (as an absorption). * Formal practice, in stark contrast, is the idea that kusala consciousness can be developed by sitting in a certain way, or by concentrating, or by trying not to think etc. In other words, it is wrong view. -------------------- RM:[jhanas] > are important preparatory work that helps the mind get ready for enlightenment? > ------------ I'm not sure about that. (I'm still getting over the shock.) If a person has the accumulated panna to develop vipassana, I think it would be easier to do that to the exclusion of jhana. If he is really, really smart (and is confident of being reborn in a conducive environment) perhaps he should go ahead and develop jhana first. But I doubt there is any such person in the world today - they all went to parinibbana years ago (yonks ago). :-) Ken H * I'm not sure of my sources, but I mentioned this to Christine on the weekend, and I think she said she would look it up for me. (Hi Christine.) :-) 39429 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 0:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Value of discussion (was evil thoughts) Dear Bhante, --- Bhante Vimalaramsi wrote: > > Dhamma Greetings Sarah, > > By reading so much about lobha when trying to pull up wholesome states > of > mind is a mistake. .... S: With respect, I think the mistake is in 'trying to pull up wholesome states' and assuming that a particular scenario, in this kind the smile, is indicative of wholesome states, as Ken O and Phil have been stressing. On our recent trip, a friend asked about 'tears' and whether they only accompanied unwholesome states. The reply was that when we think like this -- of some particular situation such as the smiling or the tearful one -- there is no understanding of presently appearing dhammas and in effect, we're trying to 'work out' the various kinds of consciousness in a situation, taking such a situation for being a reality. Whenever there is wanting something, whether it is to having wholesome states, to knowing more about the Tipitaka, to doing good things, there's bound to be lobha (attachment, wanting something for oneself and expectations again. When there's lobha, there's no panna (understanding) and it's hard to see because it's not what we wish to see. .... >Chanda is a wholesome form of desire and gets > forgotten about. If one is pulling up a smile this leads to an uplifted > mind and doesn't have anything to do with the unwholesome lobha. .... S: I think that it's the unwholesome lobha that tends to get mistaken for chanda or other wholesome states, rather than the reverse. Chanda may also accompany these unwholesome cittas and masquerade as wholesome chanda. Again, only panna can know at any moment - the cittas change so fast, that we can't say in such and such a situation it's this or that way. That's why detachment is so important in order to understand the different kusala and akusala states for what they are, as anatta, rather than trying to have them a certain way with attachment again. This is how we can read more and more about attachment, about the accumulations or tendencies, developing detachment from whatever has arisen and beginning to see these dhammas for what they are as anatta. Otherwise, I believe we'll always be blinded to the real extent of attachment arising even whilst performing such seemingly noble deeds. .... >Chanda > is pointing one's mind to the direction of liberation, so it is a > wholesome direction even if one has desire in their mind because of the > direction one intends to attain. .... S: It always comes back to the present moment. If there is desire now -- for results, for jhana, for doing good deeds or whatever, it will merely lead to more desire and take us away from the direction of the development of the Path and it won't be wholesome chanda arising. You may wish to read more about chanda in Nina's 'Cetasikas', in 'U.P.' and also 'cheating dhammas' in U.P. Metta, Sarah p.s I hope you received my other post on panna. I appreciate your contributions and accounts of your kind deeds too. ======= 39430 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 1:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: AN III - 100 mental misconduct vs. thoughts of ill-will Friend James, Yes, it's a long time since we've chatted, but that doesn't mean I haven't been following your posts with interest. --- buddhatrue wrote: > I am just jumping into this thread and I haven't followed the entire > thread, but I have a question: Is this how the Buddha said one > should view the defilements? .... S: Let me ask you. If a defilement, lets say attachment, has arisen, do you think the Buddha encouraged us to be aware of it at such a time with awareness, detachment and understanding, or was something else recommended? If it has already arisen by conditions, isn't it 'good to know the truth of one's accumulations' as I wrote. .... >This seems to be a type of "if it > feels good, do it" philosophy. ... S: I think it's more a "if it's arisen anyway, why not know it for what it is, rather than having attachment, aversion or ignorance at such a time". ... >I'm not saying that hating one's > defilements is productive (I don't think it is), but I also don't > think that one should accept them. What do you think? ... S: I think the most helpful and important thing is to understand any defilements or other dhammas as conditioned and not self. This is the knowledge that leads to detachment, acceptance and the gradual elimination of all defilements. As I just wrote to Bhante V, wanting to have fewer defilements or more good and taking these for being my good and bad mental states, merely leads to more attachment to the self. Thanks for your comments and interest in this thread. Did you listen to any of the audio discussion from India?. The notes that you responded to were from an earlier India discussion in which Kom and Nina were helpfully raising the points. Metta, Sarah p.s You've written a couple of posts I've particularly appreciated. One was on the sutta about Sariputta to Bhante. Also, a couple of good quotes on rt speech sometime. ============================================= 39431 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 1:30am Subject: Trying to catch up with Ken O and breathless;-) Hi Ken O, I know that somewhere I have a couple of posts to reply to you on - I will come across them sometime. One was on anapanasati. Yes, I know you collated Nina's posts on the sutta and commentary and you'd be most welcome to repost in small segments (like I do Cetasikas perhaps), adding your other quotes and comments at the same time. I'd be glad. It might be helpful to put your cleaned up piece of Nina's series in 'files' for easy access while you do this. Also see the other posts on anapanasati (mostly Jon's) in UP too. You might like to include some of these in your series. Anyway, whatever you like;-). On the qu about your serious approach to dhamma as I'll remember from a breakfast in Bangkok;-);-). Funny, when Howard gave you a little friendly advice, it reminded me so much of Vince's kindly but strong advice too;-);-). For my part, I just appreciate your very keen interest in the Dhamma and I'm used to your style;-). I know that it may seem to newcomers like Hugo that you don't consider all sides and aspects and so on, but I see the complete opposite -- you consider very deeply indeed. When you first joined DSG you had come from a strong Mahayana and Pure Land tradition as I recall and really, really questioned and challenged what we were saying here a lot. Not a stone or a word was left without a lot of consideration and careful checking. We'd sometimes get 50 qus in a post I think. You've been providing some great quotes and comments too (even if the words get a bit jumbled sometimes in your haste -- happens to me also;-) and you show a lot of kindness and compassion in sharing what you find so helpful. Metta, Sarah p.s. if I don't get back on any other threads we have, pls remind me. ==================================== 39432 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 2:34am Subject: Re: AN III - 100 mental misconduct vs. thoughts of ill-will Friend Sarah, Hi there!! Gosh, long time no chat. Well, lucky for me I took the day off from work. I really like your post because it is very direct: Sarah: Let me ask you. If a defilement, lets say attachment, has arisen, do you think the Buddha encouraged us to be aware of it at such a time with awareness, detachment and understanding, or was something else recommended? James: To be aware of one's attachment with detachment? That would be quite a trick! ;-)) Seriously, I know what you are getting at but it seems that you are forgetting the defilement of delusion. We are all suffering from delusion so it isn't always possible to be really aware of one's defilements. We take the beautiful for ugly, the ugly for beautiful, the impermanent for permanent,…etc. Not only that, in a worldling the defilement of attachment is arising almost constantly! When is there ever really a moment without attachment? As far as what the Buddha taught, he taught that one should purify the mind by following the Noble Eightfold Path; this would include cultivating sila, samadhi, and panna. Sarah: If it has already arisen by conditions, isn't it 'good to know the truth of one's accumulations' as I wrote. James: Again, I don't think it is possible to know the truth of one's accumulations. We are all suffering from delusion (ignorance). Sarah: I think it's more a "if it's arisen anyway, why not know it for what it is, rather than having attachment, aversion or ignorance at such a time". James: If we knew what `it' (defilements) is really, then we wouldn't have attachment, aversion, or ignorance. See what I am getting at? Sarah: I think the most helpful and important thing is to understand any defilements or other dhammas as conditioned and not self. James: This is like saying, "What would be really helpful for the blind is if they would just see." Sarah: As I just wrote to Bhante V, wanting to have fewer defilements or more good and taking these for being my good and bad mental states, merely leads to more attachment to the self. James: No, it leads to a greater purification of the mind. Don't do evil, do only good, and purify the mind, this is the teaching of all Buddhas. And what is this "more attachment to the self" mean really? I asked Nina this also, what is this `self' that you are saying we are attached to? I don't know any `self'. I can be attached to food, money, sex, etc., these things exist, but what is this `self' you keep speaking of? Do you mean the craving for being? Sarah: Did you listen to any of the audio discussion from India?. James: No, I have a slow connection so I didn't attempt to download them. But I think it is a good idea that you have them available! Sarah: You've written a couple of posts I've particularly appreciated. One was on the sutta about Sariputta to Bhante. Also, a couple of good quotes on rt speech sometime. James: Thanks. Glad to know you're keeping an eye on me. Somebody has to! ;-)) Metta, James 39433 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 3:46am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 154 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, So far we have discussed molecular level of dhamma of 40 lokuttara cittas or supramundane consciousness, 27 mahaggata cittas or greater consciousness, 24 kama sobhana cittas or sensuous beautiful consciousness. They are 40 + 27 + 24 = 91 sobha cittas or 91 beautiful consciousness of 121 total cittas. There are 30 asobha cittas or 30 non-beautiful consciousness. 91 and 30 makes 121 total cittas. 30 asobhana cittas or non-beautiful consciousness are 12 akusala cittas or 12 unwholesome consciousness and 18 ahetuka cittas or 18 root-less consciousness. 12 akusala cittas are non-beautiful and asobhana, no doubt. We have discussed 12 akusala cittas at molecular level. 18 ahetuka cittas or root-less consciousness are also non-beautiful and called asobhana cittas. Because all these 18 cittas do not have any of beautiful mental factors or sobhana cetasikas, most importantly they all do not have any of beautiful root dhammas namely alobha, adosa and amoha cetasika. 18 ahetuka cittas are 2 kinds. They are vipaka cittas/ resultant consciousness or they are kiriya cittas/ functional consciousness/ inoperational consciousness. There are 15 ahetuka vipaka cittas and 3 ahetuka kiriya cittas. There are 3 ahetuka kiriya cittas. They are root-less functional consciousness or rootless inoperational consciousness. They are called functional or inoperational because they do not produce any kamma because of their arising. They do not create any kamma because of their arising. So all 3 ahetuka kiriya cittas are inoperational or functional. They are rootless. So they all do not have any of lobha, dosa, moha, alobha, adosa, and amoha which are all root cetasikas. These are root dhammas because they supply the necessaries to trees which are the dhamma molecules and compound such as citta-cetasikas molecules and citta-cetasika-cittajarupa compounds. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 39434 From: jwromeijn Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 4:07am Subject: Re: Concept and Reality in Primary Texts --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: ... Dear Rob, Rob: I do not know enough Buddhist history to make a statement. What is important to me is that the two-truth model as you call it is not central to the primary texts. Which group originated the idea and who might of copied it from whom is of some intellectual interest, but not a key issue for me. Joop: I don't like the discussion-trick to call something you don't like (only) of intellectual interest. Which group originated the idea of the two truths (conceptual and ultimate) is as such not of interest. I have two reactions on it: (1) for understanding an idea (for example that of the two truths), we have to understand the history of that idea, and the discuusions between groups about that idea. Not only the monks composing the Abhidhamma or Buddhaghosa or Acariya Anuruddha participated on that discussions but also Mahayanists. It's no good to close our eyes for the existence of Mahayanists and the ways they contributed to Theravada-ideas. (2) to me it's important to know where I'm standing on my buddhistic path, on which I think now that partly Theravada-ideas are true and partly that Mahayana-ideas are true (About the word 'true': see under) ====================================================================== = > Another question is if ["of" was a typo, Joop) the two-truth- > model (or two-realities-model, that is > the same to me) is true; or when truth doesn't exist, that is > useful? To me it is useful, in the stage now of my path. Rob: I am not clear on your question. Are you asking if truth exists? I equate the Buddha's teaching with the truth. Are you asking if the Buddha's teaching exists? If so, how do you want to define existence? I am confused Joop: To me Buddha's teachings are not the truth; they are talking about the truth; and that is for us human beings only possible in language, so in concepts. I define the 'existence' of something on a phenomenological way but when and because that something vibrates in me. I think that on the long run the perceived difference between conceptual and ultimate realities disappears or changes into something else. I can not know that on this moment (of my path) and on this moment the theory of the existence of the two truths is useful. But I don't have Pali-quotes on this opinion and perhaps it's too much mysticism to you. Metta Joop 39435 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 4:17am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 155 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, There are 3 ahetuka kiriya cittas or 3 rootless functional consciousness or 3 rootless inoperational consciousness. 2 cittas of these 3 cittas are universal to all beings while 1 ahetuka kiriya citta is strictly and completely confined to arahats only. 1. upekkha saha gatam pancadvaravajjana citta 2. upekkha saha gatam manodvaravajjana citta 3. somanassa sahagatam hasituppada citta The first citta is pancadvaravajjana citta. This citta is panca dvara avajjana citta. Panca means 'five'. Dvara means 'door'. Pancadvara here means 'five sense doors'. Avajjana means 'adverting' 'turning the attention to' 'contemplating on arammana'. Avajjana is made up of Aa and vajjana. Aa here means 'arammana'. Vajjana means 'contemplation'. When there arises an arammana, this citta does the job of contemplation whether the arammana is at eye or ear or at nose or tongue or at body. It transfers appropriately to the next citta which may be one of 10 panvavinnana cittas. This is like shunting, transferring, adverting. In this citta, there arise 7 universal cetasikas. Phassa or contact makes meeting of the pancadvaravajjana citta, panvarammana or one of 5 sense object, and cakkhuppasada or eye-sense-base. Vedana or feeling feels as upekkha or indifferent that is not good or not bad. Cetana or volition urges to take that object. Sanna/ perception marks the object. Ekaggata or one-pointedness points at the object only. Jivitindriya maintains mental life including the life of all these cetasikas and citta. Manasikara or attention chooses the right direction to the object. So in pancadvaravajjana citta, all 7 universal cetasikas arise. Moreover, vitakka also arises doing putting the citta to that particular object of pancarammana or one of 5 sense-object. Vicara who is the close friend of vitakka also arises in pancadvaravajjana citta and it does the job of reviewing on the object and it would not leave the object. As pancadvaravajjana has to transfer the object to someone who is one of 5, this citta has to decide who to give. So adhimokkha cetasika does have to arise. As this citta is upekkha citta, piti does not arise. There does not arise chanda or wish as there is no need to arise wish in performing this job of transferring. As there are conditions such as arising of arammana or object, arising of pasada or vatthu that serves as dvara, and arising of attention to that object, pancadvaravajjana citta has to arise and there is no will or wish arise at all. So chanda does not arise in this citta. This citta is very first citta in vithi vara. It does not need any effort in its arising. So there is no viriya at all. In summary, in pancadvaravajjana citta or 5-sense-door-adverting consciousness there arise 7 universal cetasikas, vitakka, vicara, and adhimokkha of 6 pakinnaka cetasikas. So there are in total 7 + 3 = 10 cetasikas arise with panca dvara avajjana citta. There is no sobhana cetasika at all. So there is no sobhana hetu such as alobha, adosa, anad amoha. Equally there is no akusala cetasika at all. So there is no akusala root such as lobha, dosa, and moha. In this dhamma molecule of pancadvaravajjana citta, one atom is 'citta' and other 10 atoms are cetasikas phassa, vedana, cetana, sanna, ekaggata, jivitindriya, manasikara, vitakka, vicara, and adhimokkha. All these dhamma link each other inseparably and makes a dhamma molecule called pancadvaravajjana citta. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 39436 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 4:32am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 156 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, Another ahetuka kiriya citta universal to all being is called 'upekkha saha gatam manodvaravajjana citta'. Unlike pancadvaravajjana citta, this citta has an extra duty. It does the job of votthapana or determining on the object. Because of this all following 7 javana cittas have a clear role what to do on the object and they all arise as mental impulse in 7 successive moments. In such a decision to be made, there takes a lot of energy and there does need effort or viriya. While viriya cetasika or effort does not arise in pancadvaravajjana citta, viriya does arise in manodvaravajjana citta. So in manodvaravajjana citta, there are phassa or contact, vedana or feeling, cetana or volition, sanna or perception, ekaggata or one- pointedness, jivitindriya or mental life, manasikara or attention, vitakka or initial application, vicara or sustained application, adhimokkha or decision, and viriya or effort altogether 11 cetasikas have to arise to assist the king citta manodvaravajjana citta. Again, in this ahetuka kiriya citta, there is no beautiful root such as alobha, adosa, amoha. So this citta is also called asobhana citta or non-beautiful consciousness. As there is also no akusala root such as lobha, dosa, moha, this citta is called rootless or ahetuka citta. So manodvaravajjana citta is an upekkha citta. It is kiriya citta or functional consciousness or inoperational consciousness. It is also rootless consciousness or ahetuka citta as explained above. In this citta of dhamma molecule, components atoms are citta and 11 cetasikas. They all mix inseparably and this is known as sampayutta paccaya. While arising together these 11 cetasikas do their own functions and assist the citta and this makes the name 'upekkha saha gatam manodvaravajjana citta'. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 39437 From: Ken O Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 5:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Giving a Smile Hi Friends James Maybe you would like to consider Right Thoughts in the 8NP <> Thought of goodwill and thought of not harming - this is metta thought of renunication that is thought of renunciation of sensual pleasure. this is non-greed :) - generosity So say Buddha never taught generosity. It is a matter to look at it more carefully. Ken O 39438 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 6:53am Subject: Re: Giving a Smile --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > Hi Friends James thought of renunication that is thought of renunciation of sensual > pleasure. this is non-greed :) - generosity > > So say Buddha never taught generosity. It is a matter to look at it > more carefully. > > > > Ken O Friend Ken O, Renunciation isn't simply "non-greed". Where did you find that definition? Renunciation is a process that is both outer and inner. When the Buddha renounced his worldly life and the bhikkhus who followed him renounced their worldly life, they weren't being generous to anyone. Also, when the Buddha renounced his very life, on the eve of his enlightenment ("I shall become enlightened or die in the effort"), he also wasn't being generous to anyone. Allow me to give some analysis by a bhikkhu much more learned in this subject than myself, from "The Manual of the Factors Leading to Enlightenment" by Ledi Sayadaw: "For those persons who look forward to meeting the next Buddha Sasana, Dana, síla uposatha, and the seven saddhamma are the essentials…For those who wish to become sotápanna's during this life, there is no special necessity to practice Dana (alms-giving). But let those who find it unable to evoke sufficient effort towards acquiring the ability to obtain release from worldly ills during the present Buddha Sasana make special attempts to practice Dana (alms- giving) and uposatha (precepts observed on fasting days)." http://www.buddhistinformation.com/bodhipakkhiya_dipani.htm In summary, though very important, dana doesn't lead to enlightenment, it only leads to a higher rebirth. Metta, James 39439 From: Hugo Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 7:28am Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 06:00:36 +0800 (CST), Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Are you saying here that the smiling is kusala, and/or that with the > extinguishmnet of the anger there is kusala in its place? No. I am saying that I use the "forced smile" as a tool to prevent the anger (that already arose) to take more force and "lead me" to make akusala actions. > It seems to me that unless kusala is being developed, then what we are > talking about is just a handy 'anger management' technique. YES!!,, Bingo!!!, bingo!! That's EXACTLY what I am talking about, it is JUST a tool. That's why in one of my comments (the one about the anaesthetic) I said to watch out and not become attached to either, the anaesthetic or the smile. Why?, because if you get attached to the smile, and think that is the real solution to your problems you will never see the root cause of your problems. Also, that's why in many other posts I have said something like: 1) Calm your mind (in this case I use the "forced smile") 2) Investigate what defilements are in your mind 3) Work on removing those defilements. Also, if you want yet another analogy, it is like putting those little wheels on the bycicle so kids can learn how to ride. Yes, some people might not like them and try to learn without them, but it is easier to learn if you have the little wheels, but if you depend on them you will never learn and will never want to remove them. Everything is a tool, you have to know how, when and for how much time you use it. A few months ago I tried to teach my son to ride a trycicle, he couldn't coordinate the move of his feet. I placed his feet on the pedals, then I pushed the trycicle so he felt how the feet moved, he was "absorbed" to this and didn't know how to make turns, so I had to drive too. Days later he was able to pedal by himself (I still had to make turns, even though he made a few on his own), then winter came and we had to interrupt the training, but I hope that next spring/summer he will be able to do everything at once. Should I stop helping him and let him figure out by himself how to move the feet?, actually I tried a couple of times, but it only made him frustrated and he didn't want to touch the trycicle at all!! He needed those sessions where I pushed the trycicle, the same way I need the forced smile technique to prevent the anger to get more strenght. > Less anger is > obviously 'desirable' in many respects, but it doesn't necessarily mean > less akusala, either right away or, more importantly, later, as I see it. If you just stay with "smiling" without understanding the roots of anger, it doesn't help you in the long run, also if you then generate craving for smiling, that is not good either. Now, why I thought it was important to talk about this even if it is "just a handy 'anger management' technique", because we need to be practical when approaching the Buddha's teaching. When I used to give computer classes to people, if I started explaining about how the computer works internally, some people got bored and stopped paying attention, some even stopped attending classes. When I realized that a different approach was needed, I focused on teaching what they needed and intersped the "fundamentals" along the way as needed. In other words, I chose a practical approach then, when appropriate I sneaked some explanation of the internals. The result, the students were happier and they really learned both, the practical and the internals, and they were able to DO SOMETHING (e.g. write documents, read email, etc.), instead of just memorizing something that they couldn't see (e.g. memory, bytes and bits, etc.) Greetings, -- Hugo 39440 From: m. nease Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 7:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sarah: "One path" [Sukin] Hi Howard, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sarah: "One path" [Sukin] > > Hi again, Mike - > > In a message dated 12/5/04 11:14:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, > upasaka@a... > writes: > >> All elements of all khandhas in non-arahants are infected by avijja >> ====================== > That is an overstatement. The links in D.O. are all so infected. But > rupas are not. Sights, sounds, tastes, etc are, in themselves, innocent. Thanks for this clarification--so phassa and vedanaa are 'infected'? All an interesting and novel (to me at least) take on pa.ticcasamuppaada--I'll give it some thought, thanks again. mike 39441 From: Hugo Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 7:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's account of smiling cittas Dear Bhante, On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 09:47:08 -0500, Bhante Vimalaramsi wrote: > It may help to stop trying to be so analytical and demanding that reality > arise the way you want it to. A lighter approach works much better. I > have hesitated to bring this up on this website because it won't be > understood very well. Don't worry there are some "I" that understand you very well!! :-) > But what the heck, if you can develop a true sense > of humor about being caught by unwholesome thoughts, and laugh at just > how crazy mind truly is. Yes, I have tried that, or maybe I should say I think I do that all the time now, and it is great!!! It is fun to "watch" the mind jump from thinking this, to thinking that, to fabricate this about that thing you just saw or heard. Sometimes, or most of the times it is as if it was two "I"'s, one who watches and one who thinks, fabricates, etc. I guess if I keep doing this, I will feel that there are three "I", one who watches that one who watches, and the one who thinks, fabricates, etc.. No, wait, actually I already saw that while driving, it is great. When I am tired and getting sleepy while driving I put some music, depending on how sleepy is the kind of music I choose, sometimes is really fast and dancing-like music. I can see the following: there is one "I" who listens to the music and prevents the rest to go to sleep, there is one "I" who does "discursive thinking", this discursive thinking is completely UNRELATED to the music and sometimes I think it is really profound as I have gotten good insights while doing it. There is one "I" who keeps driving. I just need to figure out if there is yet another "I" who is tapping the floor at the rythm of the music, it might be the same one that listens, but I can't figure it out yet. :-) If that is not a "feeling" of anatta, then what it is!, because then there is this other "I" who watches the whole show!!! Greetings, -- Hugo 39442 From: Hugo Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 8:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Value of discussion (was evil thoughts) Hello Andrew, On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 08:35:38 -0000, Andrew wrote: > Do you think it is possible to directly know something and later call > it to mind such that you can say "back then, I had a moment when I > directly knew such-and-such"? I am not sure what you meant, I read it once, prepared a reply, then read it again and my reply didn't make sense to my second interpretation. > This isn't a trick debating question. Don't answer it if you don't > feel like it. Anyone else who would like to chime in, please do so. > FYI I have a feeling that we worldlings can't recall any moments of > direct knowing. But I could be wrong ... mmm....maybe I see what you mean, I don't know, but I think that if you know something you don't need to recall it, it is there. Like some teachers told us at school, the exam should be finished promptly, if you know it, you know it, you don't have to sit the whole hour trying to remember it. Does my reply makes sense to your question? Greetings, -- Hugo 39443 From: Hugo Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 8:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Value of discussion (was evil thoughts) Hello Sarah, On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 08:49:03 +0000 (GMT), sarah abbott wrote: > S: With respect, I think the mistake is in 'trying to pull up wholesome > states' and assuming that a particular scenario, in this kind the smile, > is indicative of wholesome states, as Ken O and Phil have been stressing. > > On our recent trip, a friend asked about 'tears' and whether they only > accompanied unwholesome states. The reply was that when we think like this > -- of some particular situation such as the smiling or the tearful one -- > there is no understanding of presently appearing dhammas and in effect, > we're trying to 'work out' the various kinds of consciousness in a > situation, taking such a situation for being a reality. > > Whenever there is wanting something, whether it is to having wholesome > states, to knowing more about the Tipitaka, to doing good things, there's > bound to be lobha (attachment, wanting something for oneself and > expectations again. When there's lobha, there's no panna (understanding) > and it's hard to see because it's not what we wish to see. For the records, I agree with all of the above. See message #39439 for a better description of what I meant with my "forced smile" technique. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/39439 Greetings, -- Hugo 39444 From: robmoult Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 8:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Rob K, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > > > > > My point is that the Buddha's teaching was not focused on > realities > > > and non-realities (concepts). Acariya Anuruddha used ultimate > > > realities as a structure to summarize the Abhidhamma when he > wrote > > > the Abhidhammattha Sangaha, but ultimate realities are not an > > > element of the Buddha's teaching. A cursory reading of the > > > Abhidhammattha Sangaha gives the incorrect impression that > > > ontological issues (realities vs. non-realities) is an important > > > part of the Buddha's teaching. > > > > ========== > Dear RobM, > I think seeing what is reality (dhamma) and what is not is stressed > throught the teachings. > The Udanaatthakatha (trans. masefield p.878)Blind from birth > chapter:"since they do not know Dhamma, they do not know that which > is not > Dhamma either. ....... they neither know dhamma to be a thing having > an owm nature (sabhava), nor do they know that which is not dhamma > to > be a thing lacking an own nature.(Dhammam sabhavadhammam..adhammam > asabhavadhammam) And as such they declare a thing having an own > nature as though it were a thing lacking an own nature....""endquote > This passage was written hundreds of years before Anuruddha was born. ===== If we are talking about "Dhammas" then you and I are in complete agreement. In a recent post to Andrew (message 39403), I explained that the first step of "fully understanding" (parinna) is nataparinna; breaking things into component dhammas and indentifying characterisitic / function / manifestation/ proximate cause of each dhamma. I have never said that "dhammas" are not a key element of the Buddha's teaching. What I am questioning is the association of "dhamma" with an ontological "ultimate reality". In your message above, you wrote, "I think seeing what is reality (dhamma) and what is not is stressed throught the teachings." If you had written, "I think seeing what are dhammas is stressed throught the teachings.", then I would have agreed with you 100%. However, you have made it into an ontological statement which I do not think finds any support in the texts. Consider the opening question of the Dhammasangani, "Katame dhamma kusala?" or "What dhammas are good?" (I know that most translate "dhammas" as "states" in this context, but I prefer to leave it as dhammas as that is what we are discussing). The Dhammasangani then proceeds to give a list of dhammas as follows: (i) contact (phasso) (ii) feeling (vedana) (iii) perception (sanna) (iv) volition (cetana) (v) thought (cittam) (vi) application (vitakko) (vii) sustained thinking (vicaro) (viii) zest (piti) (ix) ease (sukham) (x) self-collectedness (cittass'ekaggata) (xi) the faculty of faith (saddhindriyam) (xii) the faculty of energy (viriyindriyam) (xiii) the faculty of mindfulness (satindriyam) (xiv) the faculty of concentration (samadhindriyam) (xv) the faculty of insight (pannindriyam) (xvi) the faculty of ideation (manindriyam) (xvii) the faculty of gladness (somanassondriyam) (xviii) the faculty of life (jivitindriyam) (xix) right views (samma-ditthi) (xx) right intention (samma-sankappo) (xxi) right endeavour (samma-vayamo) (xxii) right mindfulness (sammasati) (xxiii) right concentration (sammasamadhi) (xxiv) the power of faith (saddhabalam) (xxv) the power of energy (viriyabalam) (xxvi) the power of mindfulness (satibalam) (xxvii) the power of concentration (samadhibalam) (xxviii) the power of insight (pannabalam) (xxix) the power of conscientiousness (hiribalam) (xxx) the power of the fear of blame (ottappabalam) (xxxi) absence of greed (alobho) (xxxii) absence of hate (adoso) (xxxiii) absence of dullness (amoho) (xxxiv) absence of covetousness (anabhijjha) (xxxv) absence of malice (avyapado) (xxxvi) right views (sammaditthi) (xxxvii) conscientiousness (hiri) (xxxviii) fear of blame (ottappam) (xxxix) serenity in mind (cittapassaddhi) (xl) serenity of mental factors (kayapassaddhi) (xli) lightness in mind (cittalahuta) (xlii) lightness in mental factors (kayalahuta) (xliii) plasticity in mind (cittamuduta) (xliv) plasticity in mental factors (kayamuduta) (xlv) facility in mind (cittakammannata) (xlvi) facility in mental factors (kayakammannata) (xlvii) fitness in mind (cittapugunnata) (xlviii) fitness in mental factors (kayapagunnata) (xlix) directness in mind (cittujjukata) (l) directness in mental factors (kayujjukata) (li) mindfulness (sati) (lii) intelligence (sampajannam) (liii) quiet (samatho) (liv) intuition (vipassana) (lv) grasp (paggaho) (lvi) balance (avikkhepo) Now these – or whatever other incorporeal, causally induced dhammas there are on that occasion – these are the dhammas that are good. Let us consider this list of dhammas and see if it makes sense to interpret this list as a list of "ultimate realities". If the author of the Dhammasangani had really intended to be listing "ultimate realities" in an ontological sense, does it make sense that he would list as seven separate dhammas: - faculty of insight (xv - pannindriyam) - right views (xix - samma-ditthi) - power of insight (xxviii - pannabalam) - absence of dullness (xxxiii - amoho) - a second aspect of right views (xxxvi - samma-ditthi) - intelligence (lii – sampajannam) - intuition (liv – vipassana) The author then goes on to say that these seven dhammas are really the same thing (what Acariya Anuruddha calls "panna"). As you know, this is but one example of repetition in the list. To me, this indicates that "dhamma" does not mean "ultimate reality" when used in this context. The fact that in the Suttas, the Buddha made only one ontological statement (thanks for locating SNXXII.94 for me), suggests to me that we should not try to turn "dhammas" into "ultimate realities". I am becoming convinced that Acariya Anuruddha used an ontological approach as a tool to summarize the vast literature of the Abhidhamma and that we should not take this ontological focus literally as it is not supported in the primary texts. With tongue firmly in cheek, perhaps I should suggest to the moderators that they change the description of DSG from "...with the aim of developing precise understanding of the realities of the present moment." into "...with the aim of developing precise understanding of the dhammas of the present moment." :-) :-) Metta, Rob M :-) 39445 From: robmoult Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 9:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > The concept of concept came from the abhidhamma pitaka and there is a > little discussion of it in Vism. and more in the main commentary to > Vism. So I don't think we can blame or credit Acarya Anuruddha for > starting this controversy. ===== I agree that concept (pannatti) is found in the Patthana (one of the conditioning states for pakatupanissaya) but I don't read this as being an ontological statement (reality vs. non-reality). Similarly, I don't think that pannatti is used in an ontological fashion in the Visuddhimagga or its commentary (correct me if I am wrong here). What Acariya Anuruddha did was to introduce ontology as a technique to summarize the Abhidhamma when writing the Abhidhamatthasangaha. Keeping in mind that Acariya Anuruddha's intention was to write an introductory piece to the Abhidhamma and that Acariya Anuruddha fully expected the reader to go on to read the primary texts for themselves, I don't think that this was a misunderstanding of Acariya Anuruddha, it was simply a literary technique. Considering the magnitude of his task, we gotta cut the guy some slack and allow him some artistic license :-) ===== > > L: So if you think sa~n~naa has something to do with concept you could > look at its use in the suttas. Similarly sankhara khandha. > ===== One issue at a time :-) At some point, I will get around to analyzing sanna and sankhara in mor detail :-) ===== > Also I think the word "reality" is a little harsh. Instead of "concept > and reality" we might think of this duo as impermanence and illusion. > Both are to be degrasped. Sometimes teachers build up reality as an easy > way to devalue concept but this can lead to a misleading valuation of > reality as something superior. Inferiority and superiority will only be > found in how we view these dhammas, not in the dhammas themselves, imo. ===== As you may have noticed, I am also rebelling against the term "reality". I like the term "dhammas" as that is what is used in the texts. Metta, Rob M :-) 39446 From: Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 4:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi, Robert (and Rob M) - In a message dated 12/6/04 1:49:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > Dear RobM, > I think seeing what is reality (dhamma) and what is not is stressed > throught the teachings. > The Udanaatthakatha (trans. masefield p.878)Blind from birth > chapter:"since they do not know Dhamma, they do not know that which > is not > Dhamma either. ....... they neither know dhamma to be a thing having > an owm nature (sabhava), nor do they know that which is not dhamma > to > be a thing lacking an own nature.(Dhammam sabhavadhammam..adhammam > asabhavadhammam) And as such they declare a thing having an own > nature as though it were a thing lacking an own nature....""endquote > This passage was written hundreds of years before Anuruddha was born. > Robert > > > ========================= Robert, this is from the commentary on the Udana. Is there anything comparable in the Udana, itself? I happen to agree that the Buddha distinguished among degrees, levels and modes of existence, but it seems to me that he didn't make much of an issue of it, certainly not as much as the commentators. He made much more of an issue of distinguishing among degrees, levels and modes of cognition. 