40600 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 11:01am Subject: Dhamma Thread (216) Dear Dhamma Friends, In panca-dvara vithi vara or 'the turn of 5-sense-door processing cittas' there arise a rupa which serves as ati-mahantarammana or as a clear object. Mahanta means 'great'. Ati means 'excessive'. When this very great or very clear object rupa arise, 3 bhavanga cittas or life- continuing consciousness have to pass away before any vithi citta can arise. So the rupa has only 14 moments of life to serve as the arammana or the object for vithi cittas. These 14 moments are taken up one after another by the following cittas one after another. 1.B/A[Atita bhavanga citta] 2.B/C[bhavanga Calana citta] 3.B/U[bhavanga Uppaccheda citta] Vithi cittas that arise one after another are 4.panca-dvara-avajjana citta [5-door-adverting consciousness] 5.panca-vinnana citta [5-sense-consciousness ] 6.sampaticchana citta [receiving consciousness] 7.santirana citta [investigating consciousness] 8.votthapana citta [determining consciousness] 9. 1st javana citta [mental impulsion consciousness] 10.2nd javana citta [ ,, ] 11.3rd javana citta [ ,, ] 12.4th javana citta [ ,, ] 13.5th javana citta [ ,, ] 14.6th javana citta [ ,, ] 15.7th javana citta [ ,, ] Here there left 2 moments for vithi cittas to arise. Javana cittas cannot arise more than 7 times in a vithi vara or in a consciousness process. So in those 2 places, pancadvaravajjana cannot take place. So do other vithi cittas like panca-vinnana cittas, sampaticchana, santirana, and votthapana cittas. But there are 11 vipaka cittas who can perform the function of vithi cittas. These vipaka cittas are called tadarammana cittas. Tada means 'the' 'then' 'after'. Arammana means 'object'. Tadarammana means 'the object that left after' or 'retained object'. In panca-dvara vithi vara a rupa serves an arammana or an object. That object is taken up by each and every vithi citta in the whole process of vithi vara. When other vithi cittas have tasted what the object is like, tadarammana cittas have to retain the object and they deeply feel or deeply taste or deeply recognize or deeply apperceive the object. Some translators translate this 'tadarammana citta' as 'registration consciousness'. This might well be right. Because tadarammana cittas do have sanna and they register the object. But as all other cittas also have sanna each also registers the object concern. Tada means 'after' 'the' 'then'. So, I personally think that tadarammana citta is more in favour of translation as 'retention consciousness' or 'retaining consciousness'. As there is no other vithi citta and bhavana cittas cannot still arise these 2 cittas have to maintain and retain the object for 2 moments. But as they both are vipaka citta, they do not bear any future kamma. They are just the resultant consciousness. That is why they deeply feel, taste, realize, apperveice deeply. 16.1st tadarammana citta [retaining consciousness] 17.2nd tadarammana citta [ ,, ] At the end of this period both 2nd tadarammana citta and the object rupa pass away. This is ati-mahantarammana or very clear object and arising of vithi cittas at that ati-mahantarammana. If the object is rupa-arammana or visual object panca-vinnana citta is cakkhu-vinnana citta. If sadda-arammana or sound, sotavinnana citta, if gandha-arammana or smell, ghanavinnana citta, if rasa- arammana or taste, jivhavinnana citta, and if photthabba-arammana or touch-object, kayavinnana citta arises after panca-dvara-avajjana citta or 5-sense-door-adverting consciousness. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: 1.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. 40601 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 11:15am Subject: Re: Concepts and Questions Dear TG, Interesting questions. Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TG wrote: Hi All Few questions... #1 Did the Buddha ever say "concepts don't exist" or discuss thier ontological irrelevence in any manner? (He did say..."In whatever way it is conceived, the fact is ever other than that." This shows concepts miss the mark in describing "non-relative truths." But doesn't say concepts aren't real.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: But concepts are not ultimate realilty. There are many realities. Science progressively changes many realities. They define 'this' as 'that' and that becomes a reality. At another time 'that reality' is no more real and there has to arise another reality. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TG wrote: #2 Does anyone believe it is possible to attain enlightenment without using concepts as a "stepping stone" for that attainment? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: This is not a belief. But real. Before attainment or after attainment or at any time, concepts do not involve as an ultimate reality. Nibbana is attained not by concept but by reality. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TG wrote: #3 If so I'd be interested in how that's done? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: It is not strange that someone would be interested in how nibbana is attined 'without pannatti'. But in all attainments 'pannatti' does not involve as an ultimate reality. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TG wrote: #4 If not, I'd be interested in how "non-existent states" can lay a "real foundation" for attaining enlightenment? In other words, how does something that doesn't exist have causal impact? TG ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: This question is much much more interesting. Actually 'real foundation' is not pannatti but paramattha dhamma. With Metta, Htoo Naing 40602 From: htootintnaing Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 11:27am Subject: Re: Htoo- I'm seeing DTs in my dreams! Dear Sarah, Thanks for your support. As it is clear I think no reply is needed. I will try to meet Kel. With much respect, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Hi Htoo, > > You've written a whole series of excellent Dhamma Thread (DT) posts since > we last chatted. Sometimes I get behind, but I do follow and appreciate > them a lot as you know. > > I'm going to use short-hand for all these comments/qus which may only make > sense to you. > ..... > DT185 #40338 Tadarammana – yes, I follow your posts ..snip..and have a few to read later, but you know me – I'm always behind with > comments). > > Metta and anumodana. Please meet Kel, also from Burma and with keen > Abhidhamma knowledge. and interest to help us out here. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= 40603 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 11:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Doubt and Confidence Dear Joop, op 05-01-2005 14:25 schreef jwromeijn op jwromeijn@y...: > In fact my doubt is not about the Dhamma itself but about the > question if studying the details of the Abhidhamma is relevant to me > on this moment. N: We all have different accumulations, that is why we react differently. J: Especially the lack of doubt by you and some other > dsg-contribuants gives me the most problems. Stating the complex > details of Abhidhamma without ever explaining how you get this > information, without any emperical reference, does not give me > inspiration, is only scholastic. N: I have to think this over and discuss with Lodewijk. It is understandable that you get such an impression. It would be helpful if you could give one concrete example. I could then work on that. J: - You said: "Dhamma as meditation. Considering and beginning to be > aware of nama and rupa". > I had understood, and sometimes experienced, that this awareness (the > first nana, Analytical Knowledge of Body and Mind (nama-rupa- > pariccheda-ñana) is a result, a output of insight-meditation. But if > I understand you well you state it is a inpute, is that correct? N: I stress: beginning to be aware. That is, we learn about seeing and we verify this when seeing now. That is a beginning, but certainly not insight knowledge. We hear about hardness experienced through touch, but there is touching many times in a day. Sometimes there is just a moment that we begin to verify this. J: - You proposed (to Tep): "Recently I have been reflecting on > beginners and progress and how to see > this. If you are interested I may write about this. Perhaps a > seemingly lack of progress could make some friends here discouraged." > Maybe it is to me, if you understand that's not "lack of progress" > but "lack of inspiration" that is my problem. N: I keep your good points in mind. Meanwhile you could read suttas and draw inspiration from these. I just read in the Fire sutta that there is a different time for each state of mind or mood. Sati, as I wrote before, is said to be suitable for all occasions. Like the seasoning salt. Your remarks give me inspiration!!! The word sluggish is used, but that means without energy or enthusiasm. Then it is the wrong season to cultivate the limb of wisdom (bojjhanga or factor of enlightenment) that is tranquillity, concentration, equanimity. But the right time to cultivate investigation of dhamma, energy and enthusiasm. It seems, when you lack inspiration, that you have to study Abhidhamma. But it depends in what way. Not as a scholarly book study. I have an idea. Phil has on line the Roots of Good and Evil, we can give you the link. http://www.geocities.com/ekchew.geo/rootsofgoodandevilC.html You could begin and share what you read, little by little. It is about daily life. You can verify it. It has many excellent suttas. It is helpful for our sila and that means for our behaviour in society. The social aspect you like to stress! Like Lodewijk. Now, these last minutes I have been talking about Abhidhamma, but you may not have noticed it. Abhidhamma in disguise. I am very curious to know what you think of this book. Nina. Nina. 40604 From: Philip Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 0:11pm Subject: Re: Doubt and Confidence Hi Christine, and all > Strange, isn't it ... how enthusiam for the Dhamma wafts and > wanes ... ? I haven't read everyone's