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) 39447 From: robmoult Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 9:18am Subject: Re: Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Joop, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jwromeijn" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > wrote: > ... > Dear Rob, > > Rob: I do not know enough Buddhist history to make a statement. What > is important to me is that the two-truth model as you call it is not > central to the primary texts. Which group originated the idea and who > might of copied it from whom is of some intellectual interest, but > not a key issue for me. > > Joop: I don't like the discussion-trick to call something you don't > like (only) of intellectual interest. > Which group originated the idea of the two truths (conceptual and > ultimate) is as such not of interest. > I have two reactions on it: > (1) for understanding an idea (for example that of the two truths), > we have to understand the history of that idea, and the discuusions > between groups about that idea. Not only the monks composing the > Abhidhamma or Buddhaghosa or Acariya Anuruddha participated on that > discussions but also Mahayanists. It's no good to close our eyes for > the existence of Mahayanists and the ways they contributed to > Theravada-ideas. > (2) to me it's important to know where I'm standing on my buddhistic > path, on which I think now that partly Theravada-ideas are true and > partly that Mahayana-ideas are true (About the word 'true': see under) > ===== I am sorry if my approach came across as a "discussion-trick"; it was not my intention. If somebody were to identify an essay on this subject, I would eagerly read it as the subject is truly of interest to me. On the other hand, I am not going to engage on an active literature search (as I have done to identify ontological elements in primary texts) to trace the history of this idea. In my black-and-white engineer mind, an idea was either in the primary texts or it was a later addition. In my simplistic view, "who later", "when later", "where later", "how later", "why later" and "which later" are all grouped together under "later". For my practice, I want to put more focus on what was in the primary texts and much less focus on what was added "later". ===== > ===================================================================== = > = > > Another question is if ["of" was a typo, Joop) the two-truth- > > model (or two-realities-model, that is > > the same to me) is true; or when truth doesn't exist, that is > > useful? To me it is useful, in the stage now of my path. > > Rob: I am not clear on your question. Are you asking if truth exists? > I equate the Buddha's teaching with the truth. Are you asking if the > Buddha's teaching exists? If so, how do you want to define existence? > I am confused > > Joop: To me Buddha's teachings are not the truth; they are talking > about the truth; and that is for us human beings only possible in > language, so in concepts. > I define the 'existence' of something on a phenomenological way but > when and because that something vibrates in me. > I think that on the long run the perceived difference between > conceptual and ultimate realities disappears or changes into > something else. I can not know that on this moment (of my path) and > on this moment the theory of the existence of the two truths is > useful. But I don't have Pali-quotes on this opinion and perhaps it's > too much mysticism to you. ===== Sounds like a deeply personal experience... one that does not readily resonate in my mind. Bottom line.... I don't think I can help you much or comment further :-) Metta, Rob M :-) 39448 From: Bhante Vimalaramsi Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 8:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] I tried it and liked it! (was Re: Bhante and Smiling ) Dhamma Greetings Phil, When you said: "This is where we will disagree, again. The pleasantness I was feeling was not necessary a wholesome state." Bhante*** It is true and it is easier to recognize a pleasant feeling especially when that pleasant feeling changes to a painful feeling. Of course, painful and pleasant feeling are two sides of the same coin when seen with true equanimity and mindfulness, feeling is just feeling whether it is pleasant or painful, right? If there is no judging that this feeling is good and that feeling is bad, then they are same coin but different sides. The definition of 'chanda' (as given to me by my teacher Sayadaw U Silananda) is wholesome desire that points mind in the direction of liberation. Then when you said: "So if I "recognize that an unwholesome state has arisen", that recognizing is in itself a wholesome state. It is a small step towards detachment from the unwholesome state. When I regenerated the smile and the pleasant feeling, it was - in my opinion at this time- a lunge away from insight towards comfort." Bhante*** Isn't comfort another way of saying that there is no more suffering? And if one follows the entire instruction given about Right Effort there has to be more than just the recognizing of a wholesome state, it says that one develops it by staying with that wholesome state and the smile is a tool that makes this easier to do. This is not a "lunge away from insight, but towards it. Why? Because it helps one to stay aware and mindful of what is happening in the present moment. I find it interesting that many people don't see that greed (lobha) and aversion (dosa) are the same thing, they are both attachments but are different sides of the same coin. If one has a strong dislike to something they are just as attached to that dislike, just like when one has strong greed. The only difference is the kind of feeling that accompanies it. It is either lobha or dosa but the attachment to it is the same. One kind of attachment is "Hey, I like this and want more" and the other kind of attachment is "Hey, I really don't like this, I want it to go away". This is the attachment to a belief that either the pleasant feeling or the painful feeling is "Mine" and this is atta not anatta. When you said: "It did for me, but in my case I felt that putting the smile back did not indicate a wholesome mental state but rather an unwholesome one, an attachment to pleasant feeling." Bhante*** And therein lies the problem because I said that the person also wishes happiness along with the smile and just because a pleasant feeling arises, it doesn't mean that this is unwholesome. It all comes down to the individual and their own perspective. The sincere smile and the making of the wish for happiness, changes the whole process away from a personal self doing something to an impersonal wish for happiness. And this is wholesome. It takes more than just pasting a smile on one's face, it takes sincere effort to make a wish for well being and happiness in an impersonal way. At that time, mind is free from defilements and it is wholesome. I think this may help you. When you said: "I can see this. I'm thinking these days that I will be returning to the meditation cushion one day soon for another go at insight meditation." Bhante*** This makes joy and a smile arise in me, thank you. One thing that I truly marvel at is the way many people think insight is one thing and any other practice is another. When one practices metta and smile and relaxes their mind and body, they are practicing insight and tranquility at the same time. There is no need to divide the two practices up, this only causes confusion and slows down one's spiritual progress. Metta can be a form of vipassana (mindfulness) just like the breathing meditation is, if one follows the instructions about tranquilizing the bodily and mental formations often. I have taught and practiced this for over ten years and have seen many insights into the true nature of all existence arise not only in myself but in my students as well. Please don't think that samatha is one thing and vipassana is another. In the Majjhima Nikaya sutta # 149 it says that they are joined or yoked together and this is the way to practice metta. With both insight and calmness. Also, please remember the 4th factor of enlightenment is joy. Smiling helps the enlightenment factor of joy arise, "eventually", and this is a wholesome state. You said: "For me, joy arises at unexpected moments in a flooding way, but I have only begun to figure this out." Bhante*** Actually from abhidhamma one can learn that there are five different types of joy. I won't use the Pali to describe them but you can look them up if you want further info. 1] the first type of joy is a happy feeling and goosebumps arise on your skin. This lasts for just a brief time then disappears. It is followed by a short feeling of well being and calmness. 2] the second type of joy is a happy feeling that is very intense and is describe as being like a flash of lightening. This feeling of strong happiness lasts for a little longer than the previous joy and when this feeling fades away there is a deep sense of calmness and well being. This calm and well being can last for a few minutes and is very pleasant. This type of joy arises (from my own practice) when one has a decision to make that is a hard one, but when you finally decide which way to go and you make the right decision this flash of joy arises. 3] the 3rd type of joy is like you are standing in the ocean and waves of joy arise and wash over you, wave after wave of happiness washes over you. This is very pleasant and when the joy fades away there is a very deep kind of tranquility and sense of well being that can last for a longer period of time, 20 or 30 minutes or so. Now these kinds of joy can happen to anyone at anytime, when the conditions are right. They take no special mental development and are not the spiritual joy that the Buddha referred to. The next two kinds of joy will only arise through deep calm and mental development. 4] the 4th type of joy is called "uplifting joy", this only happens the a person who has practiced meditation deeply and has let go of an attachment. Both body and mind feeling kind of like they are floating and feel very light. When this kind of joy fades away then there is a strong feeling of tranquility and clarity like has never been felt before. Mind stays on the object of meditation without any effort at all. This feeling can last for a long time, an hour or two or more, depending on the person experiencing it. This is the other worldly joy that is described in the suttas as being the jhana factor of joy. One's mindfulness and tranquility are exceptional at that time and with some practice can be felt during one's daily activities. 5] the 5th type of joy is called the "overflowing joy" and this is the enlightenment factor of joy, this kind of joy just kind of bubbles out of every cell in one's body. Where all of the previous kinds of joy had a little excitement in them, this kind of joy doesn't. Mind is very calm and happy at that time. This kind of joy can last for a long, long time, days! And when peace and calm is unbelievably nice. This is another type of unworldly joy described in the suttas. One strange thing that happens for some people when they experience this type of overflowing joy is that when they are sitting their eyes will automatically open up. This is what the artists of Buddha images try to show when they portray the Buddha sitting in meditation with a serene smile on his face and his eyes partly open. It makes me very happy to think that you will begin doing some sitting practice again and please remember that this is only your quiet time to watch how mind works very intensely. The whole of one's life is meditation as you are already observing. Thank you again, it makes me smile lots. One thing I tell my students before they go out into their daily life is to be happy and smile. Maha-Metta always Bhante Vimalaramsi 39449 From: Bhante Vimalaramsi Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 8:36am Subject: Re: Chanda ( was Re: [dsg] I tried it and liked it! (was Re: Bhante and Smiling ) Dhamma Greetings Phil, I have the tendency to go with what my teacher says about Chanda, it makes more sense to me. Maha-Metta always Bhante Vimalaramsi 39450 From: Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 4:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Evil thoughts (Rob M) Hi, Ken - In a message dated 12/6/04 3:46:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Before the Tathagata arose in the world, the highest form of wisdom > was (I think) jhana absorption. ==================== Perhaps on the Indian subcontinent - I don't know. But there was greater wisdom than merely jhana attainment expressed in the world earlier on, in other places. For example, one might consider the writings of Solomon (970-928 BCE) as recorded in Ecclesiastes. Much that is expressed there, particularly if translated well, is a foreshadowing of the teachings of anatta and dukkha. (I do NOT mean to suggest a wisdom comparable to the Buddha's, however - just wisdom going beyond the recorded wisdom of the predecessors of the Buddha in his part of the world.) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 39451 From: robmoult Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 9:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Ken O, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > Hi Rob M > > > From SNXXII.94, it is clear that the Buddha said that the five > > aggregates do exist (Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary explains that they > > exist as impermanent processes). As far as I know, this is the only > > time that the Buddha made an ontological statement regarding > > existence / non-existence. According to Bhikkhu Bodhi's commentary, > > the Buddha made this statement to refute a specific type of wrong > > view (illusionist theories that the world lacks existence). > > k: So does that contradict what Buddha say that D.O exist and 4NT. > In one sutta Buddha says D.O exist. The fundamental question should > be is self (a concept) a reality. Self does not exist but the > attachment to a view to self exist, is a reality. Buddha say there > is no self in aggregates, so do self exist then? ===== When the Buddha said that "DO exists", I do not interpret this as meaning that "DO is an 'ultimate reality' in an ontological sense". Same with four noble truths. The Buddha said that there is nothing that we can point to as "self", none of the five aggregates are self. In SNXXII.94, the Buddha said that the five aggregates exist to refute illusionist theories. In my opinion, this ontological statement does not promote the five aggregates to "ultimate reality" status (in fact, Acariya Anuruddha does not count sankhara as an "ultimate reality", he counts sankhara as a collection of "ultimate realities"; this is in spite of the fact that the Buddha said that sankhara "exists". ===== > > > In SNXXII.94 the Buddha did say that the five aggregates are real > > (in an ontological sense) to refute a specific wrong view. I am not > aware of any Sutta where the Buddha said that concepts are "not > real". If you are aware of any other ontological statements > proclaimed by the Buddha, please advise. > > k: We must first differentiat that does concepts exist - yes only in > the mental construct, but do it has reality - No. Other than exist > as a imaginary construct, they do not exist as a reality that can be > directly known ===== Why are we concerned with the ontological classification of "concepts"? The Buddha said that "sankhara" exists and is real, but the Abhidhammatthasangaha says that "sankhara" is a concept for a group of cetasikas with no separate existence. ===== > > Lets look at Mulapariyaya Sutta which you quoted earlier, > > Worldings -- <> > > Arahants -- <> > > There is no reference that concepts exist as reality, why, please > note that <>. ===== Sorry Ken O, I may not have understood your last point. If you are saying that the Buddha used the same term "comprehend" for both "realities" and "concepts", then I agree that the Sutta does not differentiate. Metta, Rob M :-) 39452 From: Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 4:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: AN III - 100 mental misconduct vs. thoughts of ill-will Hi, James (and Sarah) - In a message dated 12/6/04 5:35:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > Friend Sarah, > > Hi there!! Gosh, long time no chat. Well, lucky for me I took the > day off from work. I really like your post because it is very > direct: > > Sarah: Let me ask you. If a defilement, lets say attachment, has > arisen, do you think the Buddha encouraged us to be aware of it at > such a time with awareness, detachment and understanding, or was > something else > recommended? > > James: To be aware of one's attachment with detachment? That would > be quite a trick! ;-)) Seriously, I know what you are getting at but > it seems that you are forgetting the defilement of delusion. We are > all suffering from delusion so it isn't always possible to be really > aware of one's defilements. We take the beautiful for ugly, the > ugly for beautiful, the impermanent for permanent,…etc. Not only > that, in a worldling the defilement of attachment is arising almost > constantly! When is there ever really a moment without attachment? > As far as what the Buddha taught, he taught that one should purify > the mind by following the Noble Eightfold Path; this would include > cultivating sila, samadhi, and panna. > > ------- Snip of remainder in accordance with recent moderator urging! ;-) ------- ========================= Geez, I just have to say this: I was so pleased at Sarah's post that expressed the *possibility* of acting, taking steps, directing the mind, and accomplishing, and that urged the doing of this. It was just the opposite of the sort of expression of helplessness and hopelessness that I've criticized elsewhere (with great approbation and acclamation ... NOT!! ;-). And here, James, I find you, a fellow promoter of kusala and active cetana, engaging in nay-saying! Of course, James, we are starting out enmeshed in delusion, and many of our attempts will be thwarted. But we are where we are. We *must* act to escape out prison cell, else we will serve an endless number of consecutive life sentences. 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) 39453 From: Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 5:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sarah: "One path" [Sukin] Hi, Mike - In a message dated 12/6/04 10:44:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, mlnease@z... writes: > Thanks for this clarification--so phassa and vedanaa are 'infected'? =================== Yes. As I see it, for a worldling - for any non-arahant, for that matter - phassa is the contact of an apparent subject with an apparent object through a connecting sense-door, and vedana is "I like" or "I dislike" or "I am neutral about". Neither is uninfected. 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) 39454 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 10:14am Subject: Five Natural Laws, Panca Niyama Dear Dhamma Friends, There are five natural laws. They are called five niyama dhamma. They govern themselves and no one is dictating anything but these five natural laws dictate things to happen. Let us have an investigation into all the phenomena in the whole universe. Mathematicians well understand when 'universal set' is used. I am not trying to post 'set theory'. But there the is universe and there is nothing outside the universe. When we are talking or discussing these things, let us leave 'I' 'we' 'the speaker' alone and let us focus on what we are talking. Let us assume that there is nothing in the universe. OK. There is nothing in the whole universe. There is no matter. There is no material. As there is nothing, there is no life and there is no being. As there is nothing at all, there is nothing and no law has to act. Once there is a matter. OK. There is a matter in the whole universe. As soon as that matter exists, the natural law of utu exists. It is utu niyama. This may be physics or any science. Whenever there is a matter, there is solidity. There is integrity. There is cohesion. There is innate temperature. This is not just intellectual thinking. But it is utu niyama. That matter may be a small mass or a hugh mass. Actually there is no measure at all. But because of movement and motion that matter may become separated into two or three or into millions pieces. It may expand or it may collapse. Some collapse and some expand. At some time there is a unique structure of matter. Actually that structure is within the domain of utu niyama. As matter moves, integrates and disintegrate there forms acids, alkalis, metals, gas, elements etc etc. Once there is an acid. That acid is deoxyribonucleic acid. Acid has tendency to form salts like sodium chloride(NaCl), sodium sulphate(Na2So4), sodium phosphate( Na3PO4) etc etc. Nucleic acids are acids that are found in the nucleus of cells of living things and living beings. Cells are the building block of living things and living beings. Each cell is made up of cell-boundry called cell membrance, nucleus and cellular fluid called cytoplasm. Nucleic acids are acids mainly found in nucleus. So deoxyribonucleic acids can be found in the nucleus of cells. That acid also tends to form salts like other acids. That salt is called deoxyribonucleoside. This salt forms as the backbone for another structure called bases. There are two types of bases. They are purine bases and pyrimidine bases. Purine bases are 'Adenine' and 'Guanine'. Pyrimidine bases are 'Cytosine' and 'Thymine'. When these bases are combined with the backbone of deoxyribonucleoside, the resultant structure is called deoxyribonucleotide. Deoxyribonucleotides when paired are stable structure. They pair in the unique way. Adenine molecule has 2 ring structures linked together and Thymine molecule has 1 ring structure. Nucleotides are only stable when there are 3 rings. Guanine molecule has 2 rings and Adenine molecule also has 2 rings. But Cytosine molecules has 1 ring and Thymine molecule also has only 1 ring. To form a stable structure, there are unique way of pairing. 2 ringed Adenine has to pair with 1 ringed Thymine. They are bound together with 2 hydrogen bonds. A-T is a base pair and forms a stable nucleotide. Another pair is G-C. 2 ringed Guanine has to pair with 1 ringed Cytosine. They are bound together with 3 hydrogen bonds. G-C is also a base pair and form a stable structure nucleotide. A always pairs with T and T with A. G always pairs with C and C with G. This is right in case of deoxyribonucleic acid structures. Deoxyribonucleic acid actually derives from deoxyribose sugar molecule. This acid is called DeoxyriboNucleic Acid and in short called 'DNA'. There is another type of sugar in cellular biology. It is ribose sugar. Its acid is ribonucleic acid and it is in short called RNA (RiboNucleic Acid). When it forms salt with phosphate, it is called ribonucleoside. When combined with base ( purine molecule and pyrimidine molecule ), it is called ribonucleotide. These nucleotides are similar to deoxyribonucleotides. The difference is sugar structure that is ribose and deoxyribose. Deoxyribose sugar has been de-oxygenated. Another difference is that that is no Thymine in RNA structure. Instead there is Uracil base to form ribonucleoside. So in RNA, G pair with C, C pair with G, A pair with U. DNA serves as genes. In a cell, there is nucleus. Nucleus is made up of nuclear membrance, nuclear fulid, and chromatin. Chromatin is made up of DNAs, histones and other DNA binding proteins. Proteins are supportive structure. DNAs carry genes. DNA is a double structure. This means there is a double strands. If one strand contains AGTTCCGATA, another strand contain in reverse order pairing like TCAAGGCTAT. Each strand is complementary to another. DNAs mainly reside in the nucleus. There is another structure called RNA. This RNA transcribe from DNA and it helps producing protein. Proteins are peptides. Peptides are polymer of monomer. Monomer here is amino acid. There are 20 essential amino acids in the body. Among them 8 are really essential. These amino acids are linked with each other with a bond called 'peptide'. Each amino acid are coded by 3 words of DNA. For example GCC, AGT, TAG. Each triplet is coded for specific amino acid. As there are 4 bases, there are 64 possible triplets codes ( 4 >< 4 >< 4 = 64 ). 3 triplets are non-sense codon (coding triplet) and when RNA carries such triplets, amino acid production stops. In this way, there is a unique way of production of intracellular proteins. Cell produces other structures and this production again is also dictated by gene which is coded in DNA of cell nucleus. Once there is DNA, there is possiblity of living thing. All living things have to follow bija niyama or genetic law. No one wrote this law. No God creates this law. If there is a matter then there is utu niyama operates. If there is DNA and living things whether plants or animals, then all living things have to follow the rule or law of genetics. Our body is matter. So it follow utu niyama. This can be seen when we die. Our body will be unsightedly and will be rotten with very bad smell if it is left untouched, untreated, unburied, uncremated. This is utu niyama. No God creates this niyama. Our body is made up of living tissues and other things. As there are living tissues, it follows bija niyama or it follows the genetic laws. Everything that happen in relation with our body is under influence of bija niyama. You see something. This is under influence of genetics. Why? For seeing to be completed, there have to happen many events in the body. Body have to synthesize, transport, store, transform etc etc. When we have disease whatever minor or major, genes involve. Every action is also under influence of gene. When there is gene, there may or may not be consciousness. For example, plants do not have consciousness. So do other lower living things in animal kingdom. When there is consciousness, then that living thing is called living being. This is savinnanaka. Sa means 'with'. Savinnanaka means 'with consciousness'. When there is consciousness or citta, that citta has to follow according to citta niyama. No one wrote this niyama including Sammasambuddhas. No God wrote this citta niyama. Whenever there is a consciousness, citta niyama governs. When cittas happen that is arises and falls away and arises and falls away, there also deal with kamma. Kamma are generated when cittas are doing the function of javana when these javana cittas are not of arahats. So when there are cittas doing their functions they are developing kamma. Once there are cittas or consciousness, there is kamma and this is the results of cittas and again kamma creates new cittas. No Buddha creates new citta. No God creates new citta. But new kamma create new and new cittas in the form of vipaka citta. Again vipaka cittas are involved in citta process and lead to javana cittas and again this create new and new kamma. No God dictates citta or kamma. When there are matter, gene, citta, kamma, they all work together and they all are under the influence od dhamma niyama. Again this is not dictated by any God and Buddha. Example is Twins-Tower event. There were people who had bad kamma to die in bodily explosion. There were possibilities of cittas which were vipaka cittas of akusala origins. The environment, the weather and all other things do not happen singly. But when there are all the necessary conditions then all happen at the same time. Whether we are considering on these or not, natural laws will be running as long as there are matters, genes, mind or consciousness or cittas, kamma, and dhamma. There are five natural laws or panca niyamas. They are 1. utu niyama 2. bija niyama 3. citta niyama 4. kamma niyama 5. dhamma niyama May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 39455 From: Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 5:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi, Rob (and Rob K) - In a message dated 12/6/04 11:52:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > The > Dhammasangani then proceeds to give a list of dhammas as follows: > (i) contact (phasso) > (ii) feeling (vedana) > (iii) perception (sanna) > (iv) volition (cetana) > (v) thought (cittam) > (vi) application (vitakko) > (vii) sustained thinking (vicaro) > (viii) zest (piti) > (ix) ease (sukham) > (x) self-collectedness (cittass'ekaggata) > (xi) the faculty of faith (saddhindriyam) > (xii) the faculty of energy (viriyindriyam) > (xiii) the faculty of mindfulness (satindriyam) > (xiv) the faculty of concentration (samadhindriyam) > (xv) the faculty of insight (pannindriyam) > (xvi) the faculty of ideation (manindriyam) > (xvii) the faculty of gladness (somanassondriyam) > (xviii) the faculty of life (jivitindriyam) > (xix) right views (samma-ditthi) > (xx) right intention (samma-sankappo) > (xxi) right endeavour (samma-vayamo) > (xxii) right mindfulness (sammasati) > (xxiii) right concentration (sammasamadhi) > (xxiv) the power of faith (saddhabalam) > (xxv) the power of energy (viriyabalam) > (xxvi) the power of mindfulness (satibalam) > (xxvii) the power of concentration (samadhibalam) > (xxviii) the power of insight (pannabalam) > (xxix) the power of conscientiousness (hiribalam) > (xxx) the power of the fear of blame (ottappabalam) > (xxxi) absence of greed (alobho) > (xxxii) absence of hate (adoso) > (xxxiii) absence of dullness (amoho) > (xxxiv) absence of covetousness (anabhijjha) > (xxxv) absence of malice (avyapado) > (xxxvi) right views (sammaditthi) > (xxxvii) conscientiousness (hiri) > (xxxviii) fear of blame (ottappam) > (xxxix) serenity in mind (cittapassaddhi) > (xl) serenity of mental factors (kayapassaddhi) > (xli) lightness in mind (cittalahuta) > (xlii) lightness in mental factors (kayalahuta) > (xliii) plasticity in mind (cittamuduta) > (xliv) plasticity in mental factors (kayamuduta) > (xlv) facility in mind (cittakammannata) > (xlvi) facility in mental factors (kayakammannata) > (xlvii) fitness in mind (cittapugunnata) > (xlviii) fitness in mental factors (kayapagunnata) > (xlix) directness in mind (cittujjukata) > (l) directness in mental factors (kayujjukata) > (li) mindfulness (sati) > (lii) intelligence (sampajannam) > (liii) quiet (samatho) > (liv) intuition (vipassana) > (lv) grasp (paggaho) > (lvi) balance (avikkhepo) > > Now these – or whatever other incorporeal, causally induced dhammas > there are on that occasion – these are the dhammas that are good. > > > > Let us consider this list of dhammas and see if it makes sense to > interpret this list as a list of "ultimate realities". > > If the author of the Dhammasangani had really intended to be > listing "ultimate realities" in an ontological sense, does it make > sense that he would list as seven separate dhammas: > - faculty of insight (xv - pannindriyam) > - right views (xix - samma-ditthi) > - power of insight (xxviii - pannabalam) > - absence of dullness (xxxiii - amoho) > - a second aspect of right views (xxxvi - samma-ditthi) > - intelligence (lii – sampajannam) > - intuition (liv – vipassana) > > The author then goes on to say that these seven dhammas are really > the same thing (what Acariya Anuruddha calls "panna"). > > As you know, this is but one example of repetition in the list. To > me, this indicates that "dhamma" does not mean "ultimate reality" > when used in this context. > > The fact that in the Suttas, the Buddha made only one ontological > statement (thanks for locating SNXXII.94 for me), suggests to me > that we should not try to turn "dhammas" into "ultimate realities". > > I am becoming convinced that Acariya Anuruddha used an ontological > approach as a tool to summarize the vast literature of the > Abhidhamma and that we should not take this ontological focus > literally as it is not supported in the primary texts. > > With tongue firmly in cheek, perhaps I should suggest to the > moderators that they change the description of DSG from "...with the > aim of developing precise understanding of the realities of the > present moment." into "...with the aim of developing precise > understanding of the dhammas of the present moment." :-) :-) > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > ============================ Rob, I don't see that you have really made your intended point here. The original big list of dhammas certainly includes only items that the commentarial tradition refers to as paramattha dhammas. And I don't understand why repetitions using alternative names suggests that 'dhamma' here doesn't mean "paramattha dhamma". There are, indeed, places in the suttas where the Buddha uses the term 'dhamma' to mean the informal, conventional "thing", and such examples could make your case, but I don't see this example as doing so. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 39456 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 11:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Tipitakadharas of Myanmar Dear Anthony, Hugo, Suan, Htoo, op 06-12-2004 02:09 schreef antony272b2 op antony272b@h...: > "In undertaking the assignments, the Venerable Sayadaw did not just > read > through the texts with the committee but sought out the different > versions, brought out the reference in the Commentaries and > Sub-commentaries,... > http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Library/Suttas/Paritta/BioMingun/biomingu > n.html N: I am so delighted, this bolsters the confidence in the purity of the texts. I went to the website you gave: excellent. Many thanks for this. I also read on the w.site Jim gave about the examination taking five years! Indeed the hardest one in the world. I am most impressed. And they recite not automatically, they have to understand the texts. It is true, when you understand something you can remember it. Hugo, you were pointing to a print mistake in the Bible (hombra and hombre!), but for the Tipitaka and Co no worry! Tell me what you find of those websites. And the recitation in this way is a long uninterrupted tradition. Suan once spoke about this. Perhaps Suan and Htoo would be willing to relate more first hand experiences, I shall be thankful and delighted to hear more. Some people find that there are contrarieties in Abhidhamma and sutta, and also in the Commentaries. Often things seem a contradiction, but in fact there are always different aspects and headings (sisa) according to which texts are arranged. In my study I meet such cases more often. Nina. 39457 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 11:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Dear Rob M, op 06-12-2004 01:59 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > Did the Buddha ever contrast "dhamma" (meaning reality or name of > reality) with "non-dhamma" (meanining non-reality or name of non- > reality)? > > In other words, did the primary texts make ontological statements > (other than SNXXII.94)? N: In a Jataka dhamma is what is right, adhamma is what is wrong, but this is not the question now. I shy away from the word ontological. Too abstract for me. I would rather approach the whole matter in a practical way. Dhamma or Dhaatu actually have the meaning of impersonal element devoid of self. I am interested in what dhamma is. I take to the suttas in M.N. about elements. When we understand what dhamma is we can also come to understand what is not dhamma but what we wrongly take for dhamma or reality. I am disinclined to reason in this way: this is reality, this is a concept. The danger of logics is that it does not help people to understand that there is no one in the seeing, that seeing is not me, lobha is not me. Moreover, it does not matter what word we use to denote what is real: dhamma, paramattha dhamma, dhatu, it does not matter. I find it helpful what the Burmese Abhidhamma teacher Thein Nyun said in his preface to the > DhatuKathu: as quoted by Rob K "Because the > functions of the elements give rise to the concepts of > continuity, collection and form, the ideas arise: > 1)the initial effort that has to be exerted when a > deed is about to be performed and 2) the care that has > to be taken while the deed is being performed to its > completion and this leads to the subsequent ideas > 3)"I can perform" and 4) "I can feel". Thus these four > imaginary characteristic functions of being have > bought about a deep-rooted belief in their existence. > But the elements have not the time or span of duration > to carry out such functions" . Nina. 39458 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 11:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: evolution. Hi TG, Your definition is also good. Actually, the teachings cannot be compared to any other branch of science. Nina. op 05-12-2004 23:09 schreef TGrand458@a... op TGrand458@a...: > > This is the first definition of science from the Random House College > Dictionary... > > "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths > systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws." 39459 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 11:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Dear Mike, op 05-12-2004 23:51 schreef m. nease op mlnease@z...: > Nibbaana arises for only one moment, I think (when 'it' would naturally be > 'marked' by sa~n~naa as that is one of sa~n~naa's functions)--I don't see > why the reviewing after nibbaana might not take a concept (the memory of > nibbaana?) as an object--but I really don't know. N: I think this is what Sarah and I discussed: not so classifiable object: navattabbamaarama.na. Thus, we cannot say it is a concept, it is reality, but reviewed afterwards by kaamaavacara citta with pańńa, not directly experienced by lokuttara citta. I should verify this with Sarah. Nina. 39460 From: nina Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 11:00am Subject: Vis. XIV, 121 and Tiika Vis. XIV, 121 and Tiika Ch. XIV, 121. (l) Next to determining, if the visible datum, etc., as object is vivid,[49] then six or seven 'impulsions' impel with respect to the objective fields as determined. Note 49 taken from the Tiika:. ' "If ... vivid (lit. large)": this is said because it is the occurrence of consciousness at the end of the impulsions that is being discussed. For an object is here intended as "vivid" when its life is fourteen conscious moments; and that should be understood as coming into focus when it has arisen and is two or three moments past' (Pm. 479). N: mahanta: great or vivid. When the object is vivid, the ruupa which is the object impinging on the sense organ came into focus after it had already arisen and was present for the duration of two or three moments of citta. Ruupa lasts, compared to the duration of citta, seventeen moments of citta. Thus, in this case, it falls away after the last javana-citta. There is no opportunity for the two moments of retention after the javana-cittas (see next pasa: Vis. XIV, 122). We read: six or seven 'impulsions'. The Tiika adds: or five javana-cittas, and this is the case when one is asleep or one has fainted. N: Also before dying there are five javana-cittas. Text Vis.: These are one among (1)-(8) the eight kinds of sense-sphere profitable, or (22)-(33) the twelve kinds of unprofitable, or (72)-(80) the nine remaining sense-sphere functional. This, firstly, is the way in the case of the five doors. N: They are eight mahaa-kusala cittas, twelve akusala cittas, eight mahaa-kiriyacittas and one ahetuka kiriyacitta that is the smile-producing citta of the arahat. Thus, these are twentynine kaamaavacara cittas performing the function of javana, the Tiika adds. Text Vis: But in the case of the mind door those same [impulsions arise] next to (71) mind-door adverting. Beyond [the stage of] change-of-lineage [50] any [of the following 26 kinds of impulsion] that obtains a condition [51] impels; Note 50, taken from the Tiika: . 'This includes also the preliminary-work and the cleansing (see Ch. XXII, note 7), not change-of-lineage only' (Pm. 479). See also Ch.IV,74 and Ch. XXI,129. N: After the citta which is change-of-lineage, gotrabhuu, arises in a mind-door process, cittas of another plane of citta arise: ruupa-jhaanacitta, aruupa-jhaanacitta or lokuttara citta. As to the preliminary-work and the cleansing (vodaana), these cittas arise before the change-of-lineage: parikamma or preparatory citta, upacaara or access and anuloma or adaptation which citta adapts to what preceded and to what follows. Note 51 taken from the Tiika: ' "That obtains a condition": any impulsion that has obtained a condition for arising next to change-of-lineage, as that of the fine-material sphere, an so on' (Pm. 479). Vis. Text: Vis. text: that is, any kind among (9)-(13) the five profitable, and (81)-(85) the five functional, of the fine-material sphere, and (14)-(17) the four profitable, and (86)-(89)the four functional of the immaterial sphere, and also (18)-(21) the four path consciousnesses and (66)-(69) four fruition consciousnesses of the supramundane. N: These are five ruupaavacara kusala cittas, five ruupaavacara kiriyacittas (of the arahat), four aruupaavacara kusala cittas, four aruupaavacara kiriyacittas, four magga-cittas and four phala-cittas. The four phala-cittas (fruition) are lokuttara vipaakacittas arising in the same process as the relevant magga-cittas and performing the function of javana. Thus, there are twentysix cittas other than the kaamaavacara cittas performing the function of javana. When we add these cittas to the twentynine kaamaavacara cittas performing the function of javana, there are fifty-five kinds of citta in all performing the function of javana. Vis. text: that is, any kind among (9)-(13) the five profitable, and (81)-(85) the five functional, of the fine-material sphere, and (14)-(17) the four profitable, and (86)-(89)the four functional of the immaterial sphere, and also (18)-(21) the four path consciousnesses and (66)-(69) four fruition consciousnesses of the supramundane. This is how the occurrence of the fifty-five kinds of profitable, unprofitable, functional, and resultant consciousness should be understood as impulsion. N: Remark: This passage reminds us that the order of cittas is fixed. Nobody can change the order of cittas, nor can any one cause a specific object to come into focus at a particular moment. When a sense object has already arisen for a few moments before it comes into focus, nobody can cause it to last longer than seventeen moments of citta. The function of citta is knowing an object and at the moment of javana the sobhana cetasikas or akusala, cetasikas which accompany it (in the case of non-arahats) cause the citta to be kusala or akusala. ****** Nina. 39461 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 11:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] 3 stages of sati/Nina. Hi Larry, I dig out some Tiika texts as best as I can. You know, I recently did this in my answer to you, but did not keep my mail. op 05-12-2004 18:55 schreef Larry op LBIDD@w...: > In Vism.XIV,3 Buddhaghosa talks about the three modes of knowing: > perception, consciousness, and wisdom. > He says perception knows sense consciousness but doesn't know the > general characteristics. N: Perception knows an object as blue, yellow, it does not say sense-consciousness. Consciousness knows sense consciousness and > the general characteristics but can't bring about the manifestation > of the path. Wisdom knows sense consciousness, the general > characteristics and can bring about "by endeavouring" the > manifestation of the path. In Vism.XIV,7 he seems to be saying this > knowing of wisdom is chiefly a matter of knowing the particular > characteristics of objects (sabhava). N. Texts: And the "penetration of characteristics", is stated with reference to merely making the characteristics the object, not to penetrating (the characteristics). Remarks: Thus in this context penetration of characteristics is not direct realization of the truth by pańńa. In the Visuddhimagga I see the definition of pativedha as: penetration for the four noble Truths. The penetration of nibbana, the cessation of dukkha is accomplished at the moment of enlightenment. However, this is a long process. First the three general characteristics have to be realized again and again. Before the three general characteristics can be realized, pańńa has to know by insight the particular characteristics of nama and rupa. Tiika: N: who is concentrated knows things as they really are, this was discussed in India: when stages of insight are reached the characteristics of nama and rupa appear vlearly, one at a time, and at that moment there is also concentration on the object that appears, and this has become stronger. L: This analysis doesn't exactly seem like a discrimination between > delusion and understanding and the knowing of consciousness seems > hard to categorize. N: It is also said in the Tiika that citta without pańńa can, because of prior study have the characteristics as object but it does not penetrate the true nature of nama and rupa. L: I was wondering, since perception (sa~n~naa) is > the proximate cause of sati, if this might be a "stages of the path" > scheme in three stages. N: This is another degree of sańńa, it does not fit into this simile. I clarify: when considering sańńa cetasika it is different all the time, depending on the citta it accompanies. It shares the same object with the citta, the object can be a reality, dhamma, or an idea or concept. When sańńa accompanies lokuttara citta its object is nibbana, not a concept. Sa~n~naa as the proximate cause of sati: I see it this way: when you listen intently, you can have firm remembrance of what you heard, but there is also understanding of what you hear, otherwise you could not remember it. In that way sańńa can be the proximate cause of sati. L: First there is identifying the object without > proliferation. Then there is the _conventional_ understanding of the > object as impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not self, i.e., body, > breath, etc. is impermanent, unsatisfactory, not self. N: I think that is too soon. When following the stages of insight we see: know nama as nama and rupa as rupa. After that: seeing them as conditioned realities. Their arising and falling away comes later on. L: Then there is > the penetration of conventional identity to the experience of nama > and rupa as impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not self. > Is this a reasonable explanation of what is meant by the knowing of > consciousness here? N: The text has:< For insight also comes to increase with the consciousness dissociated from knowledge by the influence of (repeated) practice owing to the skilful nature of the insight (having characteristics as object) occurring after having repeatedly penetrated the characteristics many times..> The knowing of consciousness in the simile: it is not pańńa that brings about the manifestation of the Path, it is not pativedha, realization of the truth. Thus, the simile just wants to show that there are different ways of knowing and that pańńa is specific, it brings about the manifestation of the Path. It is just a simile not more than that. Nina. 39462 From: Bhante Vimalaramsi Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 10:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Value of discussion (was evil thoughts) Dhamma Greetings Sarah, So your stance is that it is unwholesome to pull up wholesome thoughts because that desire is unwholesome? What is the sense of that? Where is right effort as described in the suttas in this. If you will remember I took a long time explaining what the Satipatthana Sutta said about the hindrances and to be honest in practical terms that is the way it works. The ideas you present seem to have a very pessimistic tone to them. Is this what the Buddha actually taught? Why try and make things better and see for yourself whether this leads to an uplifted mind. An uplifted mind that has pleasant feeling in it, is not a bad thing! (please take a look at the post I just sent to Phil) Why? Because with an uplifted mind one can clearly see how mind works. On the night of the Bobdhisatta's enlightenment, he had a major insight and that was pleasant feeling is not a bad thing to have arise. The Bodhisatta had done many austerities to stop pleasant feeling from arising. But his insight was that pleasant feeling and painful feeling were two sides of the same coin. The attachment to either one of these states was from the idea that these states (lobha and dosa) were his personally. But feeling is only feeling and when one sees this through the eyes of conditionality and dependent origination it is just an impersonal process. No matter whether the feeling is pleasant or painful, when one sees this through the eyes of dependent origination they are exactly the same. The idea that the only way to see anything is by having wisdom arise by itself. But this isn't necessarily so, it does take effort and strong mindfulness. What you are describing is a let it be attitude and hope that wisdom takes over, just seems to go far away from the Buddha's teachings (in reality). Your whole idea about chanda is not correct according to my teacher Sayadaw U Silananda who by the way is a bhikkhu of 60 years standing in the sangha and is a famous abhidhamma scholar. So I'll take his definitions, if you don't mind. I lived with him as his attendant for 2 years, and was told over and over that chanda is a wholesome desire, period. The saying that chanda can be unwholesome isn't correct according to him. I did ask about this many times, and was always told the same thing. "Chanda is a wholesome desire that leads one's mind to the goal of liberation." There seems to be a lot of worry and fear involved on this group about with whether something is brought up or not and the use of the word pan~n~a seems to the catch-all phrase that still changes depending on the situation. Too much theory without direct practice is the cause of this. I've never run across so many people who think that it will take countless lifetimes to experience the Dhamma that the Buddha teaches. This shows the sad state of the Buddha Dhamma these days. I have run across bhikkhus who tell people that meditation is a waste of time because there can be no benefit. But this doesn't make it so! It is time to go back to the basics as taught in the suttas and vinaya and actually practice in the way that the Buddha prescribed, rather than get caught in intellectual webs of theorizing. As the Buddha told Venerable Ananda in sutta #106, section 15: "What should be done for his disciples out of compassion by a teacher who seeks their welfare and has compassion for them, that I have done for you, Ananda. There are these roots of trees, these empty huts. Meditate, Ananda, do not delay, or else you will regret it later. This is our instruction to you." Maha-Metta always Bhante Vimalaramsi 39463 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 1:11pm Subject: Re: AN III - 100 mental misconduct vs. thoughts of ill-will --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James (and Sarah) - Geez, I just have to say this: I was so pleased at Sarah's post that > expressed the *possibility* of acting, taking steps, directing the mind, and > accomplishing, and that urged the doing of this. It was just the opposite of the > sort of expression of helplessness and hopelessness that I've criticized > elsewhere (with great approbation and acclamation ... NOT!! ;-). And here, James, > I find you, a fellow promoter of kusala and active cetana, engaging in > nay-saying! Friend Howard, Hehehe…are you afraid I switched sides or something? ;-)) No, I think you have misinterpreted the conversation between Sarah and me. As I see it, Sarah wasn't advocating, as you write, "acting, taking steps, directing the mind, and accomplishing, and that urged the doing of this". Wow, it would be a cold day in hell before that happened! ;-)). Sarah was simply stating that one should see the defilements with wisdom (panna) as they arise, with no special effort or goal, and that doing that will slowly get rid of them. I argued that wisdom is too weak, because of ignorance, to do the whole job alone. I stated that the Buddha taught Sila, Samadhi, and Panna to purify the mind. They each condition each other and build on each other to rid the mind of defilements. I don't think I am `nay saying', I believe in the benefit of practice; but Howard, I am probably more `anti-intellectualism' than you are. I don't believe that too many people, especially at this point in the Buddha Sasana, can just "think" themselves to enlightenment. At the Buddha's time there were those with `little dust in their eyes' for which this approach could work, but nowadays we have entire mountains in our eyes! ;-)) Does this mean we should give up? No, it just means we have to try harder! Metta, James 39464 From: Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 8:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: AN III - 100 mental misconduct vs. thoughts of ill-will Hi, James - In a message dated 12/6/04 4:13:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > I don't think I > am `nay saying', I believe in the benefit of practice; but Howard, I > am probably more `anti-intellectualism' than you are. > ---------------------------------- Howard: Maybe. I'm not "anti-intellectualism," though I do see limits to the useful fallout from intellectualizing. ---------------------------------- I don't > > believe that too many people, especially at this point in the Buddha > Sasana, can just "think" themselves to enlightenment. > ------------------------------------- Howard: I don't think anyone ever could, though I do think that directed thought and outright willful determination will work at times. Typically, however, our efforts need to be applied at an early point in the conditioning process, directly cultivating conditions that lead to further conditions, like a line of tipping dominoes, until, eventually, final goals are achieved. ------------------------------------ At the > > Buddha's time there were those with `little dust in their eyes' for > which this approach could work, but nowadays we have entire > mountains in our eyes! ;-)) Does this mean we should give up? No, > it just means we have to try harder! > ------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, more consistency to our efforts. ==================== 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) 39465 From: gy_richard Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 1:11pm Subject: Greetings, new member here. Hello, I bow down to all who take part in this group; may you all be well, happy, and free. Just wanted to introduce myself,(as suggested). My name is Guy and I live in a big bowl of samsara in southern USA. I have been reading and trying to practice Buddhism on and off for about 20 years now. I have done a lot of reading, and I admit very little practice, but I think my motivation is finally set to sit on a daily basis. I started out reading Trungpa Rinpoche, then read some Zen for a while then in to Tibetan Buddhism, studying the first 3 courses of the Asain Classics correspondence courses from Geishe Michael Roach. I found this course to be very good and helpful. But of course, my Karma at that point was still not ripe enough to allow me to stick to one thing so I continued my search, sat with a Vajrayana group for a short time, then moved back home where I am today, and where I find myself to be the lone Buddhist from what I see so far. In the last 8 months or so I have become very interested in the Theravada tradition, and feel more of a sense of "time to settle in and do the work". I sometimes think about where my mind would be today if I would have stuck to meditation from the start all those years ago, and do not want to look back on the second have of my life in the same way. So... I do not pretend to have a vast wealth of knowledge about the Buddha's teachings and will no doubt benefit more from this group more than you will from me, but, if I have one piece of advice for anyone it is this...if you are the type, like me, who fell in love with the Dhamma and loves to read, but you find yourself putting off the actual practice of sitting meditation, don't put it off any longer!! Study without practice, in my opinion, is not Buddhism or being a Buddhist. So put the books down for a while and sit! Besides, what's the point of knowing the teachings if we don't put them in to practice right? Okay, I've yapped enough. Thank you for being here. Metta, Guy 39466 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 2:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Rob and Robert, Rob M wrote to Robert K, ----------------------------- > In your message above, you wrote, "I think seeing what is reality (dhamma) and what is not is stressed throughout the teachings." If you had written, "I think seeing what are dhammas is stressed throughout the teachings.", then I would have agreed with you 100%. However, you have made it into an ontological statement which I do not think finds any support in the texts. > ------------------------------ This reminds me of a conversation I had with Robert in the bar of Noosa hotel. ( :-) He was drinking mineral water, and I was drinking coffee.) It has become a, "Where were you when you heard JFK was shot?" type of situation. In this case it was, "Where you when you heard that wrong view was disbelief in kamma and vipaka?" Previously, I had assumed that belief in self was the greatest (most fundamental) wrong view. But now it all began to fall into place, and I thought, "Ah, so that's why the Great Forty Sutta describes wrong view that way!" If there is kamma and vipaka, then concepts cannot be real. Consider, for example, a beautiful ripe peach: Peaches are delicious, nutritious food, and so, if they are real, having one must be the result of some past good kamma. In other words, if a peach is real then it is an inherently desirable object. But what if that same peach becomes stuck in my throat and I suffer physical pain? Then, it must be inherently undesirable and my experiencing of it is the result of past bad kamma. But that is ridiculous - it can't be both inherently desirable and inherently undesirable! The whole theory of kamma and vipaka becomes nonsensical if concepts are real. So, don't worry that the Buddha didn't constantly point out that he was talking about paramattha dhammas, not concepts. That was established from the beginning - as the basis. Any inference that concepts were real would have contradicted - and made a mockery of - his entire teaching. Ken H 39467 From: m. nease Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 2:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sarah: "One path" [Sukin] Hi Howard, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:07 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sarah: "One path" [Sukin] > > Hi, Mike - > > In a message dated 12/6/04 10:44:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, > mlnease@z... writes: > >> Thanks for this clarification--so phassa and vedanaa are 'infected'? > =================== > Yes. As I see it, for a worldling - for any non-arahant, for that > matter - phassa is the contact of an apparent subject with an apparent > object > through a connecting sense-door, and vedana is "I like" or "I dislike" or > "I am > neutral about". Neither is uninfected. Really! Interesting interpretations of both, I'll give them some thought. mike 39468 From: robmoult Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 3:04pm Subject: Re: Greetings, new member here. Hi Guy, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gy_richard" wrote: > I bow down to all who take part in this group; may you all be well, > happy, and free. > > Just wanted to introduce myself,(as suggested). My name is Guy and I > live in a big bowl of samsara in southern USA. I have been reading > and trying to practice Buddhism on and off for about 20 years now. I > have done a lot of reading, and I admit very little practice, but I > think my motivation is finally set to sit on a daily basis. > > I started out reading Trungpa Rinpoche, then read some Zen for a > while then in to Tibetan Buddhism, studying the first 3 courses of > the Asain Classics correspondence courses from Geishe Michael Roach. > I found this course to be very good and helpful. But of course, my > Karma at that point was still not ripe enough to allow me to stick to > one thing so I continued my search, sat with a Vajrayana group for a > short time, then moved back home where I am today, and where I find > myself to be the lone Buddhist from what I see so far. > > In the last 8 months or so I have become very interested in the > Theravada tradition, and feel more of a sense of "time to settle in > and do the work". I sometimes think about where my mind would be > today if I would have stuck to meditation from the start all those > years ago, and do not want to look back on the second have of my life > in the same way. > > So... I do not pretend to have a vast wealth of knowledge about the > Buddha's teachings and will no doubt benefit more from this group > more than you will from me, but, if I have one piece of advice for > anyone it is this...if you are the type, like me, who fell in love > with the Dhamma and loves to read, but you find yourself putting off > the actual practice of sitting meditation, don't put it off any > longer!! Study without practice, in my opinion, is not Buddhism or > being a Buddhist. So put the books down for a while and sit! Besides, > what's the point of knowing the teachings if we don't put them in to > practice right? > > Okay, I've yapped enough. Thank you for being here. ===== Welcome to DSG! Nice introduction. Really looking forward to your contributions! Some people contribute by being full of good answers (there are a LOT of really well-read people on DSG). Other people contribute by asking questions. Feel free to get involved in an existing thread or, even better, feel free to start a new thread with your own questions. Metta, Rob M :-) 39469 From: Andrew Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 3:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: [snip] > The full understanding of the known means to analyze the object into > constituent 'dhammas' and delimit the specific characteristic, > function, manifestation and proximate cause of each dhamma. This > process allows one to overcome the delusion of substantial unities. > In other words, all things are made up of impersonal components > brought together by conditions. Please note that in this series of > messages, I am not rejecting the value of breaking things into > constituent dhammas, I am only rejecting the value of attributing an > ontological "reality" to these dhammas. > > The full understanding of scrutinization involves seeing the three > characterisitic (impermanence, suffering and non-self) to overcome > the delusion of permanance, pleasurable and self. > > At the stage of the full understanding of abandoning, desire and > lust of objects is eliminated. > > ===== > > > > > I don't know for sure if this is a fair question to pose to you, > but > > I'll post it anyway with apologies in advance! (-: > > ===== > > I hope that I answered your questions. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) Hi Rob M Thanks for your detailed answers. I have printed them out and will ponder. Like Mike, I am looking forward to working out where all this is leading. Best wishes Andrew 39470 From: Bhante Vimalaramsi Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 2:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhante and Smiling & Htoo's account of smiling cittas Dhamma Greetings Hugo, You make me laugh with all of your "I" 's bee-bopping around............Keep up the fun work! Maha-Metta always Bhante Vimalaramsi 39471 From: Andrew Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 3:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Value of discussion (was evil thoughts) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: > Hello Andrew, > > On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 08:35:38 -0000, Andrew wrote: > > Do you think it is possible to directly know something and later call > > it to mind such that you can say "back then, I had a moment when I > > directly knew such-and-such"? > > I am not sure what you meant, I read it once, prepared a reply, then > read it again and my reply didn't make sense to my second > interpretation. > > > This isn't a trick debating question. Don't answer it if you don't > > feel like it. Anyone else who would like to chime in, please do so. > > FYI I have a feeling that we worldlings can't recall any moments of > > direct knowing. But I could be wrong ... > > mmm....maybe I see what you mean, I don't know, but I think that if > you know something you don't need to recall it, it is there. > > Like some teachers told us at school, the exam should be finished > promptly, if you know it, you know it, you don't have to sit the whole > hour trying to remember it. > > > Does my reply makes sense to your question? > > Greetings, > -- > Hugo Hi Hugo Thanks for your example but I have to be honest and say that it didn't click with me. I suppose the basic issue is, if we can't remember direct knowing, how can we say "when I meditate every morning I directly know anatta/anicca etc"? We *think* we do ... but is that wisdom or ignorance, actuality or conceit? All the blind men thought they knew what an elephant was ... Bhikkhu Bodhi has pointed out that most of the wrong views discussed by the Buddha in the Brahmajala Sutta arise, not after intellectualising and book- learning, but after intense meditations. Huh? How can that be for those who shun Dhamma study and believe that meditation is directly knowing the mind? (I'm not talking about you or anyone else - I, in fact, used to believe this many years ago). Anyway, we all do as we do and may we all do it with patience. Best wishes Andrew 39472 From: Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 4:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Rob: "I agree that concept (pannatti) is found in the Patthana (one of the conditioning states for pakatupanissaya) but I don't read this as being an ontological statement (reality vs. non-reality). Similarly, I don't think that pannatti is used in an ontological fashion in the Visuddhimagga or its commentary (correct me if I am wrong here)." Hi Rob, I thought the explanation of pannatti in Abhidhammattasangaha came from another book in ab. pitaka about different types of people. Sorry, I don't remember the name. In Vism. there is a lot of discrimination of dhammas with and without sabhava (particular characteristic) and there are a few instances of the use of "paramattha" mostly from the Mahatika which is dated no later than 7th cent. Larry 39473 From: Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 11:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Value of discussion (was evil thoughts) Hi, Andrew (and Hugo) - In a message dated 12/6/04 6:39:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, athel60@t... writes: > Hi Hugo > > Thanks for your example but I have to be honest and say that it > didn't click with me. I suppose the basic issue is, if we can't > remember direct knowing, how can we say "when I meditate every > morning I directly know anatta/anicca etc"? We *think* we do ... but > is that wisdom or ignorance, actuality or conceit? All the blind men > thought they knew what an elephant was ... Bhikkhu Bodhi has pointed > out that most of the wrong views discussed by the Buddha in the > Brahmajala Sutta arise, not after intellectualising and book- > learning, but after intense meditations. Huh? How can that be for > those who shun Dhamma study and believe that meditation is directly > knowing the mind? (I'm not talking about you or anyone else - I, in > fact, used to believe this many years ago). > > Anyway, we all do as we do and may we all do it with patience. > > Best wishes > Andrew > > ======================== This makes my mind return to the concept vs reality business, Andrew. I just couldn't suppress a smile at your bringing up the elephant example! The blind man feeling a leg said the elephant is like a tree. The one feeling the trunk said it was like a snake (I seem to recall). What is the lesson one might take from this? Someone feels a pine tree, senses hardness, and says the tree is hardness. Someone else smells the pine needles and says the tree is sharp odor. Hmm, perhaps these are partial views, none of which separately or even taken together, constitutes the nature of the pinetree? ;-)) Sometimes the synthesis of concept formation adds to one's knowledge by not ignoring the network of relations. While I'm "talking trees", often *we just don't see the forest for the trees* - to turn a common saying on its head! 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) 39474 From: Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 0:12pm Subject: Blind Men & the Elephant Hi, all - The following is the Blind Men & Elephant story from the Udana. This translation is from the web site http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/udn/udn6.htm. I find it a good lesson about seeing only separate pieces of a puzzle and about disputation. With metta, Howard -------------------------------------- Thus have I heard. On a certain occasion, the Blessed One dwelt at Savatthi, in the Jetavana, the garden of Anâthapindika. Now at that time a large number of Samanas, Brahmanas and wandering monks of various heretical sects, holding a variety of views, doubters on many points, having many diverse aspirations, and recourse to that which relates to various heresies, entered Savatthi for alms. Some of these Samanas and Brahmanas held that the world is eternal and contended that this view was true and every other false. Some said: the world is not eternal. Some said: the world is finite. Some said: the world is infinite. Some said: the soul and the body are identical. Some said: the soul and the body are not identical. Some said: the Perfect One continues to exist after death. Some said: The Perfect One does not continue to exist after death. Some said: The Perfect One exists and does not exist after death. Some said: The Perfect One neither exists nor does not exist after death. Each contending their view was true and every other false. These quarrelsome, pugnacious, cavilling monks wounded one another with sharp words (lit. mouth-javelins) declaiming: "such is the truth, such is not the truth: the truth is not such, such is the truth." And a number of Bhikkhus, robing themselves in the forenoon and taking their alms-bowls and tunics, entered Savatthi for alms and when they had returned from their rounds and finished their meal, they went to where the Blessed One was and drawing near, they saluted the Blessed One and sat down apart, and while thus sitting they said to the Blessed One: "Just now, Sire, a large number of Samanas and Brahmanas and wandering monks holding varions heresies entered Savatthi for alms, and they are disputing among themselves, saying: "'This is the truth, such is not the truth etc. [as above. Transl.]" "These heretical monks, O Bhikkhus, are blind, eyeless, they know not what is right, they know not what is wrong, they know not what is true, they know not what is false. These monks not perceiving what is right, not perceiving what is wrong, not perceiving what is true, not perceiving what is false, become disputations, saying: 'such is the truth, such is not the truth' etc. [as above. Transl.] In former times, O Bhikkhus, there was a King in this town of Savatthi. And the King, O Bhikkhus, called a man to him and said: "Go, thou, and collect all the men born blind in Savatthi and bring them here." "Be it so, Lord" said that man in assent to the King and he went to Savatthi and he brought all the men born blind in Savatthi to where the King was and drawing near he said to the King: "Lord, all the men blind from their birth in Savatthi are present." "Pray, then, bring an elephant before them." "Be it so, Lord" said that man in assent to the King and he brought an elephant into the presence of the blind men and said: "This, O blind men, is an elephant." To some of the blind men he presented the head of the elephant, saying, 'Such, O blind men, is an elephant.' To some he presented the body, saying: 'such is an elephant.' To some he presented the feet, saying: 'Such is an elephant.' To some he presented the back, saying: 'Such is an elephant.' To some he presented the tail, saying: 'Such is an elephant.' To some he presented the hairy tuft of the tail, saying: 'Such is an elephant.' The show-man, O Bhikkhus, having presented the elephant to these blind ones, went to where the King was and drawing near said to the King: "The elephant, Lord, has been brought before the blind men, do now as seems fit." And the King went to where the blind men were, and drawing near said to them: "Do you now know what an elephant is like?" "Assuredly, Lord: we now know what an elephant is like." "Tell me then, O blind men, what an elephant is like." And those blind men, O Bhikkhus, who had felt the head of the elephant, said: 'An elephant, Sir, is like a large round jar . Those who had felt its ears, said: 'it is like a winnowing basket.' Those who had felt its tusks, said: 'it is like a plough-share.' Those who had felt its trunk, said: 'it is like a plough.' Those who had felt its body, said: 'it is like a granary: Those who had felt its feet, said: 'it is like a pillar.' Those who had felt its back, said: 'it is like a mortar.' Those who had felt its tail, said: 'it is a like a pestle.' Those who had felt the tuft of its tail, said: 'it is like a broom.' And they all fought amongst themselves with their fists, declaring, 'such is an elephant, such is not elephant, an elephant is not like that, it is like this.' And the King, O Bhikkhus, was highly delighted. In exactly the same way, O Bhikkhus, do these heretical people, blind and without insight, dispute among themselves saying 'this doctrine is true, every other is false'." And the Blessed One in this connection, on that occasion, breathed forth this solemn utterance: "Well is it known that some Samanas and Brahmanas, Who attach themselves to methods of analysis, And perceiving only one side of a case, Disagree with one another." /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) 39475 From: Ken O Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 5:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Ken H > In other words, if a peach is real then it is an inherently > desirable object. But what if that same peach becomes stuck in my > throat and I suffer physical pain? Then, it must be inherently > undesirable and my experiencing of it is the result of past bad > kamma. But that is ridiculous - it can't be both inherently > desirable and inherently undesirable! The whole theory of kamma and vipaka becomes nonsensical if concepts are real. k: Yes, I think this is good :). Some pple like apple and some dont. It is pleasant and unpleasant to different people, so what is real, the pleasant and unpleasant or the apple :) Ken O 39476 From: Ken O Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 5:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Giving a Smile Hi Friend James Renunication does not mean you shave your head and become a bhikkhu, Renunication means abandonment, relinquishment. It cannot happen without alobha. Dana cannot be possible without alobha, without relinquishement, without non-attachment Under the A Treatise of the Paramis, you can see it in abhidhamma.org <> Buddha has been perfecting it during his bodhisatta time for aeons and yet people say it cannot be found in 8NP :) Let me tell you another little secret, all the paramis can be found in the 8NP but only a Buddha would perfect all of them :). Ken O p.s. also the point of renunication << Renunciation has the characteristic of departing from sense pleasures and existence; its function is to verify their unsatisfactoriness; its manifestation is the withdrawal from them; a sense of spiritual urgency (samvega) is its proximate cause.>> 39477 From: m. nease Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 5:33pm Subject: Di.t.thijukamma, was Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Hi Nina, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nina van Gorkom" To: Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:00 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Dear Mike, op 05-12-2004 23:51 schreef m. nease op mlnease@z...: > Nibbaana arises for only one moment, I think (when 'it' would naturally be > 'marked' by sa~n~naa as that is one of sa~n~naa's functions)--I don't see > why the reviewing after nibbaana might not take a concept (the memory of > nibbaana?) as an object--but I really don't know. N: I think this is what Sarah and I discussed: not so classifiable object: navattabbamaarama.na. Thus, we cannot say it is a concept, it is reality, but reviewed afterwards by kaamaavacara citta with pańńa, not directly experienced by lokuttara citta. I should verify this with Sarah. Thanks Nina, interesting--this reminds me of something I read this morning with implications for 'conceptual right view(s)'. From Sumangala's commentary to the STA, Chapter 5, The Process Free, regarding the division of all kusala into daana, sila and bhaavanaa: "Making one's view straight by way of properly seeing, occurring as [the thought] 'There is a result of giving', etc., is called straightening of one's view. If this is the case, then the nature of the meritorious act of straightening one's view is not found in an arising of consciousness dissociated from knowledge. It is not right that it is not found, because the prior and subsequent volitions are included in each of the meritorious acts. Certainly there is only consciousness associated with knowledge at the time of straightening one's view, but prior to and subsequent to the event, consciousness dissociated from knowledge also arises, so the nature of the meritorious act of straightening one's view applies to this kind of consciousness too. There is no need for further elaboration... "Aacariya Dhammapala Thera states that teaching, listening and straightening one's view are included in cultivation because they constitute the repeated practice of wholesome dhammas. Others, however, argue that when one teaches and listens one does so employing knowledge consequent upon what one is teaching and repeatedly piercing through to the characteristics [of dhammas]; thus teaching and listening are included in cultivation because they bring acute insight.... "While straightening one's view [applies] everywhere, since its characteristic is to be relevant to them all {daana, sila and bhaavanaa}. For when some act of giving, and so forth, is purified by right view occurring as the thought 'there is a result of giving', it is of great fruit, of great benefit. It is in consideration of this that it is stated in the commentary to the Diigha Nikaaya that straightening one's view has the characteristic of being relevant to them all {daana, sila, bhaavanaa}." {Mine} mn Admittedly this is only eight hundred years old or so and isn't from the Nikaayas. Still I like it because it agrees with my (current) opinions... I first read about the kusala of di.t.thijjukamma some years ago in Khun Sujin's writing. I regret that it's taken me so long to look deeper into it, though it's always made sense to me. mike p.s. I believe when we were discussing 'conceptual right view' earlier, Sarah mentioned 'there is a result'. Thanks for the pointer, Sarah. 39478 From: m. nease Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 5:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Rob and Rob, ----- Original Message ----- From: "robmoult" To: Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts > With tongue firmly in cheek, perhaps I should suggest to the > moderators that they change the description of DSG from "...with the > aim of developing precise understanding of the realities of the > present moment." into "...with the aim of developing precise > understanding of the dhammas of the present moment." :-) :-) I agree with you both in my own dithering way. As I see it, the Dhamma is NOT about ontology--it is about dukkha and the end of dukkha. The only significance of the designation 'paramattha dhamma' in this context is that this, whatever it is, can be the basis of vipassanaa. That, to me, is the only distinction that makes any sense in the context of dukkha and the end of dukkha. We're not studying philosophy or physics here, are we? Why must the translation of one phrase by our brilliant teachers cause so much dissention? It simply isn't necessary if we take this question out of the context of philosophy, ontology, physics and so on--and place it within the context wherein it was born. I know you two both know this material FAR better than I do-- I vote in favor of RobM's proposal, tongue-in-cheek as it may be. mike 39479 From: robmoult Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 5:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > ============================ > Rob, I don't see that you have really made your intended point here. > The original big list of dhammas certainly includes only items that the > commentarial tradition refers to as paramattha dhammas. And I don't understand why > repetitions using alternative names suggests that 'dhamma' here doesn't mean > "paramattha dhamma". There are, indeed, places in the suttas where the Buddha > uses the term 'dhamma' to mean the informal, conventional "thing", and such > examples could make your case, but I don't see this example as doing so. ===== My logic is as follows. I imagine that I am composing the Dhammasangani and I intend "dhamma" to mean "ultimate reality" in an ontological sense. I start the project by listing all the ultimate realities which are wholesome. If I am talking about ultimate realities, does it make sense that I would duplicate seven times the same ultimate reality but give it seven different names? I think not. The fact that the long list which opens the Dhammasangani contains many duplications, is evidence to me that the author did not consider the elements in this list to be "ultimate realities". Metta, Rob M :-) 39480 From: m. nease Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 6:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Giving a Smile Hi Ken, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken O" To: Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 5:26 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Giving a Smile > thought of renunication that is thought of renunciation of sensual > pleasure. this is non-greed :) - generosity > > So say Buddha never taught generosity. It is a matter to look at it > more carefully. The more I look at references to renunciation, relinquishing and so on (in English translation) the more I find they have to do with, yes, daana, generosity--NOT 'letting go' of something unwholesome. Detachment? Alobha? All more closely related, in the Paali texts, to generosity than to any other concept or any other cetasika, as I read it. mike 39481 From: robmoult Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 6:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Nina, Mike and Andrew (and all), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Rob M, > op 06-12-2004 01:59 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > > > Did the Buddha ever contrast "dhamma" (meaning reality or name of > > reality) with "non-dhamma" (meanining non-reality or name of non- > > reality)? > > > > In other words, did the primary texts make ontological statements > > (other than SNXXII.94)? > N: In a Jataka dhamma is what is right, adhamma is what is wrong, but this > is not the question now. > I shy away from the word ontological. Too abstract for me. I would rather > approach the whole matter in a practical way. Dhamma or Dhaatu actually have > the meaning of impersonal element devoid of self. I am interested in what > dhamma is. I take to the suttas in M.N. about elements. When we understand > what dhamma is we can also come to understand what is not dhamma but what we > wrongly take for dhamma or reality. I am disinclined to reason in this way: > this is reality, this is a concept. The danger of logics is that it does not > help people to understand that there is no one in the seeing, that seeing is > not me, lobha is not me. > Moreover, it does not matter what word we use to denote what is real: > dhamma, paramattha dhamma, dhatu, it does not matter. > I find it helpful what the Burmese Abhidhamma teacher Thein Nyun said in > his preface to the > > DhatuKathu: as quoted by Rob K > "Because the > > functions of the elements give rise to the concepts of > > continuity, collection and form, the ideas arise: > > 1)the initial effort that has to be exerted when a > > deed is about to be performed and 2) the care that has > > to be taken while the deed is being performed to its > > completion and this leads to the subsequent ideas > > 3)"I can perform" and 4) "I can feel". Thus these four > > imaginary characteristic functions of being have > > bought about a deep-rooted belief in their existence. > > But the elements have not the time or span of duration > > to carry out such functions" . ===== Nina, Well said! I could not agree more. Mike, Andrew and perhaps others have wondered where this is leading to. I would like to start putting some closure here. My position is... drum roll please :-) The primary texts talk of dhammas. Understanding dhammmas is very important. Except in a single instance (SNXXII.94), the Buddha did not enter into ontological discussions. I agree with you, Nina, when you wrote, "I am disinclined to reason in this way: this is reality, this is a concept." I feel that when we get into discussions of "this is reality, this is a concept", we are getting farther away from the Buddha's teaching and wasting a valuable opportunity when we could be straightening out our views based on what the Buddha actually taught. As a result, I will actively engage myself in discussions on dhammas but I will actively disengage myself from ontological type discussions on "realities" (especially "realities vs. concepts"). Metta, Rob M :-) 39482 From: Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 1:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi, Rob - In a message dated 12/6/04 8:59:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > My logic is as follows. I imagine that I am composing the > Dhammasangani and I intend "dhamma" to mean "ultimate reality" in an > ontological sense. I start the project by listing all the ultimate > realities which are wholesome. If I am talking about ultimate > realities, does it make sense that I would duplicate seven times the > same ultimate reality but give it seven different names? I think > not. The fact that the long list which opens the Dhammasangani > contains many duplications, is evidence to me that the author did > not consider the elements in this list to be "ultimate realities". > =================== Well, I just don't make the connection you do, Rob, nor do I infer the conclusion you do. But that's what makes DSG a good stew - a variety of ingredients! ;-) 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) 39483 From: Ken O Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 6:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi RobM I concern about reality and I dont care whether it is ontological sense or not. Buddha did differentiate between concepts and reality. D.O is the difference that says what is reality, what can be directly known. Ultimate reality or whatever anyone like to call it, is a reality that can be directly known, it not so much what word we used, it is the essence that is important. Or we may be basing on the wrong initial basis of development. Five aggregates, 8NP, D.O are reality that can be directly known. Self is a mental construct which cannot be found in the conditions. It is always presents because of our underlying tendecies of the three roots that make us believe it is there. Our habitual inference to concepts that make us illusion to reality. An apple can taste pleasant or unpleasant, but in reality it is the tactile object and visible object that is directly known and not apple. It is the plesant and unplesant feelings in the javana process that make us dislike or crave the apple. It is not apple that make us crave, it is the feelings as a conseqence of the contact from sense object, sense base and sense citta that make us crave. It is important to note this fine difference because we may end up developing the wrong way. In fact, Acariya Anuruddha does not count sankhara as > an "ultimate reality", he counts sankhara as a collection > of "ultimate realities"; this is in spite of the fact that the > Buddha said that sankhara "exists". K: Are you talking about sankhara as in sankhara aggregates. In the Dhammasangi, it is reference as a collective and they realities and they exists. I think you should read the book by the author again because he did classify cetasikas (including in the sankhara) as paramatha dhammas > Abhidhammatthasangaha says that "sankhara" is a concept for a group of cetasikas with no separate existence. k: Could i known which book you are using and which page you are refering and in which context it is saying about. Different context, different explanation as what Nina has said. > Sorry Ken O, I may not have understood your last point. If you are > saying that the Buddha used the same term "comprehend" for > both "realities" and "concepts", then I agree that the Sutta does > not differentiate. K: Direct comprehend - in Abhidhamma context - my opinion is understanding reality. Planes can be different but aggregates are the same regardless what plane we dwell in. That is why Devas can understand what Buddha say because it can be directly known even though the concepts we have may be different. Remember I quote a few months ago, a tribal person may not known what is a tank, but the person can directly known the aggregates, he can feel pain or pleasure and he can be taught dhamma to be enlighted. These examples are to shown that reality can be directly known while conceps varies and not the gist to development of the path. Ken O 39484 From: robmoult Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 6:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Ken H, In my most recent message (message 39481), I vowed not to enter into any more "this is reality, this is concept" ontological-type discussions. But I will invoke a grandfather clause (you posted this message before I formally stated my position), and reply to you (also because I genuinely enjoy our exchanges, Ken H). ===== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Rob and Robert, > > Rob M wrote to Robert K, > ----------------------------- > > In your message above, you wrote, "I think seeing what is reality > (dhamma) and what is not is stressed throughout the teachings." If > you had written, "I think seeing what are dhammas is stressed > throughout the teachings.", then I would have agreed with you 100%. > However, you have made it into an ontological statement which I do > not think finds any support in the texts. > > ------------------------------ > > This reminds me of a conversation I had with Robert in the bar of > Noosa hotel. ( :-) He was drinking mineral water, and I was drinking > coffee.) It has become a, "Where were you when you heard JFK was > shot?" type of situation. In this case it was, "Where you when you > heard that wrong view was disbelief in kamma and vipaka?" > > Previously, I had assumed that belief in self was the greatest (most > fundamental) wrong view. But now it all began to fall into place, > and I thought, "Ah, so that's why the Great Forty Sutta describes > wrong view that way!" > > If there is kamma and vipaka, then concepts cannot be real. > Consider, for example, a beautiful ripe peach: Peaches are > delicious, nutritious food, and so, if they are real, having one > must be the result of some past good kamma. > > In other words, if a peach is real then it is an inherently > desirable object. But what if that same peach becomes stuck in my > throat and I suffer physical pain? Then, it must be inherently > undesirable and my experiencing of it is the result of past bad > kamma. But that is ridiculous - it can't be both inherently > desirable and inherently undesirable! The whole theory of kamma and > vipaka becomes nonsensical if concepts are real. ===== This example has really confused me. I think that we agree that peaches are what the ontologist (new word?) calls concepts and are therefore not real. I am not clear on the link to kamma here. The Patthana teaches us that the conditioned state of kamma condition is mind and kamma-born rupa. Peaches (as concepts) have nothing to do with kamma. The component realities that the ontologist says makes up a peach also have nothing to do with kamma. For example, the visible object does not arise because of kamma. However, the eye-consciousness mental state that takes the visible object as its object does arise because of kamma. The inherent quality of the object (undesirable, netural, desirable) is not related to kamma either. It is an intrinsic quality indpendent of the kammic stream of the perceiver. Of course, when an inherently undesireable object is taken as desirable by the perceiver, this is sanna-vipallasa (perversion of perception). Ken H, please expand on your kamma / reality example to help me to understand better. ===== > > So, don't worry that the Buddha didn't constantly point out that he > was talking about paramattha dhammas, not concepts. That was > established from the beginning - as the basis. Any inference that > concepts were real would have contradicted - and made a mockery of - > his entire teaching. ===== Sorry, Ken H, I do worry about it. The Buddha was not adverse to making basic statements when they were appropriate. I have a hard time accepting that the Buddha would have been silent on this issue if it were important to understanding the teaching. Metta, Rob M :-) 39485 From: Ken O Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 6:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi RobM Hmm we have not finish so dont run away from what you have started. I like to clear this reality and concept thing, not because of supporting what later Abhidhamma says or paramatha dhamma but rather this has great consequences in understanding the D.O. I am concern bacause a wrong foothold, will not lead to path of salvation. A wrong understanding what D.O stands for and what is to be directly known will have consequences. Ken o 39486 From: Andrew Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 7:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Except in a single instance (SNXXII.94), the Buddha did not enter > into ontological discussions. Hi Rob M One point that is intriguing me. Nobody can get half pregnant. It's the same with ontology, isn't it? You either take a position or you don't. Buddha did. It only takes one time for this to happen. The only other alternative is like that idiosyncratic view of anatta: I'm not saying there is or isn't a self, but just tell yourself that a self can't be found. Or - the existence/nonexistence dichotomy is irrelevant to my teaching but because you're having a hard time on one issue, just tell yourself that these things exist. Still pondering ... Best wishes Andrew 39487 From: robmoult Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 7:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Andrew, The Buddha also mentioned archers a couple of times in the Suttas when it was appropriate to make a point. Do we therefore conclude that archery is a key to understanding the Buddha's teaching? Of course not. I put ontological issues in the same bucket as archery. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > wrote: > > Except in a single instance (SNXXII.94), the Buddha did not enter > > into ontological discussions. > > Hi Rob M > > One point that is intriguing me. Nobody can get half pregnant. It's > the same with ontology, isn't it? You either take a position or you > don't. Buddha did. It only takes one time for this to happen. > > The only other alternative is like that idiosyncratic view of anatta: > I'm not saying there is or isn't a self, but just tell yourself that > a self can't be found. Or - the existence/nonexistence dichotomy is > irrelevant to my teaching but because you're having a hard time on > one issue, just tell yourself that these things exist. > > Still pondering ... > > Best wishes > Andrew 39488 From: Andrew Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 7:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Value of discussion (was evil thoughts) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Sometimes the synthesis of concept formation adds to one's knowledge > by not ignoring the network of relations. While I'm "talking trees", often *we > just don't see the forest for the trees* - to turn a common saying on its > head! Hi Howard, I am often unable to see the forest for the trees! I think that understanding realities (or should I now say "dhammas"?) in the present moment, requires an understanding of conditional relations. It may well be that the patterning of those relations over time equates to "conventional truth". Don't quote me on that though. I don't want to be the blind man feeling the elephant's tail just after it has had a very big meal! (-: Best wishes Andrew 39489 From: Andrew Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 7:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > The Buddha also mentioned archers a couple of times in the Suttas > when it was appropriate to make a point. Do we therefore conclude > that archery is a key to understanding the Buddha's teaching? Of > course not. I put ontological issues in the same bucket as archery. > Hi Rob M ... but he didn't just mention ontology as an illustration or to let us know he was aware of it. As you have shown, on one occasion at least, he actually took an ontological position. I can't see how that bucket is big enough for both archery and ontology. But ... still pondering ... Best wishes Andrew 39490 From: robmoult Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 7:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Ken O, Okay, lah... I will invoke a grandfather clause one last time and continue this thread with you :-) I will rationalize this by saying that you must have started typing this message before I posted my "no more ontological discussions" position! In fact, I also enjoy our discussions. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > Hi RobM > > I concern about reality and I dont care whether it is ontological > sense or not. Buddha did differentiate between concepts and reality. > D.O is the difference that says what is reality, what can be > directly known. ===== In the last post, Ken H said that reality / concepts was linked to kamma / vipaka. I did not understand his point. Now you are saying that reality / concepts is directly linked to Dependent Origination. I don't understand your point either. It seems as when one stops thinking in ontological terms, one's brain immediately turns into (conceptual) jello and you no longer understand what people are trying to tell you :-) Please humour this jello-brained ex-ontologist and run through the connection between reality / concepts and Dependent Origination. ===== > Ultimate reality or whatever anyone like to call it, > is a reality that can be directly known, it not so much what word we > used, it is the essence that is important. ===== According to the Mulapariyaya Sutta (Mn1), beings, gods and lots of things that ontologists throw into the "concept" bucket can also be "directly known". My recent posting to Andrew (message 39403) went into some detail on what "directly knows" means according to the commentary to this Sutta. ===== > Or we may be basing on > the wrong initial basis of development. Five aggregates, 8NP, D.O > are reality that can be directly known. Self is a mental construct > which cannot be found in the conditions. It is always presents > because of our underlying tendecies of the three roots that make us > believe it is there. ===== The way that "directly knows" is applied in the Mulapariyaya Sutta is to objects of consciousness. When you talk about five aggregates, 8NP and DO, I don't think you are referring to them as merely objects of consciousness. I suspect that you are treating them as "universal principles" (like the law of kamma). If I am correct in understanding your approach, then we run the risk of "mixing metaphors". Ontology deals with defining ultimate realities not with universal principles. ===== > > Our habitual inference to concepts that make us illusion to reality. > An apple can taste pleasant or unpleasant, but in reality it is the > tactile object and visible object that is directly known and not > apple. It is the plesant and unplesant feelings in the javana > process that make us dislike or crave the apple. It is not apple > that make us crave, it is the feelings as a conseqence of the contact > from sense object, sense base and sense citta that make us crave. It > is important to note this fine difference because we may end up > developing the wrong way. ===== As detailed in my post to Andrew (message 39403) the first step in directly knowing something is the break it into component dhammas, each with their own characterisitic, function, manifestation and proximate cause. This breaking into component dhammas helps us to overcome the illusion of constancy. This breaking into component dhammas can be done without assigning "ultimate reality" status in an ontological sense to the dhammas. I agree with everything you wrote about the apple. There is no reason why your reasoning requires that the component dhammas have "ultimate reality" status in an ontological sense. As a side issue, you wrote, "An apple can taste pleasant or unpleasant, but in reality it is the...". When you typed the word "in reality", were you thinking in an classification of existence (i.e. ontological) sense? We tend to be very loose with our usage of terms such as "reality" and this can generate considerable confusion (it has turned by brain into jello :-) ). ===== > > In fact, Acariya Anuruddha does not count sankhara as > > an "ultimate reality", he counts sankhara as a collection > > of "ultimate realities"; this is in spite of the fact that the > > Buddha said that sankhara "exists". > > K: Are you talking about sankhara as in sankhara aggregates. ===== Yes. ===== > In the > Dhammasangi, it is reference as a collective and they realities and > they exists. ===== Sankhara is a collection of dhammas (i.e. cetasikas) but should we consider something that is a collection of dhammas to be classified as an ultimate reality? This is the problem... In SNXXII.94, the Buddha said that sankhara exists (an ontological statement). However, Acariya Anuruddha states that sankhara is a collection of cetasikas does not possess ultimate reality status, only the component parts (the cetasikas) qualify as ultimate realities. ===== > I think you should read the book by the author again > because he did classify cetasikas (including in the sankhara) as > paramatha dhammas ===== The cetasikas which make up sankhara are paramattha dhammas, but sankhara as a collection of cetasiksa doesn't make the list of paramattha dhammas in its own right. ===== > > > Abhidhammatthasangaha says that "sankhara" is a concept for a group > of cetasikas with no separate existence. > > k: Could i known which book you are using and which page you are > refering and in which context it is saying about. Different context, > different explanation as what Nina has said. > > > Sorry Ken O, I may not have understood your last point. If you are > > saying that the Buddha used the same term "comprehend" for > > both "realities" and "concepts", then I agree that the Sutta does > > not differentiate. > > K: Direct comprehend - in Abhidhamma context - my opinion is > understanding reality. ===== My opinion, supported by the commentary is "understanding dhammas". ===== > Planes can be different but aggregates are > the same regardless what plane we dwell in. That is why Devas can > understand what Buddha say because it can be directly known even > though the concepts we have may be different. Remember I quote a > few months ago, a tribal person may not known what is a tank, but the > person can directly known the aggregates, he can feel pain or > pleasure and he can be taught dhamma to be enlighted. These examples > are to shown that reality can be directly known while conceps varies > and not the gist to development of the path. ===== This is similar to Mike's point that satipatthana requires a certain class of object and things suitable for satipatthana are called realities (not sure if it means in an ontological sense) and things not suitable for satipatthana are called concepts (again, not sure of the ontological implications, if any). I am not sure of this point. Some time soon, I hope to explore this matter further. If you (or anybody else) can point me to primary texts to support / refute this idea, I would be very grateful. Metta, Rob M :-) 39491 From: robmoult Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 7:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Andrew, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > wrote: > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > The Buddha also mentioned archers a couple of times in the Suttas > > when it was appropriate to make a point. Do we therefore conclude > > that archery is a key to understanding the Buddha's teaching? Of > > course not. I put ontological issues in the same bucket as archery. > > > Hi Rob M > > ... but he didn't just mention ontology as an illustration or to let > us know he was aware of it. As you have shown, on one occasion at > least, he actually took an ontological position. > > I can't see how that bucket is big enough for both archery and > ontology. > > But ... still pondering ... ===== If you are a smoker, there is nothing you dread more than a discussion with an ex-smoker. Being an ex-ontologist, I don't treat ontology very kindly these days :-) In return, ontology treats me as though I do not even exist! :-) (which of course I don't... but the aggegates do :-) ). Metta, Rob M :-) 39492 From: Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 8:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Rob: "This is similar to Mike's point that satipatthana requires a certain class of object and things suitable for satipatthana are called realities (not sure if it means in an ontological sense) and things not suitable for satipatthana are called concepts (again, not sure of the ontological implications, if any). I am not sure of this point. Some time soon, I hope to explore this matter further. If you (or anybody else) can point me to primary texts to support / refute this idea, I would be very grateful." Hi Rob, The commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta is on ATI and as a booklet from BPS. Possibly one way to reconcile this controversy is to say concepts are views. And views are right or wrong but in either case not "me", "mine" or "yours". Larry 39493 From: robmoult Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 8:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > The commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta is on ATI and as a booklet from > BPS. > ===== Yeah, I have Soma Thera's "Way of Mindfulness"... it is quite thick. I was kind of hoping that somebody would do the hard part for me and find a specific reference. In reality (not in an ontological sense :-) ), I would love to spend more time going through this volume to better understand Satipatthana. Metta, Rob M :-) 39494 From: Andrew Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 8:38pm Subject: Cooran Dhamma Discussions Dear Nina and All I am a bit late off the mark in giving some feedback on the discussions at our Cooran weekend. It was attended by myself, Ken H, Reg, Christine, Andy, Bruce and Steve. Rusty went to the kennels for the weekend as Cooran was just too far away for his old bones – and he quite likes the kennels anyway. Fortunately, the weather was overcast and cool. We found that the shed where we have meals and discussions was already occupied by a planigale (a small marsupial rat-like animal) with her babies clinging to her back – but she was willing to share the space with us, so all was well. Now, what can I remember of the discussions? We began by reading "A Look at the Kalama Sutta" by Bhikkhu Bodhi wherein he takes issue with those who read this sutta as showing that the Buddha was a pragmatic empiricist who dismissed all doctrine and faith and whose Dhamma was merely "a free-thinker's kit to truth which invites each one to accept and reject whatever he likes". Mike Nease brought the article to my attention and it is at www.buddhanet.net/e- learning/kalama1_1.htm We discussed saddha and whether common remarks that "Buddhism isn't a religion – it's a way of life" are accurate. Of course, it ultimately depends on how you define "religion". Reg has difficulty with the idea of rebirth and we discussed whether this was "lack of saddha" or something else. I think we all agreed that we all have moments with saddha and moments without. There was some controversy when I suggested that sometimes Ken H's descriptions of Dhamma veer towards annihilationism. And he said I was eel-wriggling. (-: We were actually discussing this quotation from Bhikkhu Bodhi's Introduction to the Brahmajala Sutta (The Discourse on the All-Embracing Net of Views, BPS): "The eternalist doctrine is said to originate through a misapplication of the "method of unity" (ekattanaya) to the continuum of experience which is the subject of examination. According to Buddhism, to be correctly understood, the continuum must be comprehended through two complementary methods of investigation, the "method of unity" (ekattanaya) and the "method of diversity" (nanattanaya). The method of unity discloses the coherence of the succession of distinct experiential occasions making up the continuum. It shows them as bound together in a single series, participants in a process of transmission and development, interconnected members unified through a law of conditional dependence. The method of diversity balances this by showing up the differences. Though unified, the current of experience is still a chain made up of distinct links. Some of these function as causes, others as effects. Moreover, the onward flow of the continuum is periodically interrupted; the events of death and rebirth break it up into separate life-terms which show marked differences despite the identity of the series. When these two methods are applied in conjunction, the current of experience will be correctly understood; but when they are misapplied or applied in a one-sided fashion, it will be misunderstood. The misapplication of the method of unity will lead to the belief in an identical self and thence to eternalism. The misapplication of the method of diversity will take the disruptive, discontinuous element in experience as absolute and thence lead to a doctrine of annihilationism. The correct application of both will show the continuum to be a causally connected succession of momentary processes, which continues so long as the causes retain their efficacy and ceases when the causes are de-activated, in either case without harbouring a persisting core to be grasped as a personal self. This is the middle way which avoids the two extremes." (end quote) Ken H wanted more information about the methods of unity and diversity. Steve said they are referred to in the Visuddhimagga. Any comments, anyone on how to best balance these 2 methods? I suggested that knowing the realities of the present moment entails knowing conditional relations (because of the time dimension) and that conventional language often referred to patterns of cittas … defilements … latent tendencies over time and these were important to understand. We read part of Ron W's booklet on Dependent Origination which includes quite a bit on science eg the biology of conception, zygotes etc. Ken H was most unimpressed as he considered this to be outside Dhamma and unhelpful in learning what the Buddha taught. Many more things were discussed including old favourites like the intrinsic pleasantness or unpleasantness of dhammas. I'm sure Ken H, Christine and Steve will chime in with their recollections and notes. Thanks to all. Best wishes Andrew 39495 From: Andrew Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 8:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > > > If you are a smoker, there is nothing you dread more than a > discussion with an ex-smoker. > > Being an ex-ontologist, I don't treat ontology very kindly these > days :-) In return, ontology treats me as though I do not even > exist! :-) (which of course I don't... but the aggegates do :-) ). Rob M Smoking and ontology in the one post? Are you suggesting that ontology leads to oncology? (-: Best wishes Andrew 39496 From: Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 9:35pm Subject: objects of satipatthana Hi Rob, In Soma Thera's "Way of Mindfulness" see pages 32 and 33, commentary on "kaayaanupassi". This will be in dsg archives under "way 21" and "way 22", I think. However, escribe is off-line right now. If you can locate the time frame these were posted Nina had some comments as well. SS Commentary: "In the body there is no contemplation of a uniform thing, apart from the big and small members of the body, or of a man or of a woman, apart from such things like the hair of the head and the hair of the body." Also, the sutta says, "Or his mindfulness is established with the thought, 'The body exists,' to the extent necessary just for knowledge and remembrance..." But apparently there isn't a commentary on this line. Larry 39497 From: Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 4:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Value of discussion (was evil thoughts) Hi, Andrew - In a message dated 12/6/04 10:15:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, athel60@t... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I am often unable to see the forest for the trees! > > I think that understanding realities (or should I now say "dhammas"?) > in the present moment, requires an understanding of conditional > relations. It may well be that the patterning of those relations > over time equates to "conventional truth". Don't quote me on that > though. I don't want to be the blind man feeling the elephant's tail > just after it has had a very big meal! (-: > > Best wishes > ========================== Andrew, I promise not to quote you (after this post, that is - in which I *have* quoted you! ;-). In any case, what you say above is quite close to my perspective on the matter. How about that!!! ;-)) 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) 39498 From: Ken O Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 9:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran Dhamma Discussions Hi Andrew I like to know hows does B Bodhi come to these two methods. Ken O 39499 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 10:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Rob M, ---------------- RM: > In my most recent message (message 39481), I vowed not to enter into any more "this is reality, this is concept" ontological- type discussions. But I will invoke a grandfather clause (you posted this message before I formally stated my position), and reply to you --------------------------- I admire your confidence, but you'll never hear the last of concepts and realities. Anyway, thanks for allowing this poor old bloke through the gate. --------------------- KH: > > If there is kamma and vipaka, then concepts cannot be real. > Consider, for example, a beautiful ripe peach: Peaches are > delicious, nutritious food, and so, if they are real, having one > must be the result of some past good kamma. > > In other words, if a peach is real then it is an inherently > desirable object. But what if that same peach becomes stuck in my > throat and I suffer physical pain? Then, it must be inherently > undesirable and my experiencing of it is the result of past bad > kamma. But that is ridiculous - it can't be both inherently > desirable and inherently undesirable! The whole theory of kamma and > vipaka becomes nonsensical if concepts are real. > > ===== RM: > This example has really confused me. I think that we agree that peaches are what the ontologist (new word?) calls concepts and are therefore not real. > ------------------ You're going to start me harrumphing again! :-) I know my message was a bit rushed and full of typos, but I thought it was pretty understandable. Now I'm having trouble with yours! Do you agree that peaches are not ultimately real, or is it only me and the other ontologists who think that? ---------------- RM: > I am not clear on the link to kamma here. The Patthana teaches us that the conditioned state of kamma condition is mind and kamma- born rupa. Peaches (as concepts) have nothing to do with kamma. The component realities that the ontologist says makes up a peach also have nothing to do with kamma. For example, the visible object does not arise because of kamma. However, the eye-consciousness mental state that takes the visible object as its object does arise because of kamma. ------------------- I think you are splitting hairs. Sense objects are experienced because of kamma. Therefore there is a 'link to kamma.' ----------------- RM: > The inherent quality of the object (undesirable, netural, desirable) is not related to kamma either. It is an intrinsic quality indpendent of the kammic stream of the perceiver. ------------------------------- I'll have to skip over "dependent on the kammic stream of the perceiver." I haven't heard that before. (Are you sure it's right?) However, the inherent quality of the sense object most certainly is linked to kamma. For example, sense-cognition that arises because of kusala kamma takes an inherently desirable object - there's your link! By the way, how did "neutral" sneak into the equation? I remember reading about "moderately desirable" but not "neutral." There is no neutral kamma, so I doubt any inherently neutral sense objects will be experienced. ----------------------- RM: > Ken H, please expand on your kamma / reality example to help me to understand better. ------------------------ I'm in a bit of a rush and then I won't be near a computer for two days. But I can't pass up this invitation. I must admit, my understanding could be wrong: It seems obvious to me, but now that you question it, I can't remember actually reading it anywhere. :- / (worried face) One intellectual understanding of right view is; "All kamma bears fruit: there is a result from every good deed and a result from every bad deed. Every desirable (and moderately desirable) sense object that arises is experienced as a result of a good deed. (And so on for every undesirable sense object.)" Now, when you taste a ripe peach, does that peach have any inherent desirable/undesirable qualities? No, we can't say that (for reasons I gave earlier). So, the right view "there is kamma and vipaka" does not apply to peaches (nor to any other concept). The Buddha was not talking about concepts when he taught right view. All of the Dhamma is [directly or indirectly] about right view. None of the Dhamma applies to concepts. When we hear the Dhamma, we must be constantly on our guards not to confuse paramattha dhammas with concepts. ------------------ KH: > > So, don't worry that the Buddha didn't constantly point out that he > was talking about paramattha dhammas, not concepts. That was > established from the beginning - as the basis. Any inference that > concepts were real would have contradicted - and made a mockery of - > his entire teaching. > > ===== RM : > Sorry, Ken H, I do worry about it. The Buddha was not adverse to making basic statements when they were appropriate. I have a hard time accepting that the Buddha would have been silent on this issue if it were important to understanding the teaching. > ----------- Hard time or not, I think you're going to have to accept it! (I know that's not a very satisfactory comment but I am running late.) :-) Ken H 39500 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 1:18am Subject: Letter to B.Bodhi-'The Jhânas and the Lay Disciple ..' Warning: Technical and Pali-filled - you may wish to ignore this one! ==================================== Dear Friends, As most people will recall, some time ago I posted an article by Bhikkhu Bodhi: “The Jhânas and the Lay Disciple According to the Pâli Suttas” I’m not aware that it has been published and may still be a draft, but it can be seen here: http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebdha267.htm There were some points relating to it which I considered further and raised in India. These can be heard on the recordings. In response to a note I sent, B.Bodhi suggested I make a very brief summary of these. This is my attempt. I apologise for the technicality and lack of translation of terms here. Anyone is most welcome to ask for any clarifications which I may or may not be able to give;-). Comments are welcome as usual! ***** Dear Ven Bodhi, Thankyou for your response. The following is a very brief summary of some of the difficult points raised in your article which I’ve been considering and also discussed briefly in India with K. Sujin as I mentioned. I apologise in advance for the point format which is merely to help me keep it brief and focussed and also for the Pali spelling. The points are not raised in any special order. 1.Just v.briefly, I found it a very useful article and piece of research and posted it on DSG in short instalments as a series for others to read as well. I agree with your main conclusion – that sotapannas do not necessarily possess jhana at all and that the textual sources make this clear. 2.With regard to the open questions you raise about anagamis and arahants in this regard, you wonder if the commentaries may have deviated from the Nikayas when they specifically specify that prior attainment of jhanas is not any pre-requisite . In your final conclusion you raise the Satipatthana Sutta as possibly supporting the commentaries. However, you raise other suttas which might suggest the requirement of prior jhana achievement for these stages of enlightenment. As you know, I have a lot of confidence in the Pali commentaries and was interested to look at any possible conflicts.. 3.Under ‘When Do the Jhaanas Become Necessary?’ you refer to AN3:85, referring to adhisiila –sikkhaa, adhicitta-sikkhaa and adhipa~n~naa-sikkha. As you point out, adhisiila is perfected by the sotapanna, adhicitta by the anagami and adhipanna by the arahant. As I understand, these develop with satipatthana, (there is guarding of the 6 doors, firmness of citta and understanding at such moments), so that adhisiila is perfected by the sotapanna who can no longer break the precepts, but of course virati continues developing. Adhicitta is perfected by the anagami with the eradicated of attachment to sensuous objects resulting in this degree of calm when the developed vipassana is more absolute.. It doesn’t mean the 4 jhanas have necessarily been attained and adhicitta-sikkhaa is only developed in the one developing the Path. (cf 7 Visuddhi which of course also refer to the purification of sila, citta etc with wisdom). I believe that adhi in adhi sila indidcates the difference between satipatthana sila and ordinary sila, in other words, ‘higher sila’ etc. AN IV,1: “It is through not understanding, not penetrating noble morality….noble concentration….noble wisdom…noble deliverance that I, as well as you, have had for such a long time to pass this round of rebirths.” 4.It may be that adhicitta is defined by the 4 jhanas in context – it would depend on who is being addressed. As we know, many of the main disciples at the time had indeed attained all jhanas and for them, such calm/concentration would be defined in such a way if the jhanas are used as a basis for enlightenment, I’d think. In otherwords, the 1st,2nd,3rd,4th jhana formulas are only for those who have developed jhana to those degrees. For those who haven’t, 1st jhana equivalent Samadhi is there at lokuttara moments as you’ve explained, because of nibbana being the object, not by having developed jhana. 5.In some contexts we also have to keep in mind the two meanings of jhana – one referring to the object which can ‘burn away’ the defilements (aramma.nuu-panijjhaana)and the other which develops with satipatthana (lakkha.nuupjijhaana). 6.With regard to AN4:169/11 and the asa.nkhaara-parinibbaayii and the sasa.nkhaara=-parinibbaayii,you referred to samadhi bala as defined in terms of jhanas. You also referred to this sutta in a letter to me. Whilst saying it supports the attainment of arahantship by ‘a dry-insight approach’, you also raised the question of the panca sekhabalaani and samaadhi bala which is often defined ‘by the four jhana formula’. Surely, samadhi bala as one of the 5 balas included in the bodhipakkhiya dhammas, developed at moments of satipatthana are different from samadhi bala as a jhana factor, developing with samatha development. There are many ways to talk about the variety oft ariyans of course and again we need to look at contexts when reading about balas. 7.In an earlier section of the article under ‘The Stream-enterer and Jhaana’, you refer to SN 55:40. ‘When the mind is concentrated, phenomena become manifest….’Panna and Samadhi surely condition each other and arise together in the development of satipatthana. Indeed, at stages of vipassana ~nana, they are ‘yoked’ together (yuganaddha) because of the clarity at such times. The object is so clear at such times that the samadhi is apparent.This contrasts with the beginning of satipatthana., otherwise there’s no different level. However, even at vipassana ~nana, it must be khanika samadhi, not appanaa (access) as I believe you suggest. The objects of the samadhi and panna are still characteristics of reality (i.e 4 foundations of mindfulness). ***** There may have been other points, but these are the ones I had a particular interest in and I’ve already overstepped your request for a very brief summary. Of course, I hope there may be something here which is of very small assistance to you and hope your health and translation work is progressing as smoothly as can be expected. Please let us know if you’ll be visiting Hong Kong again and if we can offer further assistance. Metta, Sarah p.s I could try to identify the relevant parts of the recordings where these points are discussed in two or three separate discussions, but I’d only be able to point to the segments. Pls let me know if this would be of interest. ========================================== 39501 From: Ken O Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 1:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Rob M > > In the last post, Ken H said that reality / concepts was linked to > kamma / vipaka. I did not understand his point. k: Because in order to cognize sense objects, there must be kamma for sense base to be present. Which means blind man will not have eye base for eye citta to arise to cognize that object. Another point is that sense objects are desirable or undesirable depends on kamma. R: Now you are saying that reality / concepts is directly linked to Dependent Origination. I don't understand your point either. K: Reality is link to D.O because they are reality itself. Craving is a reality. As I said in the earlier example, pleasant feeling (in the javana process) arise when we eat an apple will condition craving to arise. Apple itself is a mental construct but the taste of the apple is reality. In the same way, an apple can be called in different names by different country but the taste of the apple can be directly known. A tribal person who do not known what is apple, but the taste of the apple after eating it, is a reality he will known. We dont care what apple is or what plane we dwell in, but aggregates can be directly known. > It seems as when one stops thinking in ontological terms, one's > brain immediately turns into (conceptual) jello and you no longer > understand what people are trying to tell you :-) k: Ontological terms is a very abstract philisophy to me because I dont learn it in my school days. I only known the difference what can be directly known and what not. > ===== > > According to the Mulapariyaya Sutta (Mn1), beings, gods and lots of >> things that ontologists throw into the "concept" bucket can also > be "directly known". My recent posting to Andrew (message 39403) > went into some detail on what "directly knows" means according to > the commentary to this Sutta. > > ===== k: Gods, planes are make up of the five aggregates. Directly known is the aggregate and not the gods and planes. They only exist in a mental construct and comprehend as mental construct but they cannot be directly known (or you prefer experience). Feeling, energy, carving etc all can be directly experience but concepts do not exist in us if we do not come across it. Just like the concept of a tank will be alien to a tribal person but the hardness of the tank when touching is real, can be directly known. Or maybe a good exmaple Buddha always used is the baby example, where he said that underlying tendecies are known to a baby and to me a baby is alien to concepts. The notion of a mother is a construct but the feelings the baby felt for the mother is real. It is the feeling in a way help to condition that a mother is a pleasant feeling. So he crave for the mother not because of the mother as a construct but the pleasant feeling that arise. > > As detailed in my post to Andrew (message 39403) the first step in > directly knowing something is the break it into component dhammas, > each with their own characterisitic, function, manifestation and > proximate cause. This breaking into component dhammas helps us to > overcome the illusion of constancy. This breaking into component > dhammas can be done without assigning "ultimate reality" status in > an ontological sense to the dhammas. k: I am trying to say there is difference between this breaking up. The breaking of a concept is possible because it is a construct conditioned by the senses. But there is no breaking up of reality. It cannot be further break up. I am debate this with Micheal before on this. If feelings can be further break up, then Buddha will say there is sub and sub feelings but Buddha say only five types of feelings. If feelings can be further break up, D.O will be different. R: I agree with everything you wrote about the apple. There is no reason why your reasoning requires that the component dhammas have "ultimate reality" status in an ontological sense. k: Pardon me, I really dont know what is this ontological stuff. I only know if it can be directly known, it is reality. ===== > Sankhara is a collection of dhammas (i.e. cetasikas) but should we > consider something that is a collection of dhammas to be classified > as an ultimate reality? This is the problem... In SNXXII.94, the > Buddha said that sankhara exists (an ontological statement). > However, Acariya Anuruddha states that sankhara is a collection of > cetasikas does not possess ultimate reality status, only the > component parts (the cetasikas) qualify as ultimate realities. > ===== k: In the same way, when Buddha talks about the three roots, where are they in the aggregates. They are in the sankhara aggregates. They exist but the collective is used to organise them for teaching of the dhamma. There is no contradiction, what Buddha says that sankhara exist as aggregates and what Acariya does is that this collection is a heap (as aggregates is known as a heap etc) and should not be mistaken as a reality. I think what Acariya is saying that it should be known as a heap of ultimate realities and sankhara is just a term used in this context for teaching purposes and not to be mistaken as ultimate reality. Just like the issue about supramundane cittas, where Acariya said that they are devoid of suffering, that was in the context when there is no clinging involved. But we know that suffering is inherent in all cittas due to formation, so there is suffering regardless there is or there is no clinging. As Nina said, depending on how in what context it is used. Ken O 39502 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 1:42am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 157 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, We are discussing on 18 ahetuka cittas. 3 are ahetuka kiriya cittas and 15 are ahetuka vipaka cittas. Among 3 ahetuka kiriya cittas, we have discussed on pancadvaravajjana citta and manodvaravajjana citta at molecular level. There is a third ahetuka kiriya citta. It is called 'somanassa saha gatam hastituppada citta'. Unlike other 2 ahetuka kiriya cittas which are never able to do javana function, this citta 'ahetuka hasituppada citta' can do the job of javana. Because of this citta, arahats have to smile. In this citta, all of 7 universal cetasikas arise. They are 1. phassa/contact, 2. vedana/feeling, 3. cetana/volition, 4. sanna/perception, 5. ekaggata/one-pointedness, 6. jivitindriya/mental life, 7. manasikara/attention. Each of these 7 does their respective job while this citta arises. Among 6 pakinnaka cetasikas or 6 particular mental factors, 5 of these cetasikas arise with hasituppada citta. These 5 cetasikas are 1. vitakka/initial application, 2. vicara/sustained application, 3. piti/joy, 4. viriya/effort, 5. adhimokkha/decision. In this citta, chanda cetasika does not arise. Chanda does not arise in all of 18 ahetuka cittas. As there is no hetu or no root such as lobha, dosa, moha or alobha, adosa, amoha, chanda does not arise in these 18 ahetuka citta. There is no wish to perform their respective jobs in these 18 ahetuka cittas. That is why chanda does not arise in these 18 ahetuka cittas. In this dhamma molecule, one atom is 'citta' which is pure, luminous, sinless. Other 12 atoms are as described above and they are 7 universal cetasikas and 5 of 6 pakinnaka cetasikas or 5 of 6 particular mental factors. They arise together inseparably. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 39503 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 2:26am Subject: Re: Five Natural Laws, Panca Niyamas Dear Dhamma Friends, The first three niyamas or the first 3 natural laws are at least clear to anyone if they have learnt to some extent. But kamma is an area of the most difficult dhamma. Even experienced Buddhists, experienced meditators, experienced Dhamma achievers would not be able to explain kamma in its full extent. I myself do not know much about 'Kamma'. I just learned something about kamma, kamma and related matters, kamma paccaya of 24 conditions. Here I remember The Buddha's words saying what he preached was like leaves in his fistful hand while all he knew was like leaves in the whole forest. I think this unpreached part would be about detail of 'kamma niyama' and 'dhamma niyama'. The reason that The Buddha did not preach all he knew are many in my opinion. Because even great arahats who had extremely good intelligence were not taught about these, there is no way for us to follow. I myself would follow the studying of 'citta niyama' and would practise to be liberated from this endless samsara. Because utu niyama will be endless. From Copernicus to Watson & Crick, there had been many many thinkers and experimentors who contributed to science. But still there are many to be discovered. However they are discovered they would not lead us to liberation from the samsara. Again, gene and genetic law is also miracle. Now many scientists are trying to manipulate genes. They are trying to 'switch on' and 'switch off' some genes. Even they are contemplating that our cells in the body can be cloned and there might be many copies of us. When our body become worn out then our memories in the brain would be transferred to a very tiny chip and this memory chip would be inserted into the cloned body who is identical to us. In this way, eternal life is being contemplated. But this is not the way to liberation. The third law 'citta niyama' is also limitless. As utu niyama and bija niyama are miracles, citta niyama is also miracles. I also think The Buddha did not preach all about 'citta niyama' because it was not needed for liberation. I mean full account of 'citta niyama'. Even today 'Abhidhamma' that The Buddha left is already complicated and complex. But at least, we can learn for some foundation for our practical effort to walk on the liberation Path. Regarding 'Kamma Niyama',I have to extend this to a further point because some think 'kamma' as those of reward/punishment matters. Kamma is not exactly reward/punishment. I mean there are some sets of belief system that reward/punishment is well accepted. Example is that some think there are internal events and external events. A man helped an old lady cross the road. At the other side he was then kissed by a young lady. This is not kamma. These are not internal or external. There are different classifications on kamma. I think it would be better that we discuss this separately in other thread as this mail has been very long. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 39504 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 2:37am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 158 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, So far we have discussed on 40 lokuttara cittas or supramundane consciousness in detail at molecular level. After that we have touched the area of different jhanas including arupa jhana or immaterial absorption and rupa jhana or material absorption. They are 27 mahaggata cittas or 27 greater consciousness. These 27 jhana cittas are also called 'majjhima cittas' or 'middle consciousness'. Because they are higher than sensuous plane consciousness or kamavacara cittas but they are inferior to lokuttara cittas or supramundane consciousness. These 27 jhana cittas have been explained down to the molecular and atomic levels. After that we discussed on 24 kama sobhana cittas or 24 beautiful sensuous plane consciousness. 40 + 27 + 24 = 91 cittas are sobhana cittas and out of 121 total cittas, 30 cittas are asobhana cittas or non-beautiful consciousness. Among them 12 akusala cittas are no doubt they are ugly and non-beautiful. We have discussed on 12 akusala cittas at molecular level. There are 18 ahetuka cittas. They seem to be simless. They are not creators or they do not produce or create any further kamma. But as they do not own any of beautiful roots namely alobha, adosa, and amoha or panna, they all are known as non-beautiful consciousness or asobhana cittas. Among them 3 ahetuka kiriya cittas have been discussed in DT-157. 15 ahetuka vipaka cittas will be discussed in DT- 159. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 39505 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 3:03am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 159 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, There are 15 ahetuka vipaka cittas. Here I like to extend on vipaka cittas. These 15 ahetuka vipaka cittas are all asobhana cittas. There sobhana cittas or beautiful consciousness which are vipaka cittas. There are 8 sahetuka kamavacara mahavipaka cittas. 