response, so sorry for any redundancy. I'm interested in this issue because I am also aware of the way interest rises and falls due to conditions. I have talked a few times on and off list about how I was frustrated by having an all consuming interest in Dhamma that made it impossible to concentrate on my other interests. I was able to see that this was beyond my control and instead of trying to supress it I should let it ride its course - and now it seems it has, and a maintainable balance has come about. Still keenly interested, but able to think about other things as well. But aware that the all-consuming interest could re-arise at any time. I can't control it. I would say that the insights and encouragements you've gained from the Buddha's teaching have *definitely* conditioned the re-arising of more of the same. Well, you know that already, I'm sure. So yes, patience. Someone has already mentionned this, I'm sure, but as we know the Buddha was assailed by Mara in various forms, from the horrific to the sensually enticing. I'm sure Mara also appeared as a doubt-inducing drag at times as well! I remember when you posted after returning from India about your discouragement I wondered if it might be related to your work. You work day in day out in close association with people who are suffering very deeply from specific and identifiable causes (if I'm not mistaken.) I wonder if this conditions frustration in you at times, because as we know Dhamma's deep benefits accrue in the space of lifetimes rather than in the short term, and it's in the short term that the people you see day in day out need relief from their suffering. Also, we know that according to the Buddha's teaching, people are suffering in this lifetime due to kamma. It seems terrible to say that someone was born to abusive parents due to kamma, but we know that this is the case. So again there is a conflict between conventional understanding of such issues, and Dhamma understanding, which might be doubt inducing. In any case, hang in there, Christine. As I said above, the Dhamma "on" periods will have conditioned more of the same. Patience is one of the Buddha perfections, as we know. Metta, Phil 40605 From: Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 7:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi Htoo Your answers show that I didn't make myself clear enough in my questioning. I am not talking about using concepts in the final stages of enlightenment. I am talking about going to school. Learning language. Being exposed to ideas. Searching for meaning. Finding the Buddha's teachings. Studying those teachings. Contemplating those teachings. I am talking about these things, these largely conceptual things, as being a foundation for what may eventually be an enlightenment that overcomes or transcends concepts. This is what I am asking about. If concepts are able to "move the mind" toward enlightenment, or anything for that matter, how so are they not real? I'll repeat the questions... Hi All Few questions... #1 Did the Buddha ever say "concepts don't exist" or discuss thier ontological irrelevence in any manner? (He did say..."In whatever way it is conceived, the fact is ever other than that." This shows concepts miss the mark in describing "non-relative truths." But doesn't say concepts aren't real.) #2 Does anyone believe it is possible to attain enlightenment without using concepts as a "stepping stone" for that attainment? #3 If so I'd be interested in how that's done? #4 If not, I'd be interested in how "non-existent states" can lay a "real foundation" for attaining enlightenment? In other words, how does something that doesn't exist have causal impact? TG In a message dated 1/5/2005 11:19:15 AM Pacific Standard Time, htootintnaing@y... writes: #2 Does anyone believe it is possible to attain enlightenment without using concepts as a "stepping stone" for that attainment? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: This is not a belief. But real. Before attainment or after attainment or at any time, concepts do not involve as an ultimate reality. Nibbana is attained not by concept but by reality. 40606 From: Philip Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 0:41pm Subject: Non-hatred, non-greed and non-delusion (from Atthasalini) Hello all As Nina just mentionned, the book " The Roots of Good and Evil" is very good. One of the interesting passages that caught my eye was from the Atthasalini (commentary to the Dhammasangani of the Abhidhamma Pitaka.) It considers the nature of the wholesome roots. There is a lot of it, so I will only pull a few that have caught my interest especially. "Through non-greed (alobha) one does not overrate (an attractive object) as the lustful person does. Through non-hatred (adosa) one does not underrate or deprecate (an unattractive or disagreeable object) as the hater does." What a simple but immensely helpful teaching this has been for me recently. We read in so many suttas about not being "taken in" by objects, not "taking the lure" of the objects that arise through the six