8 mahavipaka cittas are called sahetuka vipaka cittas. Sa means 'with'. Sahetuka means 'along with hetu or root' such as alobha, adosa, amoha. To differentiate this from ahetuka vipaka cittas, these 8 mahavipaka cittas are called sahetuka kama vipaka cittas. Again there are other sobhana vipaka cittas. They are rupavipaka cittas which are patisandhi, bhavanga, and cuti citta of rupa brahmas and arupavipaka cittas which are patisandhi, bhavanga and cuti citta of arupa brahmas. To differentiated from these kama vipaka cittas are named as mahavipaka cittas. Mahavipaka cittas are called sahetuka vipaka cittas to differentiate them from ahetuka vipaka cittas. There are 15 ahetuka vipaka cittas. All these are vipaka cittas. I will repeat that all these 15 ahetuka vipaka cittas are vipaka cittas. They are resultant consciousness. I repeated because not to confuse their later explanation. These 15 ahetuka vipaka cittas have two groups. One group is the reasult of akusala cittas in the past and another group is the result of kusala cittas in the past. As all 15 cittas are kamavacara cittas, all vipaka cittas of these 15 cittas are also kama vipaka cittas. There are 7 ahetuka akusala vipaka cittas and 8 ahetuka kusala vipaka cittas, altogether 15 ahetuka vipaka cittas. Here some may confuse 'vipika cittas' with 'kusala' and 'akusala'. That is why I repeated above. These 2 groups are corresponding to each other. I mean comparable to each other. When there is akusala vipaka cakkhuvinnana citta, there also is kusala vipaka cakkhuvinnana citta. Comparable as I mentioned is this paring. But there is an extra citta which is not in pair. It is 'somanassa saha gatam ahetuka kusala vipaka santirana citta'. So ther 14 cittas or other 7 pairs are Akusala vipaka Kusala vipaka 1.cakkhuvinnana citta | 1.cakkhuvinnana citta 2.sotavinnana citta | 2.sotavinnana citta 3.ghanavinnana citta | 3.ghanavinnana citta 4.jivhavinnana citta | 4.jivhavinnana citta 5.kayavinnana citta | 5.kayavinnana citta 6.sampaticchana citta | 6.sampaticchana citta 7.santirana citta | 7.santirana citta All these 14 cittas are upekkha cittas. That means they all have upekkha vedana or indifferent feeling. To differentiate upekkha santirana of kusala vipaka citta, 8th ahetuka kusala vipaka citta is called 'somanassa santirana citta' as it is accompanied by piti or somanassa. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 39506 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 5:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > > Hi Rob K, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" > wrote: > > > > Dear RobM, > > I think seeing what is reality (dhamma) and what is not is > stressed > > throught the teachings. > > The Udanaatthakatha (trans. masefield p.878)Blind from birth > > chapter:"since they do not know Dhamma, they do not know that which > > is not > > Dhamma either. ....... they neither know dhamma to be a thing > having > > an owm nature (sabhava), nor do they know that which is not dhamma > > to > > be a thing lacking an own nature.(Dhammam sabhavadhammam..adhammam > > asabhavadhammam) And as such they declare a thing having an own > > nature as though it were a thing lacking an own > nature....""endquote > > This passage was written hundreds of years before Anuruddha was > born. > ==================== > In your message above, you wrote, "I think seeing what is reality > (dhamma) and what is not is stressed throught the teachings." If you > had written, "I think seeing what are dhammas is stressed throught > the teachings." ....... > you have made it into an ontological statement which I do not think > finds any support in the texts. >> > The fact that in the Suttas, the Buddha made only one ontological > statement (thanks for locating SNXXII.94 for me), suggests to me > that we should not try to turn "dhammas" into "ultimate realities". > == dear RobM, I have no idea what ontolgical statements are or why you think they are important or not important. You say that there is no support in the texts for saying that "what is reality > (dhamma) and what is not is stressed throught the teachings" yet then you seem to change that and say that in fact the Buddha did say so on one occasion? (I am trying to infer this from your statement about ontologies)? But there are so many suttas where the Buddha contrasts what is real- the aggregates(khandhas) with what is only concept, a convenient term: "For this has been said: As with the assembly of parts The word chariot is countenanced, So, when the khandhas are present, A being is said in common usage." (Kindred Sayings I, 135) 39507 From: agriosinski Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 5:17am Subject: Re: Concept and Reality in Primary Texts --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > Hi Ken H > > > In other words, if a peach is real then it is an inherently > > desirable object. But what if that same peach becomes stuck in my > > throat and I suffer physical pain? Then, it must be inherently > > undesirable and my experiencing of it is the result of past bad > > kamma. But that is ridiculous - it can't be both inherently > > desirable and inherently undesirable! The whole theory of kamma and > vipaka becomes nonsensical if concepts are real. > > k: Yes, I think this is good :). Some pple like apple and some > dont. It is pleasant and unpleasant to different people, so what is > real, the pleasant and unpleasant or the apple :) > > > Ken O :) Firstly I would like to thank RobM for an excellent topic, and secondly all of the participants. I really enjoyed reading it. I like the humorous way it turns :) My take on this subject, is that D.O. is Buddhist ontology. In western ontology there is question of reality, in D.O. there is no. D.O. is showing more dynamic view of what is called reality by westerners. More dynamic by impermanent nature of it. That dismissed something like last 15 centuries of philosophy I guess... ;) metta. Agrios. 39508 From: Hugo Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 7:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Value of discussion (was evil thoughts) On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 23:39:01 -0000, Andrew wrote: > Thanks for your example but I have to be honest and say that it > didn't click with me. I suppose the basic issue is, if we can't > remember direct knowing, how can we say "when I meditate every > morning I directly know anatta/anicca etc"? I think you and I are in different "frequencies" here. Let's try again later. > Anyway, we all do as we do and may we all do it with patience. I agree. -- Hugo 39509 From: Hugo Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 7:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Value of discussion (was evil thoughts) On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 23:39:01 -0000, Andrew wrote: > We *think* we do ... but > is that wisdom or ignorance, actuality or conceit? All the blind men > thought they knew what an elephant was ... I agree with you 100%. And I have been burned by that not once, but MANY times, and I think I will continue be burned by that for still more time. > I think that understanding realities (or should I now say "dhammas"?) > in the present moment, requires an understanding of conditional > relations. I agree with you 100%. > I don't want to be the blind man feeling the elephant's tail just after it has had a very big meal! (-: I agree with you 500%. :-) > Bhikkhu Bodhi has pointed > out that most of the wrong views discussed by the Buddha in the > Brahmajala Sutta arise, not after intellectualising and book- > learning, but after intense meditations. Huh? How can that be for > those who shun Dhamma study and believe that meditation is directly > knowing the mind? (I'm not talking about you or anyone else - I, in > fact, used to believe this many years ago). I have always advocated a "balanced approach" to anything. Sometimes I need theory to learn something but if I want to put it in action, I need practice. Sometimes I need theory and practice even just to learn it. Sometimes I need only practice. P.S. Now, we are in 'sync'. :-) Greetings, -- Hugo 39510 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 7:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: As a result, I will actively engage myself in discussions on dhammas > but I will actively disengage myself from ontological type > discussions on "realities" (especially "realities vs. concepts"). > > Metta, > Rob M :-) Friend Rob M, I think that this is a very good idea (especially since I do the same, except recently ;-)). It would be even better if you only engage in discussion about dhammas as they relate to dependent origination- then the discussions would be most beneficial to all concerned. Metta, James 39511 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 7:35am Subject: [dsg] Re: Giving a Smile Friend Ken O, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > Hi Friend James > > Renunication does not mean you shave your head and become a bhikkhu, > Renunication means abandonment, relinquishment. It cannot happen > without alobha. Dana cannot be possible without alobha, without > relinquishement, without non-attachment I see what you are getting at but this is a stretch in logic. Just because renunciation requires alobha and dana requires alobha, that doesn't make renunciation dana. They are still two different things. Giving alms to a monk and actually being a monk are two very different things. > > Under the A Treatise of the Paramis, you can see it in abhidhamma.org > < dispel greed for things that can be given away; its manifestation is > non-attachment, or the achievement of prosperity and a favourable > state of existence; an object that can be relinquished is its > proximate cause.>> This supports what I have been saying, Dana will result in a favorable state of existence, not necessarily enlightenment. > > Buddha has been perfecting it during his bodhisatta time for aeons > and yet people say it cannot be found in 8NP Right. Again, the Noble Eightfold Path leads to enlightenment, not the perfection of the paramis. :) Let me tell you > another little secret, all the paramis can be found in the 8NP but > only a Buddha would perfect all of them :). This is again a stretch in logic. If this were true, then the Noble Eightfold Path would only be for the creation of Buddhas. > > > Ken O Metta, James 39512 From: Ken O Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 9:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Giving a Smile Hi Friend James J: Just because renunciation requires alobha and dana requires alobha, that doesn't make renunciation dana. They are still two different things. Giving alms to a monk and actually being a monk are two very different things. K: definitely they are two things, we are not asking you to relinquish to become a monk. Relinquishment can be in terms of sense pleasure etc. Anyway it is not a stretch of logic, lobha is sometimes known as genorisity while lobha is known as greed. > > This supports what I have been saying, Dana will result in a > favorable state of existence, not necessarily enlightenment. k: Sorry this is part of Buddha perfection, it is needed for perfection of a Buddha. Without it as a base, it is difficult to shed the attachment to self view, to conceit. > This is again a stretch in logic. If this were true, then the > Noble Eightfold Path would only be for the creation of Buddhas. k: You did not see what I say, only Buddha prefected it while the rest dont. Why dont you give me any paramis that is not in the 8NP. Ken O 39513 From: Ken O Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 9:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Rob M Let me quote you this sutta SN12.12(2) Moliyaphaggana <<"Venerable sir, who consumes the nutriment citta?" "Not a valid question," the Blessed One replied. "I do not say, "One consumes.: If I should asay, "One consumes,' in that case this would be a valid question: 'Venerable sir, who consumes?' But I do not speak thus. Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me, 'Venerable sir, for what is the nutriment citta [a condition]?" this would be a valid question.">> Rob, remember what I said earlier, I am interested in reality and not whether it is ontological. Reality are conditiones that can be directly known or experience or felt but not concepts. Here is this sutta, Buddha is interested in citta (an aggregate) because it is reality that can be directly known while the part on 'one' and 'you' are concepts which cannot be directly. Another way to look at it is take concepts as dreams while reality as when you are wide alert. I talking a lot on this because understanding reality, will bring us to a deeper level to the understanding of D.O, a deeper level of understand this anatta business. In the end it is the five aggregates that matters. Ken O 39514 From: Ken O Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 10:29am Subject: Re: Bhante and Smiling was (Re: [dsg] Evil thoughts (Howard)) Hi Bhante I have not forgetten your question. Buddha never used this five things very loosely. When Buddha talks about skillfulness in the Koalamas what is about. A look at this sutta below will tell us that on what basis these five terms should be based on wisdom (I dont think there is a need for me to elaborate what is wisdom in Buddha context) SN 35 Salayatanasamyutta).153 Is there a method "there is a method of exposition by means by which a bhikkhu - apart from faith...apart from acceptance of a view after pondering - can declare final knowledge thus: 'Destroyed is birth...there is no more for this state of being.' And what is that method of of exposition? Here, bhikkhus, having seen a form with the eye, if there is lust, hatred, or delusion internally, a bhikkhu understands: There is lust, hatred or delusion internally'; or if there is no lust, hatred or delusion internally, he understands: There is no lust, hatred or delusion internally. Since this is so, are these things to be understood by faith, or by personal perference or by oral tradition or by reasoned reflection or by acceptance of a view after pondering it?" "No venerable sir." "Arent these things to be understood by seeing them with wisdom?" "Yes venerable sir." "this bhikkus is the method of exposition by means of which a bhikkhu can declare final knowledge thus: 'Destroyed is birth...there is no more for this state of being.'>> Then again this five things is explore in MN 95 Canki Sutta, I am a bit lazy to type it out all. When Buddha ask us to put faith on, the basis is seen on this sutta <<16. In that ways, Master Gotama, there is preservation of truth; in that one perserves truth, in that way we recognise the preservation of truth. But in what way, Master Gotama, is there discovery of truth? In what way does one discover turth? We ask Master Gotama about the discovery of truth." . . 18 When he investigated him [a venerable one] and has seen that he is purified from based on greed, he next investigates him regard to states based on hate.... . . <<20. When he has investigate him and has seen that he is puried from states based on delusion, then he places faith in him;>> B: The rest of the Kalama Sutta deals with the practice of the > Brahma Viharas and this definitely deals with happiness and smiling. Don't you agree? k: Smiling and the four immeasurables are two different things. And also before going into Brahma Viharas, the sutta mention <> and also I did not see any about smile to be used before or after Brahma Viharas. Where did you get this smile method from? If you get it from somewhere in the text, I admit I am wrong about this method and I apolgise, if not please do not teach others about such wrong methods which cannot be found anywhere in the text. Ken O 39515 From: Ken O Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 10:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Rob M In fact I should add, understand reality is very important for the development of the path. Understand reality makes dhamma clear and concise and focus especially during wise attentions on dhammas. Ken O 39516 From: Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 5:39am Subject: False Identification of Paramattha Dhammas and Realities (Re: [dsg] Concept ...) Hi, Ken (and Rob) - In a message dated 12/7/04 12:47:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > > Rob, remember what I said earlier, I am interested in reality and not > whether it is ontological. Reality are conditiones that can be > directly known or experience or felt but not concepts. Here is this > sutta, Buddha is interested in citta (an aggregate) because it is > reality that can be directly known while the part on 'one' and 'you' > are concepts which cannot be directly. Another way to look at it is > take concepts as dreams while reality as when you are wide alert. > > I talking a lot on this because understanding reality, will bring us > to a deeper level to the understanding of D.O, a deeper level of > understand this anatta business. In the end it is the five aggregates > that matters. > ====================== Anatta and paticcasamupada. are certainly realities, Ken. They are not, however, paramattha dhammas, are they? If they were, it could be specified which khandhas they belonged to. I cannot so specify. Can you? In a previous post to Rob M you wrote "Five aggregates, 8NP, D.O are reality that can be directly known." The five aggregates is a collection of five collections. Actually, the five aggregates is the conventional person. That is a reality of sorts - a conventional reality on the same order as a tree, table, or chariot. It has less reality than the other items you mention, because it is only knowable conceptually. The eightfold noble path , a reality, cannot be a paramattha dhamma, can it? It is not nibbana. And what khandha does it belong to? I've already pointed out that dependent origination, while a reality, is not a member of any of the five khandas. Likewise for conditionality in general. It is neither rupa nor vi~n~nana nor vedana nor sa~n~na nor sankhara. And it is not nibbana. So it is not a paramattha dhamma. The relations laid out in the Patthana are all realities, but they are each neither nibbana nor a member of any of the khandhas. They are realities, knowable by conceptualization and by wisdom, but they are not paramattha dhammas. So there is no basis to identify being a reality with being a paramattha dhamma. There are realities, very important ones, that belong to none of the khandhas and are not nibbana either. That is, they are not paramattha dhammas. The paramattha dhammas have the ability to arise as objects of consciousness *without* the necessary intercession of either conceptualization or wisdom. But anatta, for example, is not an object of consciousness except by means of concept or wisdom, indirectly in the 1st case, and directly in the 2nd, and it is not a paramattha dhamma. A cautionary note: I am *not* saying that being a paramattha dhamma is an empty notion. It is well defined and is importantly special, I believe. It simply is not synonymous with being real, and it is not synonymous with existing. 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) 39517 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 10:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cooran Dhamma Discussions Dear Andrew, thank you very much for your report on the discussions. Not easy stuff. I like this part: diversity. Steve said they are referred to in the Visuddhimagga. > Any comments, anyone on how to best balance these 2 methods? > > I suggested that knowing the realities of the present moment entails > knowing conditional relations (because of the time dimension) and > that conventional language often referred to patterns of cittas … > defilements … latent tendencies over time and these were important to > understand. Khun Sujin would say: what about dhamma now? This helps people not to get involved in the theory. She stresses very much that we should not just know realities by name, but we mostly do, that is the trouble. Yes, we read in the Vis. about unity and diversity, I believe under the second stage of insight, knowing dhammas as conditioned. When we read this, we have to be very careful not to read this as theory. This goes for many passages of the Vis. We could get lost very easily. Nice about the rat and young who kept company with you. Nina. op 07-12-2004 05:38 schreef Andrew op athel60@t...: We found that the shed where we have meals and > discussions was already occupied by a planigale (a small marsupial > rat-like animal) with her babies clinging to her back – but she was > willing to share the space with us, so all was well. 39518 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 10:54am Subject: Re: Di.t.thijukamma, was Re: [dsg] Sanna/Ken O Dear Mike, op 07-12-2004 02:33 schreef m. nease op mlnease@z...: It is in consideration of this that it is stated > in the commentary to the Diigha Nikaaya that straightening one's view has > the characteristic of being relevant to them all {daana, sila, bhaavanaa}." > Admittedly this is only eight hundred years old or so and isn't from the > Nikaayas. Still I like it because it agrees with my (current) opinions... > > I first read about the kusala of di.t.thijjukamma some years ago in Khun > Sujin's writing. N: Yes, I discussed this with Kh sujin and understood: also at moments without pańńa you can see the benefit of kusala though you might not have seen this before. I think, under the influence of good friendship, for example, there can be a change from akusala to kusala. The T.A. (here p. 186, 187) is more recent, but it is based on old material. Some passages are the same as the Vis. Tiika. But the Co to D.N. dates from the oldest time. I looked up, Sangiti sutta the threes, and its Co (p. 1000): di.t.th' ujjugata.m pana sabbesa.m niyama-lakkhana.m...di.t.th' ujjugata.m tiisu pi sa.ngaha.m gacchati. Nina. 39519 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 10:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: renunciation Dear Mike and Ken O, renunciation, nekkhamma, I just looked into the Co. of Digha Nikaya, Sangiti sutta (the threes, p. 987): all kusala are nekkhamma, Sabbe pi kusalaa dhammaa nekkhamma-dhaatu ti aya.m nekkhamma-dhaatu. Thus, a very wide meaning. You renounce akusala, clinging to your own confort and pleasures. It includes selflessness. There are many gems in the Recital (Sangiti) sutta and Co, Mike, you should read it. This text is not too difficult and you can read it in very small portions. Nina. op 07-12-2004 03:07 schreef m. nease op mlnease@z...: > The more I look at references to renunciation, relinquishing and so on (in > English translation) the more I find they have to do with, yes, daana, > generosity--NOT 'letting go' of something unwholesome. Detachment? Alobha? > All more closely related, in the Paali texts, to generosity than to any > other concept or any other cetasika, as I read it. 39520 From: nina Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 10:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: kusala and akusala. Dear friend James, op 06-12-2004 07:11 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > Nina: Dhamma is like a mirror. > > James: I like this phrase, very poetic, but I'm not sure what you > mean. N: Through the Dhamma we learn to clearly see our defilements and clearly see realities as they are. Quotes: Nina: At the same time Kh.S. helps us all not to take kusala nor > akusala for self and to learn to detect our clinging to self. > > James: What is this `self' that you often refer to? Do you mean > desire and craving for existence? You seem to speak about `self' as > if a `self' really exists. My understanding is that no `self' > exists, only the desire for existence. N: An underlying clinging to the idea of self. It is personality belief, sakkaya ditthi. When we are reminded: here is the self again, we all know that there is no self, but we do not say all the time the whole phrase: here is again the clinging to the wrong view of self. Kh. Sujin's reminders are short and effective. > > Nina: James, do you see: Right view is wholesomeness. > > James: Yes. That's an easy one, give me a harder question. ;-)) N: It is not easy, do we know exactly what right view is? Quote: Nina: It is an exhortation to develop pańńa. > > James: I have no issues with the importance of developing panna > (wisdom). It is very crucial. However, the issue I have is when > the development of panna supersedes or replaces the development of > sila and samadhi. Sila, Samadhi, and Panna should all be developed > to the greatest extent possible, this is the Noble Eightfold Path. N: I quite agree, they are the three divisions of the eightfold Path. Pańńa cannot replace sila and samadhi, no, it goes together with it. Otherwise sila and samadhi are not of the eightfold Path. Take sila: the guarding of the doorways: by being aware of the objects appearing through the six doors. That is satipatthana, or in other words, the development of the eightfold Path. Samadhi: this becomes stronger in the course of insight, by conditions. Not by one's will. When lokuttara citta arises, samadhi has the strength of the first stage of jhana. Calm grows as defilements are eradicated stage by stage. I just see your post to Howard: I think we are seeing eye to eye here:-)) Quote: Nina: You will see that Kh stresses what is also in the suttas: > seeing and the defilements arising on account of visible object. We > keep on seeing persons or things in the visible object. Or we cling > to my seeing. We fail to consider them as impersonal elements and > this gives rise to a great deal of akusala. > > James: Yes, you point to something here that I want to address: Why > does A. Sujin seem to place so much importance on `seeing'? N: You raise good points. When reading the suttas, seeing which sees visible object is mentioned first. I am glad Kh Sujin stresses seeing, we cling immediately to the world and the people in it we believe we see. We proliferate endlessly about what we see. (B.T.W. proliferation is a translation of papańca and this stands mostly for three ways of clinging to self. We cling to the idea of self without wrong view, with wrong view or with conceit.) Visible object, an element, impinges on eyesense, another element, and this conditions seeing, which only knows what is visible, nothing else. Seeing is a mental element, the faculty of knowing. Because of wrong remembrance of self or person we wrongly believe that we see persons, the whole world, and they seem to be lasting. After seeing, often defilements follow in its train. I find it is particularly through eyes that I have wrong ideas about permanence instead of impermanence. People do not arise and fall away, we can only think of them as subject to decay and death. Through the development of insight the arising and falling away of elements can be realized. Not people or I, but visible object, seeing, sound, hearing, etc. J: Why not > place equal importance on the other sense doors, as the Buddha > does? N: I agree. Understanding should be developed of all dhammas appearing through six doors. J: From my understanding, seeing is the most neutral of the five > senses. The other senses (taste, smell, hearing, and touch) bring > up the strongest reactions of like and dislike and thus craving. N: Well, see above. It can also be a personal matter. J: Why not often close your eyes and focus on where most of the problem > lies? N: The Buddha tells us to know seeing and visible object as it is. And also to know the dhammas appearing naturally through the other doorways. I have no inclination to exclude one doorway. For me personally this is not natural. How could I know my defilements if I close one doorway? Now a sutta: K.S. IV, Ch 3, on the all, § 25 abandoning: Nina. 39521 From: Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 6:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts In a message dated 12/6/2004 7:15:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: Hi Andrew, The Buddha also mentioned archers a couple of times in the Suttas when it was appropriate to make a point. Do we therefore conclude that archery is a key to understanding the Buddha's teaching? Of course not. I put ontological issues in the same bucket as archery. Metta, Rob M :-) Hi Rob I disagree. I think that once archery is fully understood, then reality is fully understood, and then suffering is overcome. Archery has been a very overlooked issue in Buddhist analysis its high time that it gets its due. I mean after all, shooting an arrow through the air and then outrunning it? It doesn't get any more real that that! TG 39522 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 0:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] objects of satipatthana Hi Larry, yes, way 21,22, I wrote in my book (p. 51) and I also jotted down the Subco, but it takes time to dig this up. Nina. op 07-12-2004 06:35 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > In Soma Thera's "Way of Mindfulness" see pages 32 and 33, commentary on > "kaayaanupassi". This will be in dsg archives under "way 21" and "way > 22", I think. However, escribe is off-line right now. If you can locate > the time frame these were posted Nina had some comments as well. > > SS Commentary: "In the body there is no contemplation of a uniform > thing, apart from the big and small members of the body, or of a man or > of a woman, apart from such things like the hair of the head and the > hair of the body." 39523 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 0:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Dear Ken O, This is very clearly stated. People ask: is khandha a reality or concept and this is a clear answer. Nina. op 07-12-2004 10:40 schreef Ken O op ashkenn2k@y...: > In the same way, when Buddha talks about the three roots, where > are they in the aggregates. They are in the sankhara aggregates. > They exist but the collective is used to organise them for teaching > of the dhamma. There is no contradiction, what Buddha says that > sankhara exist as aggregates and what Acariya does is that this > collection is a heap (as aggregates is known as a heap etc) and > should not be mistaken as a reality. I think what Acariya is saying > that it should be known as a heap of ultimate realities and sankhara > is just a term used in this context for teaching purposes and not to > be mistaken as ultimate reality. 39524 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 0:02pm Subject: Re: False Identification of Paramattha Dhammas and Realities (Re: [dsg] Concept ...) Hi Howard, because of lack of time I take out only one point. op 07-12-2004 19:39 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > The eightfold noble path > , a reality, cannot be a paramattha dhamma, can it N: They are cetasikas, sankhaarakkhandha. Nina. 39525 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 0:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 157 ), pure citta Dear Htoo, op 07-12-2004 10:42 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > In this dhamma molecule, one atom is 'citta' which is pure, luminous, > sinless. N: I appreciate this reminder more and more. Also Rob M differentiated citta and citta with cetasikas. At first I did not understand it so well, but I recently listened to a discussion in India. A. Sujin said that citta is just the faculty of knowing (manindriya), that it is pure, pandara. We can understand this in considering seeing that cognizes visible object. There are not yet akusala cetasikas or sobhana cetasikas. The latter cause citta to be akusala citta or kusala citta at the moments of javana. We were talking about it whether we can realize now lobha and she said: there is all the time the idea of my lobha. This shows that it is difficult to directly know akusala cetasikas and sobhana cetasikas, but understanding can begin. But first I think it important to know more clearly the faculty of knowing and rupa which does not know anything. I find citta which is pure such a good reminder now. Nina. 39526 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 0:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Letter to B.Bodhi-'The Jhânas and the Lay Disciple ..' Dear Sarah, It is useful to see the points here, I also listened to them on my own tape. Just a remark about the word jhaana: jhaayati has two different stems. One is to burn, sskr: k.saay, and one is to shine, perceive, contemplate, sskr: dhyaayati. See PED. Both meanings can be used for aramma.nuu-panijjhaana. op 07-12-2004 10:18 schreef sarah abbott op sarahprocterabbott@y...: > 5.In some contexts we also have to keep in mind the two meanings of jhana > – one referring to the object which can ‘burn away’ the defilements > (aramma.nuu-panijjhaana)and the other which develops with satipatthana > (lakkha.nuupjijhaana). 39527 From: Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 7:20am Subject: Re: False Identification of Paramattha Dhammas and Realities (Re: [dsg] Conce... Hi, all - Something additional has occurred to me. Among the things that I pointed out as realities that are not paramattha dhammas are anatta, paticcasamupada, and general conditionality and all the relations set forth in the Patthana. Other less noble existents whose ontological status is weaker are those "things" knowable only by conceptualization, such as trees, tables, chariots, and persons. Note that *all* the foregoing are conditioned mind-door objects. And none of them is a member of any khandha. This suggests to me that the breakdown of the content of experience into sense door & sense object pairs (or sense door & sense object & sense consciousness triples) is more far-reaching than the five-khandha breakdown. Included among the mind-door objects are all the realities that I have pointed out as not belonging to any of the five khandhas, and nibbana as well, the one non-khandhic paramattha dhamma. Along these lines, note how the Buddha defined "the all" in the Sabba Sutta. He did *not* use the khandha breakdown there. There the Buddha defines "the all" as follows: "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, *the mind & mental phenomena. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." With metta, Howard * Note: This was taken from ATI except at this point. Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote "intellect & ideas" here, but I substituted Bhikkhu Bodhi's "the mind & mental phenomena," which I prefer. /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) 39528 From: Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 7:25am Subject: Re: False Identification of Paramattha Dhammas and Realities (Re: [dsg] Conce... Hi, Nina - In a message dated 12/7/04 3:10:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@x... writes: > > Hi Howard, > because of lack of time I take out only one point. > op 07-12-2004 19:39 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > >The eightfold noble path > >, a reality, cannot be a paramattha dhamma, can it > N: They are cetasikas, sankhaarakkhandha. > Nina. > ====================== What is the "they" you are referring to, 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) 39529 From: m. nease Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 0:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: renunciation Hi Nina, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nina van Gorkom" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 10:54 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: renunciation > renunciation, nekkhamma, I just looked into the Co. of Digha Nikaya, > Sangiti > sutta (the threes, p. 987): all kusala are nekkhamma, Sabbe pi kusalaa > dhammaa nekkhamma-dhaatu ti aya.m nekkhamma-dhaatu. Thus, a very wide > meaning. You renounce akusala, clinging to your own confort and pleasures. > It includes selflessness. > There are many gems in the Recital (Sangiti) sutta and Co, Mike, you > should > read it. This text is not too difficult and you can read it in very small > portions. Yes, it all depends on context I guess. I've read the Sangitisutta; is the commentary available on the internet? mike 39530 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 1:08pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Giving a Smile Friend Ken O, Hmmm...I'm not sure where this discussion is heading. I wanted to defend B. Bodhi's statements about dana and now it is starting to veer off into being a monk or not and the development of the perfections. This may be my last response. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > Hi Friend James > > > J: Just because renunciation requires alobha and dana requires > alobha, that doesn't make renunciation dana. They are still two > different things. Giving alms to a monk and actually being a monk > are two very different things. > > K: definitely they are two things, we are not asking you to > relinquish to become a monk. Relinquishment can be in terms of sense > pleasure etc. Anyway it is not a stretch of logic, lobha is > sometimes known as genorisity while lobha is known as greed. Surely there must be a typo here. Lobha can't be known as both generosity and greed. I think you mean that alobha is sometimes known as generosity. Well, okay, so what? That still doesn't make it part of the Noble Eightfold Path. Are we going in circles here or what? ;-)) > > > > > This supports what I have been saying, Dana will result in a > > favorable state of existence, not necessarily enlightenment. > > k: Sorry this is part of Buddha perfection, it is needed for > perfection of a Buddha. Without it as a base, it is difficult to > shed the attachment to self view, to conceit. Again, we are not talking about the perfections to create a Buddha, we are talking about the path factors of the Noble Eightfold Path, which is designed to create arahants and not specifically Buddhas. > > > > This is again a stretch in logic. If this were true, then the > > Noble Eightfold Path would only be for the creation of Buddhas. > > k: You did not see what I say, only Buddha prefected it while the > rest dont. Why dont you give me any paramis that is not in the 8NP. Sorry, I don't want to go into a deep analysis of the paramis. We have already gotten way off the track here. However, to summarize, the ten paramis are those qualities which a Buddha must perfect over countless lifetimes in order to become an enlightened Buddha. The Noble Eightfold Path is the quicker route to enlightenment and will result in an arahant, not a fully enlightened Buddha (unless the paramis were perfected previousl). Sure, there are some qualities that are in both the paramis and the Noble Eightfold Path: like renunciation and wisdom. But there are also some qualities listed in the Paramis that are not in the Noble Eightfold Path: like Dana and Metta. That is as deep as I am going to go into it. > > > Ken O Metta, James 39531 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 1:57pm Subject: Re: kusala and akusala. Friend Nina, Well, this is a very exciting response because we are beginning to agree on many key issues! (Actually, I prefer to agree than to disagree). I want to just focus on one thing you state, where we still have disagreement, and see what happens: Nina: The Buddha tells us to know seeing and visible object as it is. And also to know the dhammas appearing naturally through the other doorways. I have no inclination to exclude one doorway. For me personally this is not natural. How could I know my defilements if I close one doorway? James: Okay, here is where we get to the important issue: Nina, can you direct your cittas to ignore the input from any of the doorways? Now, don't answer if you have, could you? If you can't, then you are at the mercy of your senses, you don't have any control, the defilements are multiplying by the minute, and wisdom isn't really growing. To my understanding, the point of satipathanna is to gain control of the sense doors. You state here that the Buddha stated to know the dhammas appearing `naturally' through the doorways. I don't believe he stated that. He said to guard the doorways, to have control over them. In other words, don't let just any sense objects get in and, of those senses that do come in, don't let the mind expand upon them with mental proliferation and craving. Now, I brought up the point of closing the eyes because it is a useful technique to limit the sensory input until the mind is able to gain some control. Later, when the mind is firmly established with the ability to guard the senses, there would be no reason to close the eyes. Then one's daily life would be like a meditation. Personally, I am not even close to being at that point!! ;-)) If you are, congratulations! But cut us `less developed' some slack! ;-) Metta, James 39532 From: ericlonline Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 2:22pm Subject: Re: kusala and akusala. Hey Nina, > Nina: The Buddha tells us to know seeing and visible object as it > is. And also to know the dhammas appearing naturally through the > other doorways. I have no inclination to exclude one doorway. For me personally this is not natural. You sleep with your eyes open? N>How could I know my defilements if I > close one doorway? Doors opened or closed, what is the difference? Defilements defile in the mind. PEACE E 39533 From: Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 9:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: kusala and akusala. Hi, James (and Nina) - In a message dated 12/7/04 4:58:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > You state here that the Buddha stated to know the dhammas > appearing `naturally' through the doorways. I don't believe he > stated that. He said to guard the doorways, to have control over > them. In other words, don't let just any sense objects get in and, > of those senses that do come in, don't let the mind expand upon them > with mental proliferation and craving. > ===================== I believe that what the Buddha called guarding the senses actually came down to guarding only one sense, the mind. This, I believe is what right effort is about. The point was not to censor or control what sense data enter the various sense doors, but to monitor the mind with regard to its qualitities and activities, so that akusala qualities and activities not yet arisen are avoided, akusala ones already arisen are abandoned, kusala ones not yet arisen are encouraged, and kusala ones already arisen are sustained and increased. The critical occasions for doing this are when content arises at any sense door. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 39534 From: connieparker Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 3:33pm Subject: Re: False Identification of Paramattha Dhammas and Realities (Re: [dsg] Conce... Hi, Howard, H: The eightfold noble path, a reality, cannot be a paramattha dhamma, can it N: They are cetasikas, sankhaarakkhandha. H: What is the "they" you are referring to, Nina? SPD: The factors of the eightfold Path are the following cetasikas: right understanding (sammaa-di.t.thi, pa~n~naa cetasika), right thinking (sammaa-sankappa, vitakka cetasika), right speech (sammaa-vaaca cetasika), right action (sammaa-kammanta cetasika), right livelihood (sammaa-aajiiva cetasika), right effort (sammaa-vaayaama, viriya cetasika), right mindfulness (sammaa-sati, sati cetasika) and right concentration (sammaa-samaadhi, ekaggataa cetasika). peace, connie 39535 From: Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 3:36pm Subject: Vism.XIV,122 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV 122. (m) At the end of the impulsions, if the object is a very vivid one52 in the five doors, or is clear in the mind door, then in sense-sphere beings at the end of sense-sphere impulsions resultant consciousness occurs through any condition it may have obtained such as previous kamma, impulsion consciousness, etc., with desirable, etc., object53. [It occurs thus] as one among the eight sense-sphere resultant kinds with root cause (42)-(49) or the three resultant mind-consciousness elements without root-cause (40), (41), (56), and it [does so] twice or once, following after the impulsions that have impelled, and with respect to an object other than the life-continuum's object, like some of the water that follows a little after a boat going upstream. Though ready to occur with the life-continuum's object after the impulsions have ended, it nevertheless occurs making the impulsions' object its object. Because of that it is called 'registration' (tadaaramma.na--lit. 'having-that-as-its-object'). This is how the occurrence of eleven kinds of resultant consciousness should be understood as registration. ------------------------------ Note 52. ' "A very vivid one" is one with a life of sixteen consciousness moments. For registration consciousness arises with respect to that, not with respect to any other. "Clear" means very evident, and that is only in the sense sphere; for registration arises with respect to that' (Pm. 479). Note 53. ' "Previous kamma": this is said in order to show the differences in kinds of registration; for kamma that generates rebirth-linking is not the only kind to generate registration; other kinds of kamma do so too. But the later generates registration unlike that generatable by the kamma that generates rebirth-liking. "Impulsion consciousness": this is said in order to show what defines the registration; for it is said, "Registration is definable by impulsion" (?). The word "etc." includes rebirth-linking, however; for that is not a condition for registration that is more outstanding than itself. "Any condition": any condition from among the desirable objects, etc., that has combined (samaveta) to produce the arising of registration' (Pm. 479). 39536 From: Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 11:29am Subject: Re: False Identification of Paramattha Dhammas and Realities (Re: [dsg] Conce... Hi, Connie - In a message dated 12/7/04 6:35:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, connieparker@i... writes: > Hi, Howard, > > H: The eightfold noble path, a reality, cannot be a paramattha dhamma, > can it > N: They are cetasikas, sankhaarakkhandha. > H: What is the "they" you are referring to, Nina? > SPD: The factors of the eightfold Path are the following cetasikas: > right understanding (sammaa-di.t.thi, pa~n~naa cetasika), right thinking > (sammaa-sankappa, vitakka cetasika), right speech (sammaa-vaaca cetasika), > right action (sammaa-kammanta cetasika), right livelihood (sammaa-aajiiva > cetasika), right effort (sammaa-vaayaama, viriya cetasika), right > mindfulness (sammaa-sati, sati cetasika) and right concentration > (sammaa-samaadhi, ekaggataa cetasika). > peace, > connie > > =========================== Thank you, Connie. Perhaps the path factors are - though I question that, as you will see below - but the path, itself, is certainly not. Nonetheless, the path is a reality - it is not imagined. The term 'reality' is not applied broadly enough - it should not be identified with the paramattha dhammas. Now, a separate matter is that of whether the path factors really are all cetasikas. In several cases, one has to strain, squirm, and contort to see it that way. The path factors that I do not see as paramattha dhammas unless one takes them to mean something quite different from what they are called and different from how they are talked about in the suttas themselves, are the following: right thinking or intention or resolve (This is specifically defined by the Buddha as "Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill-will, on harmlessness), and hence, it consists of several things, and so is not a paramattha dhamma), right speech (speech is a conventional phenomenon), right action (conventional - the Buddha defines it as follows: "Abstaining from taking life, abstaining from stealing, abstaining from unchastity," which makes this also consist of several phenomena, and thus not a paramattha dhamma), right livelihood (livelihood is a conventional phenomenon, and the Buddha specifies which livelihoods are wrong), and right effort (the Buddha defines this as consisting of several conventional activities - four to be exact, and it is thus not a paramattha dhamma). 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) 39537 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 5:34pm Subject: Message from new member Ratanamata The message below, sent to Sarah and me, was I think meant for the list so I am forwarding it. Jon ***************************************** --- mayallbehappy wrote: Merry meet Sarah and Jonothan Abbott. May we and all our relatives be safe and secure May we and all our relatives be happy at heart May we and all our relatives want to prevent and abandon doings that lead to someones downfall. May we and all our relatives want to do doings that lead to blessings. ... Itivuttaka 98. {Iti III.49; Iti 98} Translator Rev. Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Put available by John Bullit. For free distribution only. This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "There are these two kinds of gifts: a gift of material things & a gift of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: a gift of the Dhamma. There are these two kinds of sharing: sharing of material things & sharing of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: sharing of the Dhamma. There are these two kinds of assistance: assistance with material things & assistance with the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: help with the Dhamma." This is the meaning of what the Blessed One said and in regard to this was it said; The gift he describes as foremost & unsurpassed, the sharing the Blessed One has extolled: who -- confident in the supreme field of merit, wise, discerning -- wouldn't give it at appropriate times? Both for those who proclaim it and those who listen, confident in the message of the One Well-gone: it purifies their foremost benefit -- those heeding the message of the One Well-gone. This too is the meaning of what the BLessed One said so I have heard. Revised: Wednesday 2004.11.10 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka/iti/iti3.html Itivuttaka 26. {Iti I.26; Iti 18} Translator Rev. Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Put available by John Bullit. This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if there were someone to receive their gift. But because beings do not know, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they eat without having given. The stain of selfishness overcomes their minds." This is the meaning of what the Blessed One said and in regard to this was it said; If beings knew what the Great Seer said, how the result of sharing has such great fruit, then, subduing the stain of selfishness with brightened awareness, they'd give in season to the noble ones, where a gift bears great fruit. Having given food as an offering to those worthy of offerings, many donors, when they pass away from here, the human state, go to heaven. They, having gone there to heaven, rejoice, enjoying sensual pleasures. Unselfish, they partake of the result of sharing. This too is the meaning of what the Blessed One said so I have heard. Revised: Wednesday 2004.11.10 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka/iti/iti1.html Success, I know that you can do it too. May all beings be safe and secure. May all beings be happy at heart. May all beings want to do doings that lead to blessings. May all beings want to prevent and abandon doings that lead to someones downfall. with mudita Ratanamata 39538 From: Andrew Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 5:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: [snip] > dear RobM, > I have no idea what ontolgical statements are or why you think they > are important or not important. You say that there is no support in > the texts for saying that "what is reality > > (dhamma) and what is not is stressed throught the teachings" > yet then you seem to change that and say that in fact the Buddha did > say so on one occasion? (I am trying to infer this from your > statement about ontologies)? Hi Rob K My Dict of Philosophy says of ontology: "the branch of metaphysical enquiry concerned with the study of existence itself (considered apart from the nature of any existent object). It differentiates between 'real existence' and 'appearance' and investigates the different ways in which entities belonging to various logical categories (physical objects, numbers, universals, abstractions etc) may be said to exist." IMHO this is an area you either eschew or weigh into (unless you say you are using it only as some sort of 'technique' without actually committing yourself to existence/nonexistence). We know that the Buddha did not eschew ontology. In fact, he weighed into it by declaring certain things existent. Period. You can't be half pregnant. Sorry, folks, but at the moment I am finding it very hard to see that differentiating between 'real existence' and 'appearance' isn't central to the Dhamma. What I obviously need to ponder more on is "How does the Dhamma look and feel if you take ontology out". Rob M is a person who has devoted a great deal of time and energy to Dhamma study and I refuse to take his conclusions lightly. Back to the pondering board ... I hope all is well with you in Japan, Rob K. Best wishes Andrew 39539 From: Antony Woods Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 8:27pm Subject: Guarding the sense doors (was: Re: kusala and akusala) Dear Howard, Please allow me to enter this thread. I disagree. I think that voluntary censorship of the sense doors is very important to maintaining one’s equanimity especially I think this would be with practising the samatha jhanas. Vipassana may be another matter. My Satipatthana Vipassana teacher once said that lust would still come up again after practising guarding the sense doors which he said was “another practice”. I found this sutta quote which seems to apply to guarding the sense doors: (the terms in brackets are from Bhikkhus’ Bodhi and Nanamoli translation) “It was said, “Sariputta, forms cognizable by eye consciousness are also twofold those that should be followed (cultivated) and not followed” On account of what was it said by the Blessed One? Venerable sir, when following certain forms cognizable by eye consciousness, demerit (unwholesome states) increases and merit (wholesome states) decreases, such forms should not be followed when following certain forms cognizable by eye consciousness, demerit decreases and merit increases, such forms should be followed. It was said, “Sariputta, forms cognizable by eye consciousness too are twofold, those that should be followed and not followed.” It was said on account of this.” (similarly for the other senses) http://www.mahindarama.com/e-tipitaka/Majjhima%20Nikaya/mn-114.htm In Majjhima 91 it says: “(Buddha) does not walk looking about” In “In This Very Life” by Sayadaw U Pandita (which is almost all available online) p215: “The ex-bhikkhu (new deva) was afraid even to set foot inside the gate of his mansion. He knew his strength of mind would not last against these pleasures, far more intense than those of our human world.” Mahasi Sayadaw taught: (1) Where visible objects remain unseen, there //kilesa// ceases by itself. (2) Where visible objects are seen there //kilesa// lies in wait. And he quoted the Buddha: "How do you answer this, Malukyaputta? Answer me as best you can. There are certain tangible objects which you have never touched previously, either in the immediate or remote past, or at the present moment. Neither can you hope to touch them in the future. Can such objects arouse desire, lust and affection in you?" Malukyaputta replied this in the negative. This is as it should be. Here it may again be emphasised that no //kilesa// can arise for sense-objects with which one is not familiar.” http://www.buddhanet.net/filelib/medbud/mahasimk.zip ===== I no longer believe that Satipatthana Vipassana is “choiceless awareness”. I like Ajahn Brahmavamso’s humorous use of the simile for mindfulness of a person who's guarding a door or guarding a gate. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eightfold-l/message/3013 I am motivated to research this topic if people are interested. Maybe one day I’ll get an entry in the “Useful Posts” May you be well and happy, Antony. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi, James (and Nina) - > >In a message dated 12/7/04 4:58:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, >buddhatrue@y... writes: > > > You state here that the Buddha stated to know the dhammas > appearing >`naturally' through the doorways. I don't believe he > stated that. He >said to guard the doorways, to have control over > them. In other words, >don't let just any sense objects get in and, > of those senses that do come >in, don't let the mind expand upon them > with mental proliferation and >craving. > > ===================== > I believe that what the Buddha called guarding the senses actually >came down to guarding only one sense, the mind. This, I believe is what >right effort is about. The point was not to censor or control what sense >data enter the various sense doors, but to monitor the mind with regard to >its qualitities and activities, so that akusala qualities and activities >not yet arisen are avoided, akusala ones already arisen are abandoned, >kusala ones not yet arisen are encouraged, and kusala ones already arisen >are sustained and increased. The critical occasions for doing this are when >content arises at any sense door. > >With metta, >Howard > 39540 From: Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 8:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Andrew, Re: "How does the Dhamma look and feel if you take ontology out". If an insight arises that a feeling is not self, does that insight have anything to do with ontology? Similarly, if there is a belief in self one could argue that that belief is wrong on ontological grounds or one could look directly and see that belief in self is not self. Ontological arguments are useful but they aren't real. Larry 39541 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 8:41pm Subject: [dsg] Re: kusala and akusala. Friend Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: I believe that what the Buddha called guarding the senses actually > came down to guarding only one sense, the mind. > With metta, > Howard If that is what the Buddha meant that is what he would have said. He said guarding the senses, plural. Guarding means deciding what will enter and what won't. I am not convinced by your argument. Metta, James 39542 From: Andrew Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 8:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Re: "How does the Dhamma look and feel if you take ontology out". > > If an insight arises that a feeling is not self, does that insight have > anything to do with ontology? > > Similarly, if there is a belief in self one could argue that that belief > is wrong on ontological grounds or one could look directly and see that > belief in self is not self. Ontological arguments are useful but they > aren't real. Hi Larry I think your point is too subtle and has gone over my head, sorry. When the Buddha said "feeling ... I too say that it exists" (see Rob K's post 39350), he was using an ontological argument. He took an ontological position that feeling, among other things, exists. In other suttas, he may have said "feeling is not-self". But if the true Dhamma says that feeling exists, surely insight (at least the full understanding of abandoning or 'pahanaparinna) must know this? Best wishes Andrew 39543 From: plnao Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 9:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Guarding the sense doors (was: Re: kusala and akusala) Hi James, Howard, Antony and all I'm very interested in deepening my understanding of guarding the sense doors. > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > I believe that what the Buddha called guarding the > senses actually > > came down to guarding only one sense, the mind. > > > With metta, > > Howard > > If that is what the Buddha meant that is what he would have said. > He said guarding the senses, plural. Guarding means deciding what > will enter and what won't. I am not convinced by your argument. > > Metta, James I believe I have benefited in some areas from experimenting with a strict "one plough's length" approach to the sense doors. I could babble at length about how, but I'll spare you for now. On the other hand, the other day I found this sutta passage, and came to a similar conclusion to Howard, that "guarding the sense doors" does not always mean averting the eyes, for example, but can have to do more with what follows through the mind. Here is that passage from, AN IV 37: "And how does a monk guard the doors to his sense faculties? There is the case where a monk, on seeing a form with the eye, does not grasp at any theme or variations by which- if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye -- evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him. He practices with restrain. He guards the faculty of the eye. He achieves restrain with regard to the faculty of the eye." (end quote) This "grasp at any theme or variations by which...evil unskillful qualities...might assail him" would seem to indicate mental processes that following the initial seeing, wouldn't you agree? I think of the monk who "stops at seeing" , the one who saw the beautiful woman as "teeth walking by" instead of proliferating about her. The monk didn't avert his eyes in that case. He saw the woman. But it stopped there. Mental proliferation didn't take over. So I would guess "guarding the sense doors" can refer both to literally averting the eyes and to right attention that prevents unwholesome proliferation based on what is seen. Again, I suspect that those of us with very gross defilements can benefit more from a "one plough's length" approach, but as insight deepens, we can look, and see and come closer to stopping right there. Very interesting and important topic, for sure. Look forward to discussing it more with you. Metta, Phil 39544 From: Ken O Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 9:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Giving a Smile Hi Friend James Thanks for correcting my typo error, it should be alobha as generosity :). It is ok then we can stop this thing anytime :). Since you read a lot on Buddhism, why dont you read the ancient texts, they are full of gem. You never known that all the questions you have are actually in the texts. Ken O 39546 From: Ken O Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 9:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: kusala and akusala. Hi Friend James To me, guarding has a few meanings. One of the meaning I like is wise attention. Ken O 39547 From: plnao Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 10:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] I tried it and liked it! (was Re: Bhante and Smiling ) Dear Bhante Vimalaramsi Thank you again for your thoughtful encouragement. I really appreciate it. Bhante > Then when you said: "So if I "recognize that an unwholesome > state has arisen", that recognizing is in itself a wholesome state. It is > a small step towards detachment from the unwholesome state. When I > regenerated the smile and the pleasant feeling, it was - in my opinion at > this time- a lunge away from insight towards comfort." Bhante*** Isn't > comfort another way of saying that there is no more suffering? This is a very important question that I find myself thinking a lot these days. At this point, I would have to say no, because there are many ways to find comfort that just intensify our need for comfort, like an addiction. To use a very crude example, think of turning the stove up every time you feel cold, and thereby feeling comfortable - and then what would the result be if you ran out of heating oil for the stove? The suffering from the cold would be much worse than if you had sat patiently with it. So for a moment, yes, no more suffering, but in the long run more suffering when we seek comfort moment by moment. Perhaps? Yesterday I was in a *very foul mood* when I got up. I had had a bad day at work the day before, and a quarrel with my wife when I got home. I overslept. And got up and got my coffee and as usual sat on a cushion by the balcony door. (Even though I have not been meditating, I sit on a cushion to study suttas.) I sensed what a foul mood I was in and thought of your recommended practice. I remembered how good it had felt, how warm. So I started to do it. But then I stopped myself, suddenly. I just didn't want to try to generate a smile out of such a foul mood. I know I could - I used to do a lot of visualization before I came to Buddhism and I was always quite good at generating pleasant images - and I knew that if I did it would make for a more pleasant day. But I stopped myself. And thought of my favourite sutta these days, from Samyutta Nikaya. (SN XXXV.12, if I'm not mistaken.) I quote: "Just as in the sky above winds of various kinds are blowing....coming from the east or west, blowing from the north or south, some carrying dust and other not, cold are some and other hot, some are fierce and others mild- their blowing is so different. So also in this body here, feelings of different kinds come, the pleasant feelings, and the painful ones and the neutral ones. But if a monk is aware(? ?I'm copying this from a scribbled notebook entry) and does not neglect to practice mindfulness and comprehension clear the nature of all feelings will be understood. And having penetrated them he will be taint-free in this very life." This encouraged me. My foul mood would pass, just as the cold winter wind surely passes and gives way to a warm spring breeze. My fool mood was not self, it was not me. I didn't get rid of my foul mood- I was in a fairly bad mood all day- but at the same time I had a confident, detached feeling, a sense of gratitude to the Buddha who teaches the way of liberation. I think you're a very compassionate man, Bhante. You've taken care of the sick and dying and helped them to find peace and comfort. And this shows in the practice you teach. I have been thinking recently, however, that happiness in this lifetime through emotional well-being, and liberation from samsara through the development of insight cannot not, alas, be one and the same thing. I hate to say it, but the old gym axiom "no pain, no gain" might apply to developing insight. All middle way, of course. Of course we will have more emotional well-being through the Buddha's teaching than we would without. But I don't think we should practice in a way that leads us to want to have it all the time. >And if one > follows the entire instruction given about Right Effort there has to be > more than just the recognizing of a wholesome state, it says that one > develops it by staying with that wholesome state and the smile is a tool > that makes this easier to do. This is not a "lunge away from insight, but > towards it. Why? Because it helps one to stay aware and mindful of what > is happening in the present moment. I am leaning towards what is often called here a "descriptive" understanding of right effort. When a wholesome state is maintained, it is because wisdom has arisen in a way that guides us to maintaining it. I don't feel - at this time- that this maintaining is to be taken as maintaining it by will power. But I'm just a beginner and go back and forth on this one. I *did* experience what you said about seeing the smile come and go as a kind of helfpul mindfulness exercise, of what is hapening in the present moment. In that sense, it would be similar to coming back to the breath, wouldn't it? And I have read in your other posts about how you say we can understand Dependent Origination through the meditation you practice. So I have not really done justice to the insight side of the meditation you teach. I'm sure I'm still oversimplifying, so forgive me for that. > > I find it interesting that many people don't see that greed (lobha) and > aversion (dosa) are the same thing, they are both attachments but are > different sides of the same coin. If one has a strong dislike to > something they are just as attached to that dislike, just like when one > has strong greed. The only difference is the kind of feeling that > accompanies it. It is either lobha or dosa but the attachment to it is > the same. One kind of attachment is "Hey, I like this and want more" and > the other kind of attachment is "Hey, I really don't like this, I want it > to go away". This is the attachment to a belief that either the pleasant > feeling or the painful feeling is "Mine" and this is atta not anatta. Yes, there is always lobha behind dosa. So rather than saying that they are the same, couldn't it be said that dosa gives way to lobha, to attachment to the pleasant thing in order to be done with the unpleasant one? "Hey I really don't like this, I want it to go away" (dosa) becomes "give me back that that goodfeeling" (lobha) I guess this is why I chose to spend the day with my bad mood instead of smiling it away. Seeing the painful feeling, becoming more aquatined with it,knowing it as anatta, gaining some detachment from it. All middle way, of course. I'm not advocating going cold turkey on comfort. > When you said: "It did for me, but in my case I felt that putting the > smile back did not indicate a wholesome mental state but rather an > unwholesome one, an attachment to pleasant feeling." Bhante*** And > therein lies the problem because I said that the person also wishes > happiness along with the smile and just because a pleasant feeling > arises, it doesn't mean that this is unwholesome. It all comes down to > the individual and their own perspective. The sincere smile and the > making of the wish for happiness, changes the whole process away from a > personal self doing something to an impersonal wish for happiness. And > this is wholesome. It takes more than just pasting a smile on one's face, > it takes sincere effort to make a wish for well being and happiness in an > impersonal way. At that time, mind is free from defilements and it is > wholesome. I think this may help you. Yes, it all depends on the sincerity of the smile, of the cittas involved. In the case I described above, it would have been about self-comfort, escaping from dosa. I will continue reflecting on this practice, experimenting with it, Bhante. As I said before, it was really silly of me to make comments about it after trying it only once, and just about as silly after only twice. So I expect this will be my last comments, for awhile. Let me sit with it and see what happens. :) > > When you said: "I can see this. I'm thinking these days that I will be > returning to the > meditation cushion one day soon for another go at insight meditation." > Bhante*** This makes joy and a smile arise in me, thank you. (snip) It makes me very happy to think that you will begin doing some sitting > practice again and please remember that this is only your quiet time to > watch how mind works very intensely. The whole of one's life is > meditation as you are already observing. Thank you again, it makes me > smile lots. One thing I tell my students before they go out into their > daily life is to be happy and smile. Thank you Bhante. I am smiling right now. Metta, Phil p.s thanks also for your explanation re the different kinds of joy, and re chanda. 39548 From: robmoult Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 10:28pm Subject: Re: Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Andrew and Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > > > Re: "How does the Dhamma look and feel if you take ontology out". > > > > If an insight arises that a feeling is not self, does that insight > have > > anything to do with ontology? > > > > Similarly, if there is a belief in self one could argue that that > belief > > is wrong on ontological grounds or one could look directly and see > that > > belief in self is not self. Ontological arguments are useful but > they > > aren't real. > > Hi Larry > > I think your point is too subtle and has gone over my head, sorry. > When the Buddha said "feeling ... I too say that it exists" (see Rob > K's post 39350), he was using an ontological argument. He took an > ontological position that feeling, among other things, exists. In > other suttas, he may have said "feeling is not-self". But if the > true Dhamma says that feeling exists, surely insight (at least the > full understanding of abandoning or 'pahanaparinna) must know this? ===== I have fallen way behind in my replies, but let me quickly single this one out. There were a group of thinkers who had the view that nothing exists - nothing is real, everything is an illusion. For example, they might say that everything that we think is real is a dream and some day we will wake up to find it was all an illusion (I haven't seen the Matrix films, but I think that this was the theme). This view is based on ontology. It is appropriate that the Buddha make an ontological statement to refute this view. In SNXXII.94 the Buddha did make his one set of ontological statements to refute the illusionists' wrong view. The Buddha said: - Form that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change: this does not exist - Feeling that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change: this does not exist - Perception that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change: this does not exist - Volitional formations that are permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change: this does not exist - Consciousness that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change: this does not exist The Buddha then went on to make the following ontological statements: - Form that is impermanent, suffering and subject to change: this does exist - Feeling that is impermanent, suffering and subject to change: this does exist - Perception that is impermanent, suffering and subject to change: this does exist - Volitional formations that are impermanent, suffering and subject to change: this does exist - Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering and subject to change: this does exist In this Sutta, the Buddha did not talk about concepts not existing. What this Sutta shows is that the Buddha was not afraid to make an ontological statement when it was called for (these are Bhikkhu Bodhi's words as well). The Buddha resorted to this ontological statement when dealing with illusionists (doesn't sound like there were too many of them in Ancient India... otherwise the Buddha would have had to repeat the same message multiple times. Of course, they hadn't seen The Matrix yet :-) ). In this Sutta, was the Buddha talking about "ultimate realities" in the sense of the Abhidhammattha Sangaha? According to the Abhidhammattha Sangaha, "volitional formations" is a collection of "ultimate realities", not an "ultimate reality" itself. To say that it is core to the Buddha's teaching that we divide things into "realities" and "concepts" and treat them differently doesn't make sense. The Mulapariyaya Sutta shows that the mind of the uninstructed worldling treats "realities" and "concepts" the same way. It shows that the mind of the learner treats "realities" and "concepts" the same way. It shows that the mind of the Arahant treats "realities" and "concepts" the same way. It shows that the mind of the Buddha treats "realities" and "concepts" the same way. Dividing things into dhammas is extremely important. Knowing the nature (characterisitic / function / manifestation / proximate cause) of these dhammas is extremely important. Seeing the three characteristics (anicca / dukkha / anatta) of these dhammas is extremely important. Abandoning these dhammas is extremely important. It is interesting to note that, according to the Mulapariyaya Sutta, it is not possible for uninstructed worldings to do all this breaking into dhammas, seeing the nature of dhammas, seeing the characterisitic of dhammas and abandoning dhammas. According to the Mulapariyaya Sutta, learners have the possibility of breaking into dhammas, seeing the nature of dhammas, seeing the characterisitic of dhammas and abandoning dhammas. I assume that this is because this breaking into dhammas, seeing the nature of dhammas, seeing the characterisitic of dhammas and abandoning dhammas requires one to first abandon self-view (something the unistructed worldling has not done but the learner has done). I noticed that the number of "Concept and Reality in Primary Texts" posts was starting to reduce in number. I suspect that this particular message may cause a resurgence :-) Oh well.... Metta, Rob M :-) 39549 From: robmoult Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 10:44pm Subject: Re: Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Ken O, I am behind on a number of posts to you. One of the main reasons is that I am afraid that we are using terminology differently making it difficult to understand each other's points. When I am talking about "ultimate reality", I am referring to the list given in the second verse of the Abhidhammattha Sangaha: - Consciousness (citta) - Mental factors (cetasikas) - Matter (rupa) - Nibbana You are introducing a number of other things such as Dependent Origination, etc. into your definition of "reality". I think that we need to come to an agreement as to what we are defining as "realities" (preferrably with some textual support) before continuing. Another term that I suspect that we are using differently is "directly knowing". I am taking my definition of "directly knowing" from the Mulapariaya Sutta (and its commentary). In my recent message to Andrew and Larry (see extract below), I clarified the meaning of "directly knowing"; it is something that uninstructed worldlings such as us are incapable of doing. It is something that learners (Sotapannas, Sakadagamis, Anagamis) have the potential of doing and it is something that Arahants and Buddhas always do. Ken O, I sincerely want to continue our conversation, but we gotta get this terminology thing sorted out first. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > > To say that it is core to the Buddha's teaching that we divide > things into "realities" and "concepts" and treat them differently > doesn't make sense. The Mulapariyaya Sutta shows that the mind of > the uninstructed worldling treats "realities" and "concepts" the > same way. It shows that the mind of the learner treats "realities" > and "concepts" the same way. It shows that the mind of the Arahant > treats "realities" and "concepts" the same way. It shows that the > mind of the Buddha treats "realities" and "concepts" the same way. > > Dividing things into dhammas is extremely important. Knowing the > nature (characterisitic / function / manifestation / proximate > cause) of these dhammas is extremely important. Seeing the three > characteristics (anicca / dukkha / anatta) of these dhammas is > extremely important. Abandoning these dhammas is extremely important. > > It is interesting to note that, according to the Mulapariyaya Sutta, > it is not possible for uninstructed worldings to do all this > breaking into dhammas, seeing the nature of dhammas, seeing the > characterisitic of dhammas and abandoning dhammas. According to the > Mulapariyaya Sutta, learners have the possibility of breaking into > dhammas, seeing the nature of dhammas, seeing the characterisitic of > dhammas and abandoning dhammas. I assume that this is because this > breaking into dhammas, seeing the nature of dhammas, seeing the > characterisitic of dhammas and abandoning dhammas requires one to > first abandon self-view (something the unistructed worldling has not > done but the learner has done). 39550 From: robmoult Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 10:47pm Subject: Re: Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Agrios, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "agriosinski" wrote: > > My take on this subject, is that D.O. is Buddhist ontology. > > In western ontology there is question of reality, in D.O. there > is no. > D.O. is showing more dynamic view of what is called reality by westerners. More dynamic by impermanent nature of it. > > That dismissed something like last 15 centuries of philosophy I guess... > ;) Great insight! The more that I think about it, the more sense it makes to me. Makes me want to analyze Dependent Origination in more depth (see my next post to James :-) ). Metta, Rob M :-) 39551 From: robmoult Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 10:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > It would be even better if you only > engage in discussion about dhammas as they relate to dependent > origination- then the discussions would be most beneficial to all > concerned. Great idea! Agrios' message planted the seed and your message gave it nourishment to grow. This has risen to the top of my "do to" list (once I get out from under this pile of "Concept and Reality in Primary Texts" messages). I am already starting to plan the series.... Metta, Rob M :-) 39552 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 0:11am Subject: Mulapariyaya Sutta - realities? concepts? dhammas? Dear RobM, Greatly appreciating your threads and good humour as always;-).I just went to google to see if the Bodhi translation of the Mulapariyaya Sutta was on line yet (it's not), but was at least referred to an old post of mine with some quotes I can re-cycle here;-). You’ve been referring quite a bit this sutta and how you don’t understand there to be any distinction in terms of the understanding of realities as opposed to concepts being discussed. You have also quoted or referred to the commentary at times, so I appreciate that you refer to these texts and know that they were written long, long before the Abhidammattha Sangaha. In addition to all the good points that others have been making, we could also discuss the sutta again in a lot of detail. Let me just start here with the introduction from it and also the commentary to the introduction as translated by B.Bodhi. From the sutta itself, in the very first paragraph, we read the Buddha as saying: “I will teach you, bhikkhus, the exposition of the root of all things.” (sabbadhammamuulapariyaaya) What do “all things” refer to? We read in the commentary, and sub-commentary notes provided by B.Bodhi about the various meanings of ‘all’ in the suttas. Here it refers to ‘the all of personality (sakkaayasabba)’, i.e. the 5 khandhas which are of course the paramattha dhammas or realities we talk about so much. We read further about the various meanings of dhamma (here translated as ‘things’) in the suttas: *** “Cy. The word “dhamma” is found used in the following senses: the scriptures (pariyatti), the (Four Noble) Truths (sacca), concentration (samaadhi), wisdom (pa~n~na), nature (pakati), things endowed with a specific nature (sabhava), emptiness (su~n~nataa), merit (pu~n~na), a disciplinary offense (aapatti), the knowable (~neyya) etc.” The commentary continues with reference to this particular sutta and the use of “all things” (sabbadhamma) here: “Here the word occurs in the sense of things endowed with a specific nature. This is the word-meaning: “They bear their own characteristics, thus they are dhammas” (attano lakkha.na”m dhaarentii ti dhammaa”. *** S: So we can certainly use ‘dhammas’ instead of realities anytime, as long as we agree that we are referring to the 5 khandhas (and not to concepts or imaginary objects) which 'bear their own characteristics'. This commentary continues with the following details, quoted before: Quote from Sub Cy to Mulapariyaya Sutta, B.Bodhi p32: ***** “They bear their own characteristics”: although there are no dhammas devoid of their own characteristics , this is still said for the purpose of showing that these are mere dhammas endowed with their specific natures devoid of such attributions as that of a “being” etc. "***Whereas such entities as self, beauty, pleasureableness, and permanence, etc, or nature (pakati), substance (dabba), soul (jiva), body etc, which are mere misconstructions (parikappitaakaaramatta) due to craving and views, or such entities as “sky-flowers” etc which are mere expressions of conventional discourse (lokavohaaramatta), cannot be discovered as ultimately real actualities (saccika.t.thaparamatthato), these dhammas(i.e. those endowed with a specific nature) can. "These dhammas are discovered as ultimately real actualities(saccika.t.thaparamatthato).*** ***** S: Note in particular that "“sky-flowers” etc which are mere expressions of conventional discourse (lokavohaaramatta), cannot be discovered as ultimately real actualities (saccika.t.thaparamatthato)..". Here conventional expressions or concepts are clearly distinguished from paramattha dhammas or realities to be directly known. With regard to the use of ‘ultimate realities’ in the suttas, I’d like to requote from a very old post of Robert Eddison’s (again!)as it happens to be in the post of mine that I'm requoting from here: *** Rob Ed: “Are you perhaps referring to paramattha sacca (truth in the highest sense)? If so, I would agree that this term is absent in the Suttas, though I would suggest that the notion is present. That is to say, the idea that something may be true conventionally but not ultimately is inferrable from the Suttas, even though it is expressed in different terms. "What the Commentaries call conventional truth (sammuti-sacca), the Suttas call 'worldly consensus' (lokasamańńa), 'worldly language' (lokanirutti), 'worldly usage' (lokavohaara), or 'worldly convention' (lokapańńatti). "What the Commentaries call truth in the highest sense (paramattha-sacca) Is indicated in several ways in the Suttas, but most unambiguously when the Buddha prefaces a statement with "In truth and reality..." (saccato thetato). E.g."....since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what Belongs to self...." (Alagadduupama Sutta ) "In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be found [i.e. in the khandhas, apart from the khandhas etc.]