doors. And how wise attention frees us from doing so. In a more conventional way, just checking on whether one isn't overrating something is so helpful. Or exaggerating something. With even basic understanding of the three characteristics I have begun to see how often I overrate or underrate/deprecate things. "With non-greed one does nat have suffering though separation from the beloved. WIth non-hatred one does not having suffering through association with the unbeloved." Again, so simple but so helpful to reflect on and verify in daily life. And re the dynamic between the wholesome roots and the three characteristics: "Through non-greed one will understand impermanence; for a greedy man, in his longing for enjoyment, will not see impermanence of transitory phenomena. Through non-hatred, one will understand suffering; for one inclined to non-hate, in comprehending the grounds of annoyance discarded by him, sees phenomena as suffering. Through non-delusion (amoha) one will understand not-self; for one who is undeluded is skilled in grasping the nature of reality, and he knows that the five aggregates are without an internal controller. Just as the undersanding of impermanence, etc. is effected by non- greed, etc., so are also non-greed, etc., produced by the understanding of impermanence,etc. Through the understanding of impermanence arises non-greed; through the understanding of suffering arises non-hatred etc." Very interesting. I posted about a month back about how it seems to me that metta seems to arise naturally in proportion to any understanding of the First Noble Truth that I have. On days on which I have reflected deeply (albeit in a shallow, intellectual way) on the First and Second Noble Truths, it seems that a lot of metta arises during the day. How can we not experience non-hatred when we have reflected on the many ways people suffer due to their frail humanity with all its charmingly pathetic cravings and clingings? Maybe the dukkha that is one of the three characteristics is not quite the same dukkha that is the First Noble Truth, but I still find this dynamic very interesting. Metta, Phil 40607 From: Egbert Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 1:11pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing & Hearing Hi Howard and all, Thanks for making your position clear. I'm quite happy to leave it at that. Perhaps others who are more firmly fond of the view of one sensation at a time might like to cast their eyes over the following. It seems uncontroversial, from a third-party perspective, that a one- celled organism, lets say Andy the Amoeba, reacts to stimuli in his environment. It would also seem uncontroversial that Agnes the Amoeba reacts to stimuli at the same time, while in the close surround of Andy. That would be parallel sensing. Why would there be insistence that in the case of Derek the Diploid (two-celled) there could only be one sensation at a time? Kind Regards Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Herman - > > In a message dated 1/5/05 3:23:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, > hhofman@t... writes: > > > HH >Am I right in reading you as saying that at a most basic level > > there cannot be a concurrent/parallel sensing? Are you saying that > > all sensing is serial ie one basic sensation at a time? > > > ---------------------------------------- > Howard: > That is what I understand the Buddhist belief to be, and I suspect > that it is correct. I don't, however, know it to be correct, and parallel sensing > wouldn't bother me in the slightest. However it is, well, so it is. > ---------------------------------------- > > > > > > > (I accept that attention is serial in nature) > > > > > ===================== > With metta, > Howard 40608 From: Matthew Miller Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 10:30am Subject: Re: Seeing & Hearing Howard wrote: > consciousness flits from one sense door to another, > in a kind of time-share mode, and each conscious > flashing at a sense door goes by very rapidly. Sound is a vibration. It is nothing more than a frequency and amplitude of pressure changes which occur in time. To properly perceive sound, a receiver has to be present with the vibration for a duration of time (at least several entire wave cycles). If the receiver were "flitting" and "flashing" about in nanoseconds, how could it possibly perceive sound? It would be like trying to tap to the beat of a song, while at the same multi-tasking and rushing off to do other things (e.g. seeing, smelling, sankharic fabricating) between each beat. How could this be done and correctly perceive the beat/sound? Matthew 40609 From: Charles DaCosta Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 0:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: clinging to self with conceit, Pali.. Dear James, The previous posts were about whether the belief in gods is a "wrong view" -- wrong in the sense of the "Right View" of the 8-fold path and wrong in the sense it being false (not truth). The type of god was not the issue. The earlier posts were exploring the fact that the Buddha talked about gods to the "S" (once- and non- returners), and did they all really have a false view. You posted "yes" it was a false view. I just want to prove you wrong. I tried to argue that the Buddha also seemed to believe gods existed. Therefore, from a Buddhist perspective, it is not a lie (i.e., that the gods exist). Also I tried to argue that such a belief is not contradictory to the 4-noble truths, therefore it is not contradicting the Right View. I tried to argue that to believe the gods can control your suffering is a wrong view, not whether they existed or not. Charles ----- Original Message ----- From: buddhatrue To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 7:20 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: clinging to self with conceit, Pali.. Friend Charles, Charles: Do you believe the "only" goal of the Buddha was to find the way(s) by which suffering would be brought to and end? James: Yes. Charles: Do you believe the Buddha found that way(s) and documented (dictated) it in hisDharma (i.e., sutras and vinya)? James: Yes. Charles: If so then please look at the sutras and vinya for the answer. James: The answer to what? <....> 40610 From: Charles DaCosta Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 0:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions I have to agree, very interesting. ----- Original Message ----- From: htootintnaing To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 8:15 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Dear TG, Interesting questions. Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TG wrote: Hi All Few questions... #1 Did the Buddha ever say "concepts don't exist" or discuss thier ontological irrelevence in any manner? (He did say..."In whatever way it is conceived, the fact is ever other than that." This shows concepts miss the mark in describing "non-relative truths." But doesn't say concepts aren't real.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: But concepts are not ultimate realilty. There are many realities. Science progressively changes many realities. They define 'this' as 'that' and that becomes a reality. At another time 'that reality' is no more real and there has to arise another reality. <....> 40611 From: Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 9:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Seeing & Hearing Hi, Matthew - In a message dated 1/5/05 4:48:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, bupleurum@y... writes: > Howard wrote: > >consciousness flits from one sense door to another, > >in a kind of time-share mode, and each conscious > >flashing at a sense door goes by very rapidly. > > Sound is a vibration. It is nothing more than a frequency and > amplitude of pressure changes which occur in time. To properly > perceive sound, a receiver has to be present with the vibration for a > duration of time (at least several entire wave cycles). If the > receiver were "flitting" and "flashing" about in nanoseconds, how > could it possibly perceive sound? It would be like trying to tap to > the beat of a song, while at the same multi-tasking and rushing off > to do other things (e.g. seeing, smelling, sankharic fabricating) > between each beat. How could this be done and correctly perceive the > beat/sound? > > Matthew > ========================== Matthew, our perspectives are completely different. Yours is the "objective physical world of matter and energy" story of physics, and mine is the phenomenological "world of experience". Our base assumptions are radically different, sufficently different to make it impossible for me to reply properly to your question. In any case, what I *can* say is that I don't believe I committed myself to a particular "flitting speed"! And moreover, while I suspect that there is not simultaneous multi-sense-door experiencing, I don't insist on that, nor do I think it is particularly important as regards the goal of the 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) 40612 From: Egbert Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 2:11pm Subject: Re: Concepts and Questions Hi TG, Good questions!!! > Hi All > > Few questions... > > #1 Did the Buddha ever say "concepts don't exist" or discuss thier > ontological irrelevence in any manner? (He did say..."In whatever way it is > conceived, the fact is ever other than that." This shows concepts miss the mark in > describing "non-relative truths." But doesn't say concepts aren't real.) I don't think the Buddha ever said "concepts don't exist". I think the Suttas imply that the meanings attributed to the sensed bear no necessary relation to the sensed. Concept and meaning are interchangeable. People (minds) live in their meanings, and while the meanings people (minds) live in are real enough, these meanings are unrelated to what is actually happening. > > #2 Does anyone believe it is possible to attain enlightenment without using concepts as a "stepping stone" for that attainment? Yeah, I believe, brother :-) > > #3 If so I'd be