." (Yamaka Sutta)” ***** S: Whether we say that ‘hardness is a paramattha dhamma or a reality or a dhamma is not in itself of any importance, as I see It. What is important is the development of awareness and understanding which knows the hardness as it is when it appears. This is the point Ken O has been making forcefully and clearly as I read his posts. So why is there misunderstanding and conceiving with regard to these dhammas (realities) and why are they taken for personality? Because of ‘Craving, conceit, and views, or ignorance, etc.’ on account of these dhammas. Sub Cy “The purport is: all dhammas beginning with earth (pathavi) which function as the bases for conceiving (ma~n~nanaavatthu).” *** S:There is so much more to quote and discuss. Furtheron, the commentary gives the detailed explanation about your point about reference to beings etc as objects of understanding. Without a clear knowledge about dhammas (realities), we’ll always misunderstand such sutta references. The commentary (Bodhi, p.38)refers to the four kinds of teaching by a Buddha: 1) dhamma as subject and dhamma as terms of expression (dhammaadhi.t.thaanaa dhammadesanaa) 2) individuals as subject and dhammas as terms of expression (dhammaadhi.t.thaanaa puggaladesanaa) 3) individuals as subject and individuals as terms of expression (puggalaadhi.t.thaanaa puggaladesanaa 4) dhammas as subject and individuals as terms of expression (puggalaadhi.t.thaanaa dhammadesanaa) Examples of each are given. For example, for the first one, 1) we read: "There are, bhikkhus, these three feelings. What are the three? Pleasant feeling, painful feeling, and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling" (S.36:11) - this is a teaching that has dhammas as subject and dhammas as terms of expression." For the last one, no 4), we read: “What, bhikkhus, is the fear of a bad destination? Herein, bhikkhus, someone reflects: ‘The result of bodily misconduct in the life to come is evil” (AN, 4:12) – this is a teaching that has dhammas as subject and individuals as *terms of expression*.” In the examples you gave about beings, devas etc, again the teaching is about dhammas as subject and individuals as *terms of expression*. Is it surprising that we often misunderstand suttas such as the Mulapariyaya Sutta? No. Even the bhikkhus who listened to the Buddha teaching it specifically for them, were not gladdened, due to mana (conceit) as they listened and ‘conceived’ accordingly on account of the dhammas heard, but the Buddha knew they would still benefit and it would provide the groundwork for them to be able to really appreciate the Truths later. Metta, Sarah ===== 39553 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 1:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Value of discussion (was evil thoughts) Dear Bhante, Thank you for taking the time to respond and all your good wishes. I do understand that some of the ideas or views that I and a few others express here may seem far from the ‘practical’ understanding you appreciate so much. I sincerely hope we don't appear disrespectful in this or any other regard. I’ll try to just briefly reply to any questions you raised here: -- Bhante Vimalaramsi wrote: > > Dhamma Greetings Sarah, > > So your stance is that it is unwholesome to pull up wholesome thoughts > because that desire is unwholesome? What is the sense of that? Where is > right effort as described in the suttas in this. If you will remember I > took a long time explaining what the Satipatthana Sutta said about the > hindrances and to be honest in practical terms that is the way it works. …. S: I read the Satipatthana Sutta --and all suttas for that matter—- as being concerned with the development of understanding and awareness of dhammas (realities) as anatta. If there’s a ‘trying to do’ or ‘trying to pull up’, it can so easily reflect an idea of a someone to do this and a wish to do so, rather than awareness of the very dhamma appearing as we speak. Right effort always accompanies right understanding regardless. Like chanda, viriya (effort) is a pakinnaka (particular) cetasika which also accompanies akusala (unwholesome) cittas. Just because we are concerned about practice, the eightfold path and nibbana, most certainly doesn’t mean the effort is ‘right’ at such times. …. > The ideas you present seem to have a very pessimistic tone to them. Is > this what the Buddha actually taught? …. S: Of course any ideas of mine have no value whatsoever unless they are in conformity with the Buddha’s teachings. I would say these teachings are not pessimistic or optimistic, but rather realistic. He described all dhammas just as they are. …. >> The idea that the only way to see anything is by having wisdom arise by > itself. But this isn't necessarily so, it does take effort and strong > mindfulness. What you are describing is a let it be attitude and hope > that wisdom takes over, just seems to go far away from the Buddha's > teachings (in reality). …. SN1:10 Forest (Bodhi transl) [The Blessed One] “They do not sorrow over the past, Nor do they hanker over the future, They maintain themselves with what is present: Hence their complexion is so serene. “Through hankering for the future, Through sorrowing over the past, Fools dry up and wither away Like a green reed cut down.” S: Of course I’m not suggesting that I have a serene complexion, but I do find the reminders about detachment and any direct understanding of dhammas to be very sobering indeed in this regard. “For the past has been left behind And the future has not been reached. Instead with insight let him see Each presently arisen state” (MN131 .. S: It doesn’t mean that we can’t smile or show good humour as you advocate. On the contrary, I think that with the development of awareness, there will be less worry, anxiety about the self, past, future and so on and more naturally arising smiles. (Actually, as Ken O knows, I’m a bit of a smiling advocate myself;-). …. > Your whole idea about chanda is not correct according to my teacher > Sayadaw U Silananda who by the way is a bhikkhu of 60 years standing in > the sangha and is a famous abhidhamma scholar. So I'll take his > definitions, if you don't mind. I lived with him as his attendant for 2 > years, and was told over and over that chanda is a wholesome desire, > period. The saying that chanda can be unwholesome isn't correct > according > to him. …. S: I have great respect for Sayadaw u Silananda and I’m sure you are blessed to have spent so much time with him. Perhaps what he meant was that ‘wholesome desire is chanda’? Certainly this particular kind of chanda is necessary for dana, sila and bhavana of any kind and it is a ‘forerunner’ for the arising of the eightfold path.Indeed it is one of the four adhipatis (predominant factors) along with viriya (energy), citta and vimamsa or panna (investigation). Having said that, I like to refer to U Silananda’s helpful charts from time to time which I have with some of his notes in a booklet which RobM kindly gave us. They are also included in B.Bodhi’s CMA* which so many of us refer to here. In these charts, we clearly see that chanda is one of those cetasikas which arises with cittas of different jatis – i.e it can be kusala, akusala, vipaka or kiriya. Htoo wrote a post on these details recently: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/38512 It may be a little technical for some tastes, but let me quote from his post here and add a few comments: H:Among 6 pakinnaka cetasikas, we left one more cetasika in this group of flexible ministers of the king citta. It is chanda cetasika. When we were discussing on cetasika, we have talked on chanda in comparison with lobha cetasika. Now to have a more clearer view, let us have a look at chanda cetasika and where it can arise. …. S: Pakinnaka cetasikas refer to the mental factors which can arise with akusala (unwholesome) as well as sobhana (beautiful)cittas and cetasikas. B.Bodhi refers to these mental factors like chanda as ‘ethically variable’. He writes in CMA: “The characteristic of chanda is desire to act, its function is searching for an object, its manifestation is need for an object, and that same object is its proximate cause. It should be regarded as the stretching forth of the mind’s hand towards the object.” So chanda arises with lobha, with dosa too, as well as with dana, sila and bhavana. …. H:Chanda cetasika or wish or will is not a universal cetasika. So it does not arise with each and every citta. There are 89 cittas in total. There are 2 moha mula cittas called vicikiccha citta and uddhacca citta. Chanda cetasika does not arise in both of these two moha mula cittas. There is no way to arise 'wish' to spread out mind wandering here and there. By the same token, when in doubt there is no chanda or wish at all. …. S: So apart from cittas rooted in ignorance and accompanied by doubt and restlessness, it arises with all other unwholesome cittas. What is the use of all these details, charts and endless classifications which Htoo gives so willingly? The value is only in seeing more clearly how all these different dhammas are conditioned and anatta. It is so easy for us ignorant worldlings to take viriya or chanda for 'me' that has to make an effort, show zeal and that whilst doing so, it's good or pure or to be encouraged. In reality, there are many passing dhammas - kusala, akusala, vipaka and then all the rupas as well. 'Mere elements....' …. > There seems to be a lot of worry and fear involved on this group about > with whether something is brought up or not ….. S: You’d have to give me an example. I seem to have missed all that ‘worry and fear’. … >and the use of the word > pan~n~a seems to the catch-all phrase that still changes depending on > the > situation. Too much theory without direct practice is the cause of this. …. S: Can we measure ‘direct practice’ so easily. When Sayadaw U Silananda painstakingly writes his charts, can there be no ‘direct practice’? How did the Buddha define ‘direct practice’? …. > I've never run across so many people who think that it will take > countless lifetimes to experience the Dhamma that the Buddha teaches. > This shows the sad state of the Buddha Dhamma these days. …. S: Certainly I’ve never said or suggested this. I checked with Jon when we read your message and he said he hadn’t either.It doesn’t ring a bell here. There’s a BIG difference between saying that the Buddha, his disciples or we must have been wandering in samsara for countless lifetimes or that it’s taken countless lifetimes for any wisdom to develop and in saying it will take countless more lifetimes. Who knows? We have no idea and I never think or speculate about it. Conditions are quite unknown and any expectations either way are quite useless as I see it. ….. >It is > time to go back to the basics as taught in the suttas and vinaya and > actually practice in the way that the Buddha prescribed, rather than get > caught in intellectual webs of theorizing. As the Buddha told Venerable > Ananda in sutta #106, section 15: "What should be done for his disciples > out of compassion by a teacher who seeks their welfare and has > compassion > for them, that I have done for you, Ananda. There are these roots of > trees, these empty huts. Meditate, Ananda, do not delay, or else you > will > regret it later. This is our instruction to you." …. S: And how do you understand the word ‘meditate’ here, Bhante? Should we also look to the Dhamma as our refuge, as the island as advocated in his final words? Thank you again for your reflections. Metta, Sarah *CMA is B.Bodhi’s translation of the text (also with Pali) with notes adapted from the commentary to the Abhidammattha Sangaha. You mentioned you don’t have access to many texts where you are. May Jon and I offer to purchase you a copy from Pariyatti and have it sent to you directly? If so, pls let us have your details for mailing off-list.You may like to have this easy reference to U Silananda’s charts. ============================================================ 39554 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 1:32am Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 68- Perception/Sa~n~naa (o) Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== [Ch.3 Perception(sa~n~naa)contd] ***** Sańńĺ does not only arise with kĺmĺvacara cittas ( cittas of the sensesphere),it arises also with cittas of other planes of consciousness. When one develops samatha sańńĺ recognizes and ‘marks’ the meditation subject of samatha. When calm is more developed, one may acquire a ‘mental image’ (nimitta) (1) of the meditation subject. The sańńĺ which remembers a ‘mental image’ of a meditation subject is different from the sańńĺ which arises all the time in daily life and perceives sense-objects. When one attains jhĺna, sańńĺ accompanies the jhĺnacitta and then sańńĺ is not of the sensuous plane of consciousness. When sańńĺ accompanies rúpĺvacara citta (rúpa-jhĺnacitta) sańńĺ is also rúpĺvacara and when sańńĺ accompanies arúpĺvacara citta (arúpa-jhĺnacitta) sańńĺ is also arúpĺvacara. The sańńĺ which is arúpĺvacara is more refined than the sańńĺ which is rúpĺvacara. The fourth stage of arúpa-jhĺna is the ‘Sphere of neither perception nor non-perception’ (n’eva-sańńĺ-n’ĺsańńĺyatana)(2). The sańńĺ which accompanies the arúpĺvacara citta of the fourth stage of jhĺna is extremely subtle. We read in the Visuddhimagga(X, 50): -'…the perception here is neither perception, since it is incapable of -performing the decisive function of perception, nor yet non-perception, -since it is present in a subtle state as a residual formation, thus it is ‘neither perception nor non-perception…’(3) *** 1) Abhidhamma in Daily Life Chapter 21. 2) Abhidhamma in Daily Life Chapter 22 3) Abhidhamma in Daily Life Chapter 22 ***** [Ch.3 Perception(sa~n~naa)to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 39555 From: antony272b2 Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 1:43am Subject: [dsg] Guarding the sense doors (was: Re: kusala and akusala) Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "plnao" wrote: > I'm very interested in deepening my understanding of guarding the sense > doors. So am I! Thanks for your response! > I think of > the monk who "stops at seeing" , the one who saw the beautiful > woman as "teeth walking by" instead of proliferating about her. The monk > didn't avert his eyes in that case. He > saw the woman. But it stopped there. Mental proliferation didn't take over. > He didn't see a woman! He only saw teeth! He said afterwards that he didn't know if it was a man or a woman. > > Very interesting and important topic, for sure. Look forward to discussing > it more with you. Me too. > > Metta, > Phil May you be well and happy, Antony. 39556 From: sarahprocterabbott Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 1:53am Subject: Re: objects of satipatthana Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Rob, > > In Soma Thera's "Way of Mindfulness" see pages 32 and 33, commentary on > "kaayaanupassi". This will be in dsg archives under "way 21" and "way > 22", I think. However, escribe is off-line right now. If you can locate > the time frame these were posted Nina had some comments as well. .... S: Forget escribe -they lost all our archives in a computer blow-out I think. I just went to www.dhammastudygroup.org In the first search space (atomz- the better I've found), I keyed in 'soma, way 21, contemplating' and was shown the 1600s as the first item. With the usual ctrl + F, I keyed in 'contemplating' (a more unusual word in the passage would have been better) and it took me to message 16710, your first Way 21 extract. If you continue with 'next', 'next', it'll take you to Nina's, Kom's and others, but I have to dash out now, o'wise I'd give more post nos.. RobM has found it easier to download all these archive files onto his hard disk and use with google desk search, but I don't get the good results he does that way. Hope you can find the relevant passages to quote. Here's one I like: "There can be nothing apart from the qualities of primary and derived materiality, in a body" i.e just rupas! Metta, Sarah p.s enjoyed your posts of late - good to see you picking up different threads. =================== 39557 From: antony272b2 Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 2:05am Subject: [dsg] Guarding the sense doors (was: Re: kusala and akusala) Hi Phil, I wasn't quite correct. For the story go to the following link and search for "teeth": http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Library/Mahasi/Dependent/Feeling/feeling. html > > I think of > > the monk who "stops at seeing" , the one who saw the beautiful > > woman as "teeth walking by" instead of proliferating about her. The > monk > > didn't avert his eyes in that case. He > > saw the woman. But it stopped there. Mental proliferation didn't > take over. > > > > He didn't see a woman! He only saw teeth! He said afterwards that he > didn't know if it was a man or a woman. > May you be well and happy, Antony. 39558 From: Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 10:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Guarding the sense doors (was: Re: kusala and akusala) Hi, Antony - In a message dated 12/7/04 11:29:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, antony272b@h... writes: > Dear Howard, > > Please allow me to enter this thread. > > I disagree. I think that voluntary censorship of the sense doors is very > important to maintaining one’s equanimity especially I think this would be > with practising the samatha jhanas. Vipassana may be another matter. My > Satipatthana Vipassana teacher once said that lust would still come up again > > after practising guarding the sense doors which he said was “another > practiceâ€?. > > I found this sutta quote which seems to apply to guarding the sense doors: > (the terms in brackets are from Bhikkhus’ Bodhi and Nanamoli translation) > > “It was said, “Sariputta, forms cognizable by eye consciousness are also > twofold those that should be followed (cultivated) and not followedâ€? On > account of what was it said by the Blessed One? Venerable sir, when > following certain forms cognizable by eye consciousness, demerit > (unwholesome states) increases and merit (wholesome states) decreases, such > forms should not be followed when following certain forms cognizable by eye > consciousness, demerit decreases and merit increases, such forms should be > followed. It was said, “Sariputta, forms cognizable by eye consciousness too > > are twofold, those that should be followed and not followed.â€? It was said on > > account of this.â€? > (similarly for the other senses) > http://www.mahindarama.com/e-tipitaka/Majjhima%20Nikaya/mn-114.htm > --------------------------------------------- Howard: Antony, I'm not so sure we are in disagreement on this. The question is what it means "to follow" and "to not follow". These are reactive matters. A form cognizable by eye consciousness first arises. This is not something we created. It just arises. If it is enticing to us, there is a tendency to apply one's attention in that direction and look for more. But by "guarding the eyesense" such following, such prusuit will not be engaged in, and we will turn our attention elsewhere. It is a matter of follow-up, of reaction. We cut off craving that has not yet arisen by attending and not pusuing. We abandon craving already arisen by turning away, thereby not providing further nutriment. And so on. The "battle" however, is not to be waged minly in the style of the three monkeys with hands over ears, eyes, and mouths. What arises, arises. What happens mentally in reaction is what critical. Of course, if we are at a place where only enticing events occur, and if our determination is kusala, we will take ourselves elsewhere. If we know about such a place, we will avoid it to begin with. I certainly don't claim otherwise. The adage "Out of sight, out of mind" does have some truth to it, though not complete truth. --------------------------------------------- > > In Majjhima 91 it says: “(Buddha) does not walk looking aboutâ€? > -------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. Now what does that mean? Does that mean the Buddha walks with eyes shut? Or that he pays no attention to visual input? Or that by his developed powers he controls the flow of world events? I think not. It means that he is *very* attentive, at each moment, to what arises (visually in this example), in order to avoid reactiveness and to take useful action. Most particularly, to not walk looking about means to not be seeking what is titilating, exciting, or enticing, to be finely attentive to the arising of any such input, to avoid akusala mental reaction, and to avoid pursuit of further input of that sort by appropriate action. ------------------------------------------ > In “In This Very Lifeâ€? by Sayadaw U Pandita (which is almost all available > > online) p215: > > “The ex-bhikkhu (new deva) was afraid even to set foot inside the gate of > his mansion. He knew his strength of mind would not last against these > pleasures, far more intense than those of our human world.â€? > > Mahasi Sayadaw taught: > > (1) Where visible objects remain unseen, there //kilesa// ceases > by itself. > > (2) Where visible objects are seen there //kilesa// lies in wait. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: But this should not be misinterpreted. One extreme reading would suggest that one should then poke out one's eyes! The remedy lies with mental excision, not physical. I am reminded of a film I own on tape entitled Circle of Iron. It is a martial arts parable for the spiritual quest, starring David Carradine. (Well worth seeing if one can find a copy.) At one point in the story, "the seeker" comes across a man in the desert who spends all his time standing waste deep in a large barrel of heated oil. He does this in an effort to destroy his sex organs, in order to free himself of that area of desire. Be assured that the implication was that his efforts were poorly directed! ;-)) --------------------------------------------- > > And he quoted the Buddha: > > "How do you answer this, Malukyaputta? Answer me as best you can. > There are certain tangible objects which you have never touched > previously, either in the immediate or remote past, or at the > present moment. Neither can you hope to touch them in the future. > Can such objects arouse desire, lust and affection in you?" > > Malukyaputta replied this in the negative. This is as it should > be. Here it may again be emphasised that no //kilesa// can arise > for sense-objects with which one is not familiar.â€? > http://www.buddhanet.net/filelib/medbud/mahasimk.zip > ===== > I no longer believe that Satipatthana Vipassana is “choiceless awarenessâ€?. > I like Ajahn Brahmavamso’s humorous use of the simile for mindfulness of a > person who's guarding a door or guarding a gate. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eightfold-l/message/3013 > > I am motivated to research this topic if people are interested. > Maybe one day I’ll get an entry in the “Useful Postsâ€? > > May you be well and happy, > > Antony. > > ======================= 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) 39559 From: Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 10:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: kusala and akusala. Hi, James - In a message dated 12/7/04 11:42:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > If that is what the Buddha meant that is what he would have said. > He said guarding the senses, plural. Guarding means deciding what > will enter and what won't. I am not convinced by your argument. > ====================== Okay. Please see my reply to Antony's post. My position is not the diametrical opposite of yours, though it is not exactly the same either. 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) 39560 From: Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 10:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Guarding the sense doors (was: Re: kusala and akusala) Hi, Phil - The position you express in the following is exactly mine. You express it well and exemplify it by a very well chosen quote. In a message dated 12/8/04 12:12:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, plnao@j... writes: > I believe I have benefited in some areas from experimenting with a strict > "one plough's length" approach to the sense > doors. I could babble at length about how, but I'll spare you for now. > > On the other hand, the other day I found this sutta passage, and came to > a similar conclusion to Howard, > that "guarding the sense doors" does not always mean averting the eyes, for > example, but can have to do more with what > follows through the mind. > -------------------------------------- Howard: I agree. Of course, sometimes it also does involve averting the eyes. It all depends on the state of one's mind as to how one needs to respond. When the mind is extremely vulnerable, the eyes need to turn away. The battle is still a mental one, however, for the eyes don't avert on their own - the mind does the directing. --------------------------------------- > > Here is that passage from, AN IV 37: > > "And how does a monk guard the doors to his sense faculties? There is > the case where a monk, on seeing a form > with the eye, does not grasp at any theme or variations by which- if he were > to dwell without restraint over the > faculty of the eye -- evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress > might assail him. He practices with restrain. He guards > the faculty of the eye. He achieves restrain with regard to the faculty of > the eye." (end quote) > > This "grasp at any theme or variations by which...evil unskillful > qualities...might assail him" would seem to indicate mental > processes that following the initial seeing, wouldn't you agree? I think of > the monk who "stops at seeing" , the one who saw the beautiful > woman as "teeth walking by" instead of proliferating about her. The monk > didn't avert his eyes in that case. He > saw the woman. But it stopped there. Mental proliferation didn't take over. > > So I would guess "guarding the sense doors" can refer both to literally > averting the eyes and to right attention that prevents > unwholesome proliferation based on what is seen. Again, I suspect that those > of us with very gross defilements can benefit > more from a "one plough's length" approach, but as insight deepens, we can > look, and see and come closer to stopping right there. > ------------------------------------- Howard: Well said! ------------------------------------ > > Very interesting and important topic, for sure. Look forward to discussing > it more with you. > > Metta, > Phil > ======================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 39561 From: Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 10:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Guarding the sense doors (was: Re: kusala and akusala) Hi, Antony (and Phil) - In a message dated 12/8/04 4:46:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, antony272b@h... writes: > > I think of > >the monk who "stops at seeing" , the one who saw the beautiful > >woman as "teeth walking by" instead of proliferating about her. The > monk > >didn't avert his eyes in that case. He > >saw the woman. But it stopped there. Mental proliferation didn't > take over. > > > > He didn't see a woman! He only saw teeth! He said afterwards that he > didn't know if it was a man or a woman. > > ======================= Exactly. Due to cultivating the mind and carefully monitoring its functioning in the processing of input, including eye-door input, certain conceptual processing was avoided. He did *see* a woman, but he didn't "see" a woman - he didn't cognize one. The work was mental, not visual. (Of course, a monk further along in practice, wouldn't even need to engage in that sort of mental censorship, but could "see" a woman without craving resulting.) 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) 39562 From: plnao Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 3:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Guarding the sense doors (was: Re: kusala and akusala) Hi Antony, and Howard and James, and all... That link didn't work, unfortunately, Antony. Antony > He didn't see a woman! He only saw teeth! He said afterwards that he > didn't know if it was a man or a woman. But then you say this wasn't quite right? Could you clarify please? I think someone asked him if he had seen a woman in bangles and whatnot walk by, and he said he saw a set of teeth. I think since we are not monks we should fully expect to see the whole person, and - in my case- proliferate at times, either on how lovely or unlovely the person is, especially the former. I have deeply dug tracks in my mind that my thoughts fall into easily, as we all do. Wise attention will guide the thoughts into fresher, kusala tracks? The habitual tracks will ever so gradually lose their power to pull thoughts along? Of course, it's not about tracks, it's about natural decisive support condition, accumulations. I should stop thinking about tracks. I don't want to avert my eyes. I do so now, when passing a woman in the street, but that's courtesy because as a causcasian in Japan I've come to know how it feels to be glanced at in an overly curious way -it doesn't feel good. So I've stopped glancing at other people, out of courtesy. On another occasion, about a year and a half ago, I remember sitting at a window seat at Starbucks on a warm sunny day. The lasses were out in their spring skirts and Phil was feeling frisky. I made a very deliberate effort to *not* glance up from my books as the gals walked by (so if I didn't glance up how did I know they were walking by?) and it was *very* difficult. Unbelievably difficult. So many years of habitual behaviour to be deprogrammed. Now there's not much problem, but we'll see how it is next spring. Last week I had an interesting experience. I was walking towards the station, and as I thought (proliferated) about plans to show a visiting friend around Tokyo, I realized that I was looking at a woman. My mind was busy on something else, but the woman was already in a kind of cognition next-in-line place. Difficult to explain. My eye had locked on her, but my mind was busy on other things. It was an interesting moment. I thought how the seeing the woman, just seeing her, was not harmful, and wouldn't be until my mind started proliferating. So this would be a kind of confirmation - for me at least- that it is at the mind door that the more important guarding takes place or doesn't take place, presumably in a way that is beyond a worldling's will power. But I'm just beginning to think about this. Metta, Phil 39563 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 3:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread ( 157 ), pure citta Dear Nina, Thanks for your kind words. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Htoo, > op 07-12-2004 10:42 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > > > In this dhamma molecule, one atom is 'citta' which is pure, luminous, > > sinless. > N: I appreciate this reminder more and more. Also Rob M differentiated citta > and citta with cetasikas. At first I did not understand it so well, but I > recently listened to a discussion in India. A. Sujin said that citta is just > the faculty of knowing (manindriya), that it is pure, pandara. We can > understand this in considering seeing that cognizes visible object. There > are not yet akusala cetasikas or sobhana cetasikas. The latter cause citta > to be akusala citta or kusala citta at the moments of javana. We were > talking about it whether we can realize now lobha and she said: there is all > the time the idea of my lobha. This shows that it is difficult to directly > know akusala cetasikas and sobhana cetasikas, but understanding can begin. > But first I think it important to know more clearly the faculty of knowing > and rupa which does not know anything. > I find citta which is pure such a good reminder now. > Nina. 39564 From: plnao Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 4:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] I tried it and liked it! (was Re: Bhante and Smiling ) Hello again Bhante Vimalaramsi Phil > To use a very crude example, think of turning the stove up every time you > feel cold, and thereby feeling comfortable - and then what would the result > be if you ran out of heating oil for the stove? The suffering from the cold > would be much worse than if you had sat patiently with it. So for a moment, > yes, no more suffering, but in the long run more suffering when we seek > comfort moment by moment. Perhaps? I'd like to be able to say that the "you" here is the impersonal 3rd person ( i.e "one") but on re-reading it doesn't look that way. Am I really impudent enough to tell a venerable monk about how he would feel with respect to cold!?! I'm sorry if the tone of the whole post sounded disrespectful, Bhante. You've been very patient with me. Metta, Phil 39565 From: Ken O Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 5:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi RobM Hmm I thought all along I was talking in terms of the ultimate realty. We have finished the existence part :) so now the other aspect of ultimate reality Extract this from zolag.co.uk, under Survey of Paramattha Dhammas <> Concept exist only as a mental construct or as a abstract but concept of being can be change according to planes. But aggregates are the same regardless which plane you are in. Give you another sutta quote DN Sutta 9, Potthapada Sutta <<39. Potthapada, there are three kinds of "acquired self" (220): the gross self acquired self, the mind-made acquired self, the formless acquired self. What is gross acquired self? It has form, is composed of the four great elements. nourished by material food. What is mind-made self? It has form, complete with all its parts, not defective in any sense organ. What is the formless acquire self? It is without form, and made up of perception?>> (220) - Atta-patilaabha. This is of course oly an 'assumed' or 'presumed' self: 'the fleeting union of qualities that make up, for a time only, an unstable individuality (RD). The word is glossed by DA as attabhaava-patilaabha 'adoption (or assumption) of selfhood'. The three kinds of 'acquired self' correspond to the three realms of Sense Disire, of Form and of No-Form. Cf. DN 33.1.11 (38) and AN 4.172 Wordlings does not directly known as in Mualpariyaya Sutta is to me, means he does not see there is no self in the D.O. He attaches to world, self (which are all concepts) but attachment is reality. What I mean by directly known, means can be experience, for eg unpleasant can be directly experience, craving can be experience, can chair or table be experience. By the way, are you saying that D.O is not about realities and are you saying aggregates is not about realities? Ken O 39566 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 6:02am Subject: Re: False Identification of Paramattha Dhammas and Realities (Re: [dsg] Conce... Hi Howard, Whilst Nina and Connie discuss the Eightfold Path factors under this heading with you, I'll briefly look at conditions here. --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Something additional has occurred to me. Among the things that I > pointed out as realities that are not paramattha dhammas are anatta, > paticcasamupada, and general conditionality and all the relations set > forth in the > Patthana. .... Anatta is a characteristic of all paramattha dhammas. D.O. and the Patthana are concerned with paramattha dhammas. As we're talking about the Patthana, the great Abhidhamma text, I think it's fair the give the abhidhamma perspective here;-): Quote from U Narada's introduction to the Patthana translation (PTS): "Just as the hotness of chilli is inherent in it and cannot exist apart from it and as the sweetness of sugar is inherent in it and cannot exist apart from it, so also, the conditioning forces inherent in the (conditioning) states cannot exist apart from those states. For example, in root condition, the force of greed, which is one of the six roots, cannot exist apart from that state. Here the root conditioning state is greed and the conditioning force of greed is also greed. Therefore, the force and the state which possesses that force cannot be considered apart from each other." ..... The conditioned dhammas are all paramattha dhammas. ... >Other less noble existents whose ontological status is weaker > are those > "things" knowable only by conceptualization, such as trees, tables, > chariots, and > persons. > Note that *all* the foregoing are conditioned mind-door objects. .... S: ....not conditioned. .... > And > none of them is a member of any khandha. This suggests to me that the > breakdown > of the content of experience into sense door & sense object pairs (or > sense > door & sense object & sense consciousness triples) is more far-reaching > than > the five-khandha breakdown. Included among the mind-door objects are all > the > realities that I have pointed out as not belonging to any of the five > khandhas, > and nibbana as well, the one non-khandhic paramattha dhamma. .... S: Concepts are mind door objects (dhammaaramma.na) but they are not khandhas. All realities or paramattha dhammas, apart from nibbana, are included in the khandhas. Nothing else exists. .... >Along these > lines, > note how the Buddha defined "the all" in the Sabba Sutta. He did *not* > use > the khandha breakdown there. .... S: He uses the ayatana breakdown. This is another way of classifying the same realities, though dhamma ayatana includes nibbana. .... >There the Buddha defines "the all" as > follows: > "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & > aromas, > tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, ... S: all included in rupa khandha too ... > *the mind & mental > phenomena. ... S: all included in the 5 khandhas apart from nibbana. Mental phenomena here refers to dhammaayatana which comprises subtle rupas, cetasikas and nibbana. (Note as we've discussed before in detail, that mental phenomena here do not include concepts - there may be a mistake in one of BB's notes to 'The All' in Salayatanasamyutta as I recall in this regard). More on Sabba Sutta in U.P. ... > This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this > All, I > will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the > grounds for > his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put > to > grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." .... S: Exactly - just the ayatanas or khandhas + nibbana included in this All. Metta, Sarah ===== 39567 From: jwromeijn Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 6:08am Subject: Re: Letter to B.Bodhi-'The Jhânas and the Lay Disciple ..' --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Warning: Technical and Pali-filled - you may wish to ignore this one! > ==================================== > > Dear Friends, > > As most people will recall, some time ago I posted an article by Bhikkhu > Bodhi: > "The Jhânas and the Lay Disciple According to the Pâli Suttas" Dear Sarah,(and all) I like this thread Sarah, because it touches one of the themes that occupy me: is doing insight-meditation enough or had I also to reach jhana concentration ? (Enough for what ? For getting enlightened; the term I prefer) Two questions: In the article of Bhikkhu Bodhi the 'right concentration' as one of the parts of the eightfold path is mentioned many times. The 'right mindfulness' (samma sati) not at all. And it is this 'right mindfulness' that plays a central role in the so called insight meditation (also called in Europe 'vipassana'), based on the Satapathana Sutta I don't understand why 'right mindfulness' is not mentioned; to me 'right concentration' is not more important (for getting enlightenend) than 'right mindfulness'? The second question: the article of BB is about lay-people. But we are talking about fundamental things; and social-spiritual roles like being a monk, a nun or a layman/laywoman doesn't play a role at that level ? Metta Joop PS the Pali-terms were no problem: I skip them when I don't recognize them, thinking: "Pali-words are just words, and words are symbols, and symbols are concepts." 39568 From: Ken O Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 6:22am Subject: Re: False Identification of Paramattha Dhammas and Realities (Re: [dsg] Concept ...) Hi Howard I think paramattha dhammas is always a problematic classification of dhammas :). Actually to me, it only mean to define two things, they are realities and these realities have the same characterisitcs no matter which planes we live in or how we live in. But conventional reality changes according to the planes we live in. According to the Abhidhamma stucture, the four great elements and its derived elements are in form aggregate the sanna cetasikas as in sanna aggregate the vedana cetasikas as in vedana aggregate the rest of the cetasikas are in the sankhara aggregate. (where the three unwholesome roots and three wholesome roots etc are classify) the citta as in the citta aggregated and only Nibbana is not in the aggregates You are right to say there is conventional reality, and they are different from aggregates, they are ultimate reality. These convention realities are mental constructs, only exists in imagination. 8NP are paramatha dhammas, I think connie has explained it. With regards to Right Thinking, it is application of the mind (a cetasika). The application arise with alobha and adosa. D.O are all in the aggregates, for example, feeling in the feeling aggregate, cravings and ignorance in the sankhara aggregates, formations are in the sankhara aggregatas as kamma etc. Ken O 39569 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 9:48am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 160 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, We have discussed dhammas at atomic level. That is discussion on individual dhamma. Dhammas are citta, cetasika, rupa, nibbana. Pannatti has also been discussed at atomic level. Now we are currently discussing dhammas at molecular level. With a few exceptions, there are hardly any atoms that exist as atoms. Example element is 'hydrogen'. This element is 'the lightest of all elements that ever exist'. Subatomic level is no more elementary. Hydrogen does not exist in atomic form. It exists as molecules. 2 atoms of hydrogen element combine and make a molecule of hydrogen. Elementary dhammas are citta, cetasika, rupa, and nibbana. Citta never exists on its own as a separate element. But citta arises with other elements called cetasikas. When 2 atoms of hydrogen combine with 1 atom of oxygen, this combination makes a molecule of water. When several atoms of cetasikas combine with 1 atom of citta, that combination makes a molecule of so called 'named citta'. There are 121 total 'named cittas'. We are discussing at molecular level of these 121 'named cittas'. So far 40 lokuttara cittas or 40 supramundane consciousness, 27 mahaggata cittas or 27 jhana cittas, 24 kama sobhana cittas or 24 sensuous beautiful consciousness altogether 40 + 27 + 24 = 91 sobhana cittas or 91 beautiful consciousness have been discussed. After discussion at molecular level of these cittas, 12 akusala cittas or unwholesome consciousness, and 3 ahetuka kiriya cittas or 3 rootless functional consciousness were discussed. These 12 + 3 = 15 cittas are asobhana cittas or non-beautiful consciousness. There are further 15 asobhana cittas or 15 non-beautiful consciousness. In the previous post, they have been listed. 7 pairs of cittas and 1 somanassa citta altogehter 15 vipaka cittas or 15 resultant consciousness. 5 pairs are called panca-vinnana cittas or 5-sense- consciousness. 2 pairs are sampaticchana cittas or receiving consciousness and santirana cittas or investigating consciousness. Each part of the pairs are resulted from akusala or kusala. Unpaired consciousness here is 'somanassa saha gatam ahetuka vipaka santirana citta'. Somanassa means 'mental joy'. Saha means 'with'. Gata means 'to go'. Saha gata means 'to go with'. So this citta arises with mental joy. Ahetuka means 'rootless'. Root here are dhamma which are 'alobha' 'adosa' 'amoha', 'lobha' 'dosa' 'moha' because they support other dhamma like roots of a tree, without which the tree will die out. Vipaka means 'resultant'. Santirana means 'investigating'. This dhamma molecule is made up of 1 atom of pure citta, and 11 atoms of cetasikas. These 11 cetasikas are 7 universal cetasikas ( phassa, vedana, cetana, sanna, ekaggata, jivitindriya, manasikara), and 4 of 6 pakinnaka cetasikas. These 4 are vitakka, vicara, adhimokkha, and piti cetasikas. Chanda does not arise in any of 18 ahetuka cittas. Viriya does not arise in this citta as it is not needed. This citta can arise after sampaticchana and just before votthappana citta or determining consciousness. Determining consciousness does need viriya. But santirana cittas whether with joy or with upekkha feeling do not need any viriya or effort in their arising. So chanda and viriya do not arise in 'somanassa santirana citta'. In this citta, there is no akusala cetasikas and no sobhana cetasika. This citta can do the job of investigating(santirana) and the job of retention (tadarammana ). It cannot do the job of patisandhi, bhavanga, and cuti, while 'upekkha santirana citta' can perform these 3 jobs along with investigation and retention altogether 5 functions. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 39570 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 10:05am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 161 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, There are 7 pairs of cittas left to discuss at molecular level. 2 pairs are 2 sampaticchana cittas and 2 santirana cittas. 1. upekkha saha gatam ahetuka akusala vipaka sampaticchana citta 2. upekkha saha gatam ahetuka kusala vipaka sampaticchana citta 3. upekkha saha gatam ahetuka akusala vipaka santirana citta 4. upekkha saha gatam ahetuka kusala vipaka santirana citta In all these 4 cittas, each citta is accompanied by 10 cetasikas only. They are 7 universal cetasikas, vitakka, vicara, and adhimokkha cetasikas. They do not need viriya, chanda, and piti. There is no cetasika of 14 akusala cetasikas and no cetasika of 25 sobhana cetasikas. So these 4 dhamma molecules are made up of 1 atom of pure citta and 10 atoms of cetasikas. Each dhamma in them just last a moment. There is no permanent dhamma. And there is no storehouse for these dhamma. We left 10 cittas. They are called pancavinnana cittas. They are 10 consciousness of 5-sense-consciousness. A) Akusala pancavinnana cittas 1. upekkha saha gatam ahetuka akusala vipaka cakkhuvinnana citta 2. upekkha saha gatam ahetuka akusala vipaka sotavinnana citta 3. upekkha saha gatam ahetuka akusala vipaka ghanavinnana citta 4. upekkha saha gatam ahetuka akusala vipaka jivhavinnana citta 5. dukkha saha gatam ahetuka akusala vipaka kayavinnana citta B) Kusala pancavinnana cittas 1. upekkha saha gatam ahetuka kusala vipaka cakkhuvinnana citta 2. upekkha saha gatam ahetuka kusala vipaka sotavinnana citta 3. upekkha saha gatam ahetuka kusala vipaka ghanavinnana citta 4. upekkha saha gatam ahetuka kusala vipaka jivhavinnana citta 5. sukha saha gatam ahetuka kusala vipaka kayavinnana citta All these 10 vinnana cittas are accompanied by only 7 cetasikas. They are 7 universal mental factors of phassa, vedana, cetana, sanna, ekaggata, jivitindriya, and manasikara. No other cetasikas arise in these 10 vinnana cittas. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 39571 From: Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 5:18am Subject: Re: False Identification of Paramattha Dhammas and Realities (Re: [dsg] Conce... Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 12/8/04 9:05:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Whilst Nina and Connie discuss the Eightfold Path factors under this > heading with you, I'll briefly look at conditions here. > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > Something additional has occurred to me. Among the things that I > >pointed out as realities that are not paramattha dhammas are anatta, > >paticcasamupada, and general conditionality and all the relations set > >forth in the > >Patthana. > .... > Anatta is a characteristic of all paramattha dhammas. --------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, it is. And it is a reality, is it not? But it is not, itself, a paramattha dhamma, is it? That is all I'm saying. It is a reality known through the mind door by wisdom, and it is *not* a paramattha dhamma. ------------------------------------- D.O. and the> > Patthana are concerned with paramattha dhammas. As we're talking about the > Patthana, the great Abhidhamma text, I think it's fair the give the > abhidhamma perspective here;-): > > Quote from U Narada's introduction to the Patthana translation (PTS): > > "Just as the hotness of chilli is inherent in it and cannot exist apart > from it and as the sweetness of sugar is inherent in it and cannot exist > apart from it, so also, the conditioning forces inherent in the > (conditioning) states cannot exist apart from those states. > > For example, in root condition, the force of greed, which is one of the > six roots, cannot exist apart from that state. > ---------------------------------- Howard: Certainly relations do not hold independently of what are related by them. The relations are also not identical with what they relate. The relations are not imagined. They are, thus, "realities". But they also are not paramattha dhammas. There is no khandha that the relation of contiguity, for example, belongs to. That relation is neither rupa nor vedana nor sankhara nor sa~n~na nor vi~n~nana. It is not to be found among the entire group of cetasikas. And it is not nibbana. Thus it is a reality that is not a paramattha dhamma. --------------------------------- > > Here the root conditioning state is greed and the conditioning force of > greed is also greed. Therefore, the force and the state which possesses > that force cannot be considered apart from each other." > ..... > The conditioned dhammas are all paramattha dhammas. > -------------------------------------- Howard: The issue is relations, not the related dhammas. The relations are neither rupas, citta, cetasikas, nor nibbana. They are, however, conditioned realities. They occur in dependence on what they relate, and they occur for cause, in dependence on conditions, not randomly, and not eternally. More problematical is the status of something like anatta/impersonality. It is either reality or concept, correct? If concept, then, as some here view concept, it is nothing at all. If reality, then where does it fit in? It does not occur on any list of cetasikas, it is not a rupa, it is not a citta, and it is not nibbana. That exhausts the Abhidhammic categories, does it not? Something's wrong here! ;-)) -------------------------------------- > ... > >Other less noble existents whose ontological status is weaker > >are those > >"things" knowable only by conceptualization, such as trees, tables, > >chariots, and > >persons. > > Note that *all* the foregoing are conditioned mind-door objects. > .... > S: ....not conditioned. > ------------------------------------- Howard: You wish to exclude the conventional dhammas, which, by the way, the Buddha in the suttas, often included when using the term 'dhamma', because you do not accord them *any* degree of reality. But that, in my opinion, is an extreme. There is a perfectly reasonable sense in which it true to say there *is* rebirth in various realms, there *are* beings reborn, and there *are* trees, tables, chariots, and persons. On the other hand, they are not *ultimate realities*, and illusion sets in when we grasp them as self-existent entities that are "just as real" as sights, sounds, tastes, smells, hardness, warmth, etc. Their existence is dependent on many factors that go beyond that of the paramattha dhammas. In addition to the dependence (shared with paramattha dhammas) on conditions of various sorts, they also depend on the paramattha dhammas underlying them and that are their basis, on the relations among those paramattha dhammas, and on the conceptual processing that that carves them out from the experiential flux. But, for that matter, illusion also sets in when we grasp paramattha dhammas as separate, self-existent realities. They exist, but only as fleeting flashings, fully dependent on the confluence of other such empty, evanescent conditions. ---------------------------------------------- > .... > >And > >none of them is a member of any khandha. This suggests to me that the > >breakdown > >of the content of experience into sense door &sense object pairs (or > >sense > >door &sense object &sense consciousness triples) is more far-reaching > >than > >the five-khandha breakdown. Included among the mind-door objects are all > >the > >realities that I have pointed out as not belonging to any of the five > >khandhas, > >and nibbana as well, the one non-khandhic paramattha dhamma. > .... > S: Concepts are mind door objects (dhammaaramma.na) but they are not > khandhas. All realities or paramattha dhammas, apart from nibbana, are > included in the khandhas. Nothing else exists. -------------------------------------- Howard: Sarah, a repetition of a claim isn't proof of that claim. I gave specific examples of realities that are not paramattha dhammas that have not been addressed. (Not that anyone is obliged to do so.) Relations are realities, but they are not paramattha dhammas. Impersonality and impermanence are realities, and they are not paramattha dhammas. Thus, some of the most central and critical elements of the Dhamma are realities that are not paramattha dhammas. ------------------------------ > .... > >Along these > >lines, > >note how the Buddha defined "the all" in the Sabba Sutta. He did *not* > >use > >the khandha breakdown there. > .... > S: He uses the ayatana breakdown. This is another way of classifying the > same realities, though dhamma ayatana includes nibbana. > ------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, I know. That is my point exactly. The ayatana breakdown goes beyond the khandha breakdown. (Unless, of course one wants to categorize anatta, anicca, paticcasamupada, idappaccayata etc as merely concepts, and thus unreal.) ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- > .... > >There the Buddha defines "the all" as > >follows: > > "What is the All? Simply the eye &forms, ear &sounds, nose & > >aromas, > >tongue &flavors, body &tactile sensations, > ... > S: all included in rupa khandha too > -------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. So far, so good. ------------------------------------ > ... > >*the mind &mental > >phenomena. > ... > S: all included in the 5 khandhas apart from nibbana. Mental phenomena > here refers to dhammaayatana which comprises subtle rupas, cetasikas and > nibbana. (Note as we've discussed before in detail, that mental phenomena > here do not include concepts - there may be a mistake in one of BB's notes > to 'The All' in Salayatanasamyutta as I recall in this regard). More on > Sabba Sutta in U.P. ------------------------------------- Howard: No, here is where the schemes differ. As you point out, nibbana is excluded from the khandhas, but it is an ayatana. But that is not all. Also excluded from all the khandhas are such mind-door realities as impersonality, impermanence, and many, many relations, including all relations of conditionality. ------------------------------------ > ... > >This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this > >All, I > >will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the > >grounds for > >his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put > >to > >grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." > .... > S: Exactly - just the ayatanas or khandhas + nibbana included in this All. -------------------------------------- Howard: Even when nibbana is added on, the ayatanas go beyond, precisely in the area of mind-door realities such as anatta, anicca, and conditionality. Of course, if one wants to say that these are not realities, and that they are concept-only, then, at least for folks who accord no reality or existence to so called pa~n~natti, that puts one in the difficult position of saying that the core elements of the Dhamma are actually nothing at all. But that even goes beyond what Nagarjuna was willing to do! ---------------------------------------- > > Metta, > > Sarah > ===================== 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) 39572 From: connieparker Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 10:44am Subject: Re: False Identification of Paramattha Dhammas and Realities Dear Howard, > SPD: The factors of the eightfold Path are the following cetasikas:right > understanding (sammaa-di.t.thi, pa~n~naa cetasika), right thinking > (sammaa-sankappa, vitakka cetasika), right speech (sammaa-vaaca > cetasika),right action (sammaa-kammanta cetasika), right livelihood > (sammaa-aajiivacetasika), right effort (sammaa-vaayaama, viriya > cetasika), rightmindfulness (sammaa-sati, sati cetasika) and right > concentration(sammaa-samaadhi, ekaggataa cetasika). =========================== H: Thank you, Connie. Perhaps the path factors are - though I question that, as you will see below - but the path, itself, is certainly not. Nonetheless, the path is a reality - it is not imagined. The term 'reality' is not applied broadly enough - it should not be identified with the paramattha dhammas. C: Something like the way the self factors might be the khandas, but the self is not because the whole is more than the sum of it's parts as factors are multiplicands that get papancacated exponentially? A moment of the path can only be real when it happens. I haven't known it, so it is imagery to me. H: Now, a separate matter is that of whether the path factors really are all cetasikas. In several cases, one has to strain, squirm, and contort to see it that way. C: Being blind, I expect to have to go through all that to see anything Buddha pointed out - painting lessons in braille. No matter how many times I touch 'green' moss or envy or any other green piece experience, the dots just don't all connect for me. H: The path factors that I do not see as paramattha dhammas unless one takes them to mean something quite different from what they are called and different from how they are talked about in the suttas themselves, are the following: right thinking or intention or resolve (This is specifically defined by the Buddha as "Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill-will, on harmlessness), and hence, it consists of several things, and so is not a paramattha dhamma), right speech (speech is a conventional phenomenon), right action (conventional - the Buddha defines it as follows: "Abstaining from taking life, abstaining from stealing, abstaining from unchastity," which makes this also consist of several phenomena, and thus not a paramattha dhamma), right livelihood (livelihood is a conventional phenomenon, and the Buddha specifies which livelihoods are wrong), and right effort (the Buddha defines this as consisting of several conventional activities - four to be exact, and it is thus not a paramattha dhamma). C: Uh... right intention? Cetana is not a path factor. Big Path is when or 'the way' all 8 of the factors, which must be cetasikas according to the definitions of the 4 basic dhammas, arise with/in the citta... a compound reality that would resolve into those component phenomena. It is a moment of resolution that would forever resolve our state of being and understanding. peace, connie 39573 From: Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 5:43am Subject: Re: False Identification of Paramattha Dhammas and Realities (Re: [dsg] Conce... Hi, Ken - Thank you for this reply. While it does not address all the "problems" I have in this area, your reply is very warmly made, helpful and most kind. I thank you very much! With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/8/04 9:28:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Hi Howard > > I think paramattha dhammas is always a problematic classification of > dhammas :). Actually to me, it only mean to define two things, they > are realities and these realities have the same characterisitcs no > matter which planes we live in or how we live in. But conventional > reality changes according to the planes we live in. > > According to the Abhidhamma stucture, > the four great elements and its derived elements are in form > aggregate > the sanna cetasikas as in sanna aggregate > the vedana cetasikas as in vedana aggregate > the rest of the cetasikas are in the sankhara aggregate. (where the > three unwholesome roots and three wholesome roots etc are classify) > the citta as in the citta aggregated > and only Nibbana is not in the aggregates > > You are right to say there is conventional reality, and they are > different from aggregates, they are ultimate reality. These > convention realities are mental constructs, only exists in > imagination. 8NP are paramatha dhammas, I think connie has explained > it. With regards to Right Thinking, it is application of the mind (a > cetasika). The application arise with alobha and adosa. > > D.O are all in the aggregates, for example, feeling in the feeling > aggregate, cravings and ignorance in the sankhara aggregates, > formations are in the sankhara aggregatas as kamma etc. > > > Ken O > /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) 39574 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 10:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: renunciation Hi Mike, op 07-12-2004 21:29 schreef m. nease op mlnease@z...: > I've read the Sangitisutta; is the > commentary available on the internet? N: If so it would be on Tipitaka Net. I have trouble there to decode. http://www.tipitaka.org/tipitaka/booklistframe2.html. It is only in Pali, I like hard cover. Nina. 39575 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 10:46am Subject: Re: False Identification of Paramattha Dhammas and Realities (Re: [dsg] Conce... Hi Howard, op 07-12-2004 21:25 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: >>> The eightfold noble path >>> , a reality, cannot be a paramattha dhamma, can it >> N: They are cetasikas, sankhaarakkhandha. > ====================== > What is the "they" you are referring to, Nina? N:Very good point! The factors of the eightfold Path that have to be developed. There is no other eightfold Path than these cetasikas. The Path is not something abstract we think about, no, it is to be developed now. What? Right view and the rest. When we want to know what something really is we have to ask ourselves: is it citta, cetasika, rupa or nibbana? I just saw your post to Connie: but the right speech etc. are virati cetasikas. Right effort is sammavaayama; the four right efforts are aspects of that, but it is viriya cetasika. Right thinking, vitakka, yes it has those aspects that you mention. But as factor of the Path it assists right understanding and touches the nama or rupa which is the object, so that right view can see it as it is. They all assist right view, otherwise they are not factors of the eightfold Path. Take right concentration, right: wholesome, that can be of jhana. But in order to be concentration of the eightfold Path it has to accompany right view and its object is nama or rupa. I am not speaking now of the lokuttara magga. Nina. 39576 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 10:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Hi Larry, I like what you say: one could look directly and see that belief in self is not self. This is straight, not speculation. Also a wrong view of self is a conditioned dhamma, we had such views formerly, maybe for many aeons. The latent tendency of wrong view conditions its arising. Nina. op 08-12-2004 05:31 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Similarly, if there is a belief in self one could argue that that belief > is wrong on ontological grounds or one could look directly and see that > belief in self is not self. Ontological arguments are useful but they > aren't real. 39577 From: Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 5:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: False Identification of Paramattha Dhammas and Realities Hi, Connie - In a message dated 12/8/04 1:41:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, connieparker@i... writes: > H: Now, a separate matter is that of whether the path factors really are > all cetasikas. In several cases, one has to strain, squirm, and contort to > see it that way. > > C: Being blind, I expect to have to go through all that to see anything > Buddha pointed out - painting lessons in braille. No matter how many > times I touch 'green' moss or envy or any other green piece experience, > the dots just don't all connect for me. > > ==================== Well, of course, I used the word 'see' figuratively, meaning "understand". 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) 39578 From: Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 6:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: False Identification of Paramattha Dhammas and Realities Hi, Connie - In a message dated 12/8/04 1:41:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, connieparker@i... writes: > H: The path factors that I do not see as paramattha dhammas unless one > takes them to mean something quite different from what they are called and > different from how they are talked about in the suttas themselves, are the > following: right thinking or intention or resolve (This is specifically > defined by the Buddha as "Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from > ill-will, on harmlessness), and hence, it consists of several things, and > so is not a paramattha dhamma), right speech (speech is a conventional > phenomenon), right action (conventional - the Buddha defines it as > follows: "Abstaining from taking life, abstaining from stealing, > abstaining from unchastity," which makes this also consist of several > phenomena, and thus not a paramattha dhamma), right livelihood (livelihood > is a conventional phenomenon, and the Buddha specifies which livelihoods > are wrong), and right effort (the Buddha defines this as consisting of > several conventional activities - four to be exact, and it is thus not a > paramattha dhamma). > > C: Uh... right intention? Cetana is not a path factor. =================== The term samma-sankappo is often translated as "right intention". 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) 39579 From: Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 6:07am Subject: Re: False Identification of Paramattha Dhammas and Realities (Re: [dsg] Conce... Hi, Nina - I am short of time at the moment. I just want you to know that I appreciate this reply, and intend to give it appropriate study. I want to delve into this carefully. With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/8/04 1:51:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@x... writes: > > Hi Howard, > op 07-12-2004 21:25 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > >>>The eightfold noble path > >>>, a reality, cannot be a paramattha dhamma, can it > >>N: They are cetasikas, sankhaarakkhandha. > > >====================== > >What is the "they" you are referring to, Nina? > N:Very good point! The factors of the eightfold Path that have to be > developed. There is no other eightfold Path than these cetasikas. The Path > is not something abstract we think about, no, it is to be developed now. > What? Right view and the rest. > When we want to know what something really is we have to ask ourselves: is > it citta, cetasika, rupa or nibbana? > I just saw your post to Connie: but the right speech etc. are virati > cetasikas. Right effort is sammavaayama; the four right efforts are aspects > of that, but it is viriya cetasika. Right thinking, vitakka, yes it has > those aspects that you mention. But as factor of the Path it assists right > understanding and touches the nama or rupa which is the object, so that > right view can see it as it is. They all assist right view, otherwise they > are not factors of the eightfold Path. Take right concentration, right: > wholesome, that can be of jhana. But in order to be concentration of the > eightfold Path it has to accompany right view and its object is nama or > rupa. I am not speaking now of the lokuttara magga. > > Nina. > > /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) 39580 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 11:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Guarding the sense doors (was: Re: kusala and akusala) Hi Howard, op 08-12-2004 12:32 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > Due to cultivating the mind and carefully monitoring its > functioning in the processing of input, including eye-door input, certain > conceptual processing was avoided. He did *see* a woman, but he didn't "see" a > woman - > he didn't cognize one. The work was mental, not visual. (Of course, a monk > further along in practice, wouldn't even need to engage in that sort of mental > censorship, but could "see" a woman without craving resulting.) N: We should not forget that he was skilled at jhana and was just then and there becoming an arahat. The seeing saw visible object and there was no thinking with absorption in the nimitta. Nina. 39581 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 11:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Guarding the sense doors (was: Re: kusala and akusala) Hi Howard, op 08-12-2004 12:20 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > for the eyes don't avert on their own - the mind > does the directing. N: I agree with what you and Phil are saying. We do not have to look at all that the media offer us, what is the use? One step further: the citta is conditioned and can be seen as: not me. It is not my mind, but it is difficult for all of us to really understand this, not just understand this in theory. Listening to Dhamma, reading suttas, right friendship, all this made understanding grow and it is understanding that sees the danger of akusala. Let us never forget anatta, otherwise we cling all the time to: I should do this or that. Nina. 39582 From: Hugo Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 0:19pm Subject: Off-line for a while To All, I have really enjoyed the time here, but the list is just too active and I can't keep up. I am planning some vacation time which will of course lead me to be off-line for a while. I don't want to even think about how much e-mail I would have acumulated. Righ now I have more than 55 conversation, yes, conversations, not emails (that would be more than 200 emails I guess), that I haven't even started to read. Thanks to everybody for your replies, questions, feedback, etc. :-) So, read you later. May you be free from suffering. May you be happy. -- Hugo 39583 From: Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 8:19am Subject: Re: False Identification of Paramattha Dhammas and Realities (Re: [dsg] Conce... Hi, Nina - In a message dated 12/8/04 1:51:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@x... writes: > Hi Howard, > op 07-12-2004 21:25 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > >>>The eightfold noble path > >>>, a reality, cannot be a paramattha dhamma, can it > >>N: They are cetasikas, sankhaarakkhandha. > > >====================== > >What is the "they" you are referring to, Nina? > N:Very good point! The factors of the eightfold Path that have to be > developed. There is no other eightfold Path than these cetasikas. The Path > is not something abstract we think about, no, it is to be developed now. > What? Right view and the rest. > When we want to know what something really is we have to ask ourselves: is > it citta, cetasika, rupa or nibbana? > I just saw your post to Connie: but the right speech etc. are virati > cetasikas. Right effort is sammavaayama; the four right efforts are aspects > of that, but it is viriya cetasika. Right thinking, vitakka, yes it has > those aspects that you mention. But as factor of the Path it assists right > understanding and touches the nama or rupa which is the object, so that > right view can see it as it is. They all assist right view, otherwise they > are not factors of the eightfold Path. Take right concentration, right: > wholesome, that can be of jhana. But in order to be concentration of the > eightfold Path it has to accompany right view and its object is nama or > rupa. I am not speaking now of the lokuttara magga. > > Nina. > > ======================= I understand virati cetasikas to be events of abstaining from akusala actions, and these are not the ongoing, conventional versions, but the momentary acts of abstention, sort of cetanas-in-action. That makes sense to me. I see that as taking care of right action, right speech, and right livelihood. Right thinking is something I find more problematical, but I'll hold that in abeyance. This is pretty darn good, Nina! You have taken care of this issue as far as the path factors are concerned quite excellently! I thank you. As far as "the path" in its entirety, that's another matter, it seems to me, but I'll hold that in abeyance along with right thinking. (If you could come close to what you've done with the path factors on the other items I mentioned, including anatta, anicca, and idappaccayata and the various relations discussed in the Patthana, and you will have "converted" me on this issue! ;-) 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) 39584 From: Andrew Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 2:35pm Subject: Things the Tathagata has not declared Hi folks During my evening read of Dhamma last night, I came across SN II 12 (Bodhi p 680)- a conversation between Mahakassapa and Sariputta. Sariputta asks whether after death the Tathagata exists/does not exist/both exists & does not exist/neither exists nor not exists. Mahakassapa answers that the Tathagata did not declare these things "because this is unbeneficial, irrelevant to the fundamentals of the holy life, and does not lead to revulsion, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana." Is anyone aware of any reference where it is said that the Tathagata did not declare whether dhammas exist or not exist for the reasons listed by Mahakassapa? I know this concerns the good old ontology issue: when faced with those who believed "nothing exists", why didn't the Buddha tell them that issues of existence/nonexistence are "unbeneficial, irrelevant to the fundamentals of the holy life ..."? Best wishes Andrew 39585 From: plnao Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 3:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Off-line for a while Hi Hugo I've enjoyed reading your posts. You know, there's no need to try to read all the threads. I certainly can't, and don't. I guess that could mean redundancy in my questions or comments at times, but no big deal, I'm sure. In any case, you hope decide to come back soon. Metta, Phil 39586 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 3:24pm Subject: Re: Off-line for a while Friend Hugo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo wrote: > To All, > > I have really enjoyed the time here, but the list is just too active > and I can't keep up. I am planning some vacation time which will of > course lead me to be off-line for a while. > > May you be free from suffering. > May you be happy. > -- > Hugo Please, now is not the time to leave. Hang in there a bit longer. I know it is tough; it is tough for me also; but the rewards could be very great for you. Take a chance. :-) Metta, James 39587 From: Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 4:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Andrew: "Larry I think your point is too subtle and has gone over my head, sorry. When the Buddha said "feeling ... I too say that it exists" (see Rob K's post 39350), he was using an ontological argument. He took an ontological position that feeling, among other things, exists. In other suttas, he may have said "feeling is not-self". But if the true Dhamma says that feeling exists, surely insight (at least the full understanding of abandoning or 'pahanaparinna) must know this?" Hi Andrew, I agree if you agree that 'knowing' isn't mental proliferation. My only point was that insight isn't conceptual but ontological statements are. The Buddha made ontological statements and I think there are reasonable arguments based on those statements by later commentators, including us. But these statements and arguments aren't satipatthana. In order for insight to arise we have to look at what we are clinging to in actuality, not just in theory. If we are clinging to philosophy then maybe we should look at a particular instance of this clinging. Sati will do the rest. Larry 39588 From: antony272b2 Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 5:36pm Subject: [dsg] Guarding the sense doors (was: Re: kusala and akusala) Dear Phil, To clarify: "On looking at her the thera noticed her teeth. Since he had been contemplating the skeleton, the whole body of the woman appeared as a heap of bones. Here is an alternative link (search for teeth) http://www.buddhanet.net/filelib/therabud/mahasipt.zip May you be well and happy, antony. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "plnao" wrote: > > > Hi Antony, and Howard and James, and all... > > That link didn't work, unfortunately, Antony. > > Antony > He didn't see a woman! He only saw teeth! He said afterwards that > he > > didn't know if it was a man or a woman. > > But then you say this wasn't quite right? Could you clarify please? > May you be well and happy, antony. 39589 From: Antony Woods Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 5:56pm Subject: Re: Guarding the sense doors (was: Re: kusala and akusala) Dear Phil, Buddha taught about “The Noble Power” (commentary follows see link): Monks, it is good for a monk if, from time to time: He perceives the repulsive in the unrepulsive, If he perceives the repulsive in the repulsive, If he perceives the repulsive in both the unrepulsive and the repulsive, If he perceives the unrepulsive in both the repulsive and the unrepulsive, If he avoids both the repulsive and the unrepulsive (aspects), and dwells in equanimity, mindful and clear comprehending. http://www.geocities.com/ekchew.geo/rootsofgoodandevilC5.html What a wonderful skill to develop! It should help when I look in the mirror May you be well and happy, Antony. 39590 From: antony272b2 Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 6:59pm Subject: [dsg] Guarding the sense doors (was: Re: kusala and akusala) Dear Howard (and Phil), You wrote: > Howard: > Of course, sometimes it also does involve averting the eyes. > It all depends on the state of one's mind as to how one needs to respond. When > the mind is extremely vulnerable, the eyes need to turn away. The battle is > still a mental one, however, for the eyes don't avert on their own - the mind > does the directing. Prevention is better than cure. Instead of averting the eyes after seeing a beautiful lady etc one could adopt the "looking down a plough-yokes length" practice so that the problematic visual object is not seen in the first place (and so you don't trip over or step on innocent ants). May you be well and happy, Antony. 39591 From: plnao Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 7:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Guarding the sense doors (was: Re: kusala and akusala) Hi Antony, and all > Buddha taught about ŵhe Noble Powerˇ¦(commentary follows see link): > > Monks, it is good for a monk if, from time to time: > > He perceives the repulsive in the unrepulsive, > If he perceives the repulsive in the repulsive, > If he perceives the repulsive in both the unrepulsive and the repulsive, > If he perceives the unrepulsive in both the repulsive and the unrepulsive, > If he avoids both the repulsive and the unrepulsive (aspects), and > dwells in equanimity, mindful and clear comprehending. > http://www.geocities.com/ekchew.geo/rootsofgoodandevilC5.html Like many people who first come across this teaching, I had an adverse reaction to it at first. We don't want to think of people as repulsive, it's so degrading etc. (This is the same sort of thinking that makes many people in the west uncomfortable with the terms "defilements.") But I've become more comfortable with it and find it arising at times to help me out. I think this teaching can help us both with detachment from sensual pleasures and equanimity towards aging and death. I like the sutta that describes the Buddha's early years, in which he realizes "if I should be repelled by that which I am subject to, that would be unfitting" or words to that effect. > What a wonderful skill to develop! > It should help when I look in the mirror Join the club. This morning I had to take a photo for an ID card and went to one of the machines. The result was so ghastly and cadaverous looking I almost shelled out another $7, but then realized what vanity was involved. So now I have a portable cemetery contemplation photo for use wherever I am! Thanks for this and the other links. Metta, Phil 39592 From: Antony Woods Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 7:54pm Subject: Guarding the sense doors (was: Re: kusala and akusala) Dear Howard, You wrote (full passage attached): >The point was not to censor or control what sense data enter the various >sense doors… What do you mean by censor? I found these definitions: “to examine (as a publication or film) in order to suppress or delete any contents considered (morally, politically or otherwise) objectionable” http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=censor What we are discussing is self-censorship, which I would define as, regarding the mental action of turning towards the object (I don’t know if my meaning is the same as the Abhidhamma term?), reflecting after these mental actions (MN 61) and if they are unwholesome (harming one’s mind) “then you should feel distressed, ashamed, and disgusted with it” and exercise restraint in the future. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn061.html Also defined: “The hypothetical agent in the unconscious mind that is responsible for suppressing unconscious thoughts and wishes” http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=censor My Satipatthana Vipassana teacher wrote: The Removal of the Censor - An attitude of acceptance of all thoughts, feelings, emotions and sensations into awareness without discrimination or selection. http://www.buddhanet.net/filelib/medbud/artattn.zip So I am confused. I’ll post this now. Any help appreciated. May you be well and happy, Antony. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > I believe that what the Buddha called guarding the senses actually >came down to guarding only one sense, the mind. This, I believe is what >right effort is about. The point was not to censor or control what sense >data enter the various sense doors, but to monitor the mind with regard to >its qualitities and activities, so that akusala qualities and activities >not yet arisen are avoided, akusala ones already arisen are abandoned, >kusala ones not yet arisen are encouraged, and kusala ones already arisen >are sustained and increased. The critical occasions for doing this are when >content arises at any sense door. > >With metta, >Howard > 39593 From: Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 3:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Guarding the sense doors (was: Re: kusala and akusala) Hi, Antony - In a message dated 12/8/04 10:56:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, antony272b@h... writes: > Dear Howard, > > You wrote (full passage attached): > > >The point was not to censor or control what sense data enter the various > >sense doors… > > What do you mean by censor? > > I found these definitions: > > “to examine (as a publication or film) in order to suppress or delete any > contents considered (morally, politically or otherwise) objectionableâ€? > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=censor > > What we are discussing is self-censorship, which I would define as, > regarding the mental action of turning towards the object (I don’t know if > my meaning is the same as the Abhidhamma term?), reflecting after these > mental actions (MN 61) and if they are unwholesome (harming one’s mind) > “then you should feel distressed, ashamed, and disgusted with itâ€? and > exercise restraint in the future. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn061.html > > Also defined: > > “The hypothetical agent in the unconscious mind that is responsible for > suppressing unconscious thoughts and wishesâ€? > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=censor > > My Satipatthana Vipassana teacher wrote: > > The Removal of the Censor - An attitude of acceptance of all thoughts, > feelings, emotions and sensations into awareness without discrimination > or selection. > http://www.buddhanet.net/filelib/medbud/artattn.zip > > So I am confused. I’ll post this now. Any help appreciated. > > May you be well and happy, > > Antony. > ======================== I mean by 'censor' what you mean by censor. What I said was "The point was not to censor or control what sense data enter the various sense doors." That is correct. The main point is to censor our own mental reactions. On occasion, as I agreed, it is prudent to not put oneself in a position to witness certain phenomena that we are overly vulnerable to. But generally, whatever arises at the sense doors simply does so, with our intervention being either impossible or of little effect. In any case, a mere sense-door object such as visible object is neither wholesome nor unwholesome. It is sate of mind that is wholesome or not. It is our reactions too oooosense-door contact that count the most. And it is they that primarily require our monitoring and often our censoring. 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) 39594 From: plnao Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 10:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Guarding the sense doors (was: Re: kusala and akusala) Hello Again, Antony > http://www.geocities.com/ekchew.geo/rootsofgoodandevilC5.html What a wonderful book! Thank you so much. It will help me a lot. I recommend it to anyone who would like a straightforward, energizing refresher on the six roots. ("The Roots of Good and Evil" by Nyanaponika Thera.) Metta, Phil 39595 From: plnao Date: Wed Dec 8, 2004 11:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Guarding the sense doors (was: Re: kusala and akusala) Hello again, all Here's a link to the whole book. http://www.geocities.com/ekchew.geo/rootsofgoodandevilC.html Metta, Phil ----- Original Message ----- From: "plnao" To: Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 3:51 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Guarding the sense doors (was: Re: kusala and akusala) > > > Hello Again, Antony > > > http://www.geocities.com/ekchew.geo/rootsofgoodandevilC5.html > > > What a wonderful book! 39596 From: jwromeijn Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 1:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concept and Reality in Primary Texts Dear all A quote I already used in a discussion with Rob M some monts ago about 'ontology' A very important remark of Ven. Nyanaponika in his "Abhidhamma Studies": ".. in wat sense can the Abhidhamma be called a philosophy? Let us take a rough division of philosophy in phenomenology and ontology, and briefly define them als follows: Phenomenology deals, as the name implies, with 'phenomena', that is, with the world of internal and external experiences. Ontology, or metaphysiscs, inquires into the existence and nature of an essence, or ultimate principle, underlying the phenomenal world. … The Abhidhamma doubtlessly belongs to the first of these two divisions of philosophy, that is to phenomenology. Even that fundamental Abhidhamma term dhamma, which includes corporeal as well as mental 'things', may well be rendered by 'phenomena' …" (p. 19/20) It should be noted that Bhikkhu Bodhi in his introduction to the book of Ven. Nyanaponika (fourth edition) shows himself more a ontologist: "If however, we understand ontology in a wider sense as the philosophical discipline concerned with determining what realyy exists, with discriminating between the real and the apparent, then we could justly claim that the Abhidhamma is build upon an ontological vision." ( p. XVI). I prefer Nyanaponika's words Metta Joop 39597 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 4:03am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 162 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, We have discussed dhammas at atomic level, at elementary level. Dhammas are citta or consciousness, cetasika or mental factors which support consciousness, rupa or matters or materials which are the nature that never have consciousness, and nibbana, which is an absolute peace. Atomic level here means 'basic characteristic'. Pannatti has also been explained in old Dhamma Thread posts. Even though it is not an ultimate reality, it is also a dhamma that we can sense through our mind-sense-door. Atom does not exist singly with few exceptions. Examples are oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen. These are elements. There are no atoms unless they are reacted in some way. An atom of hydrogen links with another atom and makes a hydrogen molecule. So do in other cases like nitrogen gas molecule, oxygen gas molecule and many other elements. Dhamma atom does not exist singly with few exceptions. Like other molecules, dhamma molecules are made up of dhamma atoms. Examples are 10 dhamma molecules of pancavinnana cittas or 10 5-sense- consciousness. They are made up of one atom of dhamma called 'citta' or consciousness and 7 atoms of cetasikas or 7 mental factors. There are 121 total cittas. And we have discussed 121 dhamma molecules. We have already discussed on 28 paramattha rupas or 28 ultimate realities rupas. Molecules are the smallest working unit. 3 atoms of hydrogen and 1 atom of nitrogen makes a molecule of amonia when there are right conditions for arising of molecule like heat. NH3 is amonia. When this molecule is combined with carboxylic acid, new molecule becomes an amino acid. When amino acids are linked with a chemical bond called peptide, they become polypeptides. When there are many polypeptides, they become protein molecule. When protein molecules are structured in different kinds of folding like primary folding, secondary folding, tertiary folding, quarternary folding, each has different function of their own. Dhamma molecule 121 cittas may or may exist singly. Mostly they do not exist singly. Exception here is 4 vipaka namakkhandhas or resultant mental bodies of formless brahmas or arupa brahmas. Otherwise, all dhamma molecules are in one or other ways linked with other dhamma molecules in a complex way. Nama dhamma always have to depend on rupa dhamma with a few exception. Before going deep into these complex structures of dhamma, reviews on different classifications of cittas will help to understand dhammas. This is especially right for next step of Dhamma explanation on functions of different cittas. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 39598 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 4:14am Subject: Dhamma Thread ( 163 ) Dear Dhamma Friends, There are 121 total cittas. They are realities. At any given time, there is a citta internally. Internally means that there is a citta at any given time, the whole of which may be sensed by self within. This is called ajjhatta dhamma or dhamma that exists internally. There are limitless, countless, external dhammas outside of the viewers. These dhammas are called bahiddha dhammas. Whether internally or externally, at any given time there is at least a citta. This citta is one of 121 total cittas ( 121 dhamma molecules made up of 1 atom of pure citta and different combinations of different cetasikas or mental factors ). These 121 cittas can be classified into 5 different groups depending on what vedana cetasika they have. Actually vedana is an atom of dhamma and it is a cetasika. But it cannot arise alone. All 121 cittas have a vedana cetasika or feeling factor. Depending on the type of feeling, 121 cittas are classified into 5 different groups. They are 1. 62 somanassa cittas or consciousness with mental joy. 2. 1 sukha citta or citta with physical pleasure 3. 1 dukkha citta or citta with physical pain 4. 2 domanassa cittas or cittas with mental displeasure 5. 55 upekkha cittas or consciousness with indifferent feeling. ------ 121 cittas. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome and they will be valuable. If there is unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these posts. 39599 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Dec 9, 2004 5:34am Subject: [dsg] Guarding the sense doors (was: Re: kusala and akusala) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Antony - > I mean by 'censor' what you mean by censor. What I said was "The point > was not to censor or control what sense data enter the various sense doors." > That is correct. The main point is to censor our own mental reactions. Friend Howard and All, What we should always keep in mind is that the Buddha was an ascetic. As such, he did actively censor what his senses encountered and encouraged the same type of behavior for his sangha. There are some Vinaya precepts which apply to this: keeping the eyes lowered when in inhabited areas (eye door), not wearing colognes, perfumes, or garlands (nose door), not being selective in which foods to eat (tongue door), not sleeping on high and luxurious beds or wearing robes made of fine materials (body door), not listening to music or singing (ear door), and not participating in idle chatter (mind door). As laypeople, we probably break all of these precepts quite frequently; I know that I do. That is why the householder life is "dusty". However, even as householders we can take steps to try to limit the types of things our senses encounter. A good, recent example from this group is Phil and his issues with the war in Iraq. He found that watching and reading the news increased the defilements in his mind. He studied what the Buddha taught in regards to this, gave the matter a great deal of thought and effort, and finally decided to stop watching and reading the news. That was a very wise choice in my opinion. Some may think that he should continue to watch the news and train his mind not to react to what he sees, and eventually he probably will be able to do that, but why make things harder than they have to be? Sometimes the best choice is simply to limit what the senses encounter. I believe that this is part of what it means to `guard the senses'. However, it isn't the only part. Guarding the senses also means to be mindful of what enters the sense doors, determine if what is entering is increasing the defilements or contributing to a wholesome state of mind, and direct the mind to not attend to what increases the defilements and to attend to what increases wholesomeness. This is a completely internal process, in the mind, and doesn't require a manipulation of one's environment. So, in conclusion, I believe that guarding the senses is both an internal and an external process and that both aspects are needed, in different combinations at different times, to purify the mind. Metta, James