interested in how that's done? I believe the unenlightened state is a learnt state. It is acquired through the teaching of what has been learned, which has been acquired by teaching what has been learnt, on and on and on. I think enlightenment requires only willingness to let go of meaningless meanings. > > #4 If not, I'd be interested in how "non-existent states" can lay a "real > foundation" for attaining enlightenment? In other words, how does something > that doesn't exist have causal impact? Nicely put. A split mind selects to see only what verifies the premise that split it in the first place. I'd love to find that sutta again that says that where there is no I there is no kamma. Kind Regards Herman > > TG > 40613 From: Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 9:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, TG - In a message dated 1/5/05 3:46:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > In other words, how does something > that doesn't exist have causal impact? > ======================= Were you never emotionally moved by what happened to characters in a book or film? The characters and their lives and the events that occurred in their lives are all nonexistent, isn't that so? Yet "they" have causal impact. Actually, "they" do not, but our tentative willing acceptance of "them" as existents does. In the case of everyday encounters with pa~n~natti, where the acceptance is not a willful one, but is automatic and a matter of genuine belief, the causal impact is even greater. Another example is that of dreams. 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) 40614 From: Egbert Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 3:11pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing & Hearing Hi Howard and Matthew, I agree with both of you, on diferent matters. I agree with Howard that scientific enterprise, the modelling of how things work, is not particularly important as regards the goal of the Dhamma. But I also think that if the activity is going to be scientific enterprise, be that a la Abhidhamma or 21st century scientific technique, you may as well develop a model that mimics reality as closely as possible. Of course it would help to remember that one is dealing with a model only and that the characteristics of a model have nothing to do with the reality they purport to model. But that's another story...... Kind Regards Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Matthew - > > In a message dated 1/5/05 4:48:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, > bupleurum@y... writes: > > > Howard wrote: > > >consciousness flits from one sense door to another, > > >in a kind of time-share mode, and each conscious > > >flashing at a sense door goes by very rapidly. > > > > Sound is a vibration. It is nothing more than a frequency and > > amplitude of pressure changes which occur in time. To properly > > perceive sound, a receiver has to be present with the vibration for a > > duration of time (at least several entire wave cycles). If the > > receiver were "flitting" and "flashing" about in nanoseconds, how > > could it possibly perceive sound? It would be like trying to tap to > > the beat of a song, while at the same multi-tasking and rushing off > > to do other things (e.g. seeing, smelling, sankharic fabricating) > > between each beat. How could this be done and correctly perceive the > > beat/sound? > > > > Matthew > > > ========================== > Matthew, our perspectives are completely different. Yours is the > "objective physical world of matter and energy" story of physics, and mine is the > phenomenological "world of experience". Our base assumptions are radically > different, sufficently different to make it impossible for me to reply properly to > your question. > In any case, what I *can* say is that I don't believe I committed > myself to a particular "flitting speed"! And moreover, while I suspect that there > is not simultaneous multi-sense-door experiencing, I don't insist on that, nor > do I think it is particularly important as regards the goal of the Dhamma. > > With metta, > Howard > 40615 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 3:24pm Subject: Re: Apologies Friend Sarah, Sarah: We're taling about views relating to Truths, to an understanding of Dhamma. James: Yeah. Sarah: don't you think the Buddha was teaching universal truths for all time periods? James: In the Brahmajala Sutta, no I don't. I think he was being very specific to his time period. With the propensity of the human mind to create wrong views, I think it would be impossible for the Buddha to enumerate all of them. Sarah: Lots of detail in the commentary BB has translated. Lots of Q and A on the views and classifications too. At the end of one section, the comy gives: James: I don't care what the commentary has to say about this matter. I don't agree with the commentary (*I have more to say about this at the end). Sarah: "It is on these sixty-two grounds, bhikkhus…….past…future…… all of them do so on these sixty-two grounds, or on a certain one of them. OUTSIDE OF THESE THERE IS NONE." James: Now Sarah, why do you feel it necessary to misquote the Buddha? Your ellipses make it appear as if the Buddha is saying that these have been the wrong views of the past and future, and that is not what he is saying. Here is the original quote: "These are the sixty-two ways in which those ascetics and Brahmins who are speculators about the past, the future, or both, put forward views about these. There is no other way. " Again, the Buddha isn't talking about all wrong views or even the wrong views of all times. He is being very specific to the speculative views put forth by ascetics and Brahmins; he is also being specific to the ascetics and Brahmins of his time period. He wasn't trying to codify all wrong views for all times. That would be an impossible task. *I am going to ramble a little bit now, like Phil does (and I usually enjoy) ;-)). I first read your post when a friend was over at my apartment and I started to put my mind to how I was going to reply. I put my mind as to why you believe the way you do. As usual, my mind went to Buddhaghosa. I was thinking very deeply about Buddhaghosa when my friend asked me why I was so sad; he could read it on my face. I tried to tell him to forget it but he kept pushing, so I explained to him all about Buddhaghosa-how I read with my psychic ability that Buddhaghosa invented and changed things in the commentaries to fit personal ideas and agendas (as I have explained before in DSG). Since I have demonstrated my psychic ability on numerous occasions to my friend (and many of his friends) he believed what I had to say and told me, "Well, that will be Buddhaghosa's bad karma. You don't have to worry about it." (he is Muslim by birth, but a `secret' Buddhist). You know, he is right. I let too many things bother me that shouldn't. This will be my last post on this subject because it involves Buddhaghosa- and that is a no-win situation. However, let me end with one last quote from Concept and Reality by Bhikkhu Nanananda, "Buddhaghosa has rightly recognized the triune nature of papanca, but the validity of his definition of ditthi is rather doubtful for reasons we have stated earlier." Pg. 122 Metta, James Ps. If you or anyone would like the check the validity of what I have written here, feel free to write to my friend at memoelgamed@y... 40616 From: Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 4:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sense-door process, rupa. Howard: "The sensation *is* rupa." Hi Howard, You said the sensation is rupa and sense consciousness is presence. One problem with this is there is the same presence in every door. How can this presence be eye consciousness? Larry 40617 From: Tep Sastri Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 4:28pm Subject: Re: Doubt and Confidence --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote (message # 405820: > Dear Tep and Chris, > This is a good topic. > op 04-01-2005 21:26 schreef Tep Sastri op tepyawa@m...: > > > Before starting to write this mail, I read your message twice. A question > > came to my mind about what conditions (paccaya) we must keep > > throughout each day such that "great interest, strong enthusiam, > > confidence, contentment in the practice" can be maintained. N: > I like the emphasis on Dhamma discussions here as a means to solve doubts. More understanding does condition confidence, enthusiasm. T: I also have conviction in Dhamma discussions, Nina. N: > I did not see the samadhi nimitta, but this can be included, for > example by way of a meditation for every occasion, > like the Buddha's excellent qualities. > Even while working or living in a house crowded with children. > But I am thinking foremost of Dhamma as meditation. > Considering and beginning to be aware of nama and rupa. This solves doubts even at a beginning stage. T: A lower level of samadhi nimitta may simply mean the mental state of a person who listens with strong attention to (or read about) a Dhamma discussion (on the suttas or the Abhidhamma), then saddha and piti arise. With such mental state calm (passaddhi) and concentration(samadhi) are near, if at the same time the five hindrances are not present. N: > Recently I have been reflecting on beginners and progress and how to see this. > If you are interested I may write about this. Perhaps a seemingly lack of progress > could make some friends here discouraged. What do you think, Tep? T: Please do write about your experience in the Dhamma and how you have steadily made progress over the years, including how the progress is measured. Such a writing will definitely be a good contribution to DSG. My understanding is that steady Dhamma progress (e.g. two steps up, only one step down; or, several steps up and only a few steps down) only comes after we have clearly seen the drawbacks of the five aggregates. N: I like very much what Howard and TG wrote. T: Could you elaborate a little bit on that? Kindest regards, Tep ====== 40618 From: Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 11:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions In a message dated 1/5/2005 3:03:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: Were you never emotionally moved by what happened to characters in a book or film? The characters and their lives and the events that occurred in their lives are all nonexistent, isn't that so? Yet "they" have causal impact. Actually, "they" do not, but our tentative willing acceptance of "them" as existents does. In the case of everyday encounters with pa~n~natti, where the acceptance is not a willful one, but is automatic and a matter of genuine belief, the causal impact is even greater. Another example is that of dreams. With metta, Howard Hi Howard I'm not sure what point you mean to be making. It seems as if you mean to disagree with me but your point only reinforces my position. I.E., that concepts condition other states. In your film analogy, the experience of light and sounds are the "paramattha dhammas." The conceptual experiences are the ones that generate the emotions that you refer to. In the book part of your analogy, its just pure concepts plus the light, paper, and ink, in order to read the book that generate reactions. Concepts are needed to understand the Dhamma (like training wheels) at least until one can learn to "balance" without them. Although it is possible to learn how to ride a bike without training wheels, I don't think it is possible to learn Dhamma without concepts. TG 40619 From: Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 4:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Availability of three suttas, bojjhangas. Nina: "Any of these suttas you or Tep want to go into specifically? " Hi Nina, I haven't looked into it but it looks like an interesting topic. Mostly I am interested in what is condusive to the arising of each bojjhanga. And of course an elaboration of what each bojjhanga is. Larry 40620 From: Tep Sastri Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 5:21pm Subject: Re: Buddhas Appear To Only Teach Abhidhamma (Was: abhidhamma - - - To ... Hi Ken O. (& Suan, Howard, Nina), - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ken O wrote: > Hi Tep, Suan and Howard > > I have before quoted > > MN 32, Mahaagosinga Sutta para 8 > <<"Here friend Sariputta, two bhikkhus engage in a talks on the > Higher Dhamma* and they questions each other, and each being > questioned by the other answers without foundering, and their talk > rolls on in accordance with the Dhamma. That kind of bhikkhu could > illuminate this Gosinga Saala-tree Wood.">> > Then later in the same sutta we see Buddha approve of B. Moggallana. > > > * - the Higher Dhamma (translated from the pali word- > abhidhammakatham)- B Bodhi personal notes. < the word cannot refer to the Pitaka of that name - obviously the > produce of a phase and Buddhist thought later than the Nikayas - it > > Ken O > I am sorry for my failure to see your message #40567 sooner, and that's why I'm replying it now. Please allow me to communicate to you most directly via questions. I'd appreciate your response as soon as you conveniently can. Thank you much. 1) Does the term "higher dhamma" only mean "abhidhamma" in MN 32? Can it be something else? 2) Many suttas (the Buddha's teachings or discourses) end with words like the following: "Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' " [SN XXII.59, Anatta-lakkhana Sutta] If the Abhidhamma is really "higher Dhamma", why didn't the Buddha tell His disciples to seek the "abhidhammakatham" after their listening to the suttas such as the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta? The words "full release" and "there is nothing further for this world" imply that the discourse content is adequate, there is nothing higher. Don't you think so? Warm regards, Tep ======= 40621 From: Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 2:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sense-door process, rupa. Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/5/05 7:15:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Howard: "The sensation *is* rupa." > > Hi Howard, > > You said the sensation is rupa and sense consciousness is presence. One > problem with this is there is the same presence in every door. How can > this presence be eye consciousness? > ---------------------------------------- Howard: No problem. Experiential presence of visual object is eye consciousness. Presence of auditory object is ear consciousness. See the sutta in which the Buddha described different sorts of fire depending on what is burning. He used that, as I recall, exactly to distinguish the different sorts of sense consciousness. ----------------------------------------- > > Larry > ====================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 40622 From: Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 2:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, TG - In a message dated 1/5/05 7:37:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > Hi Howard > > I'm not sure what point you mean to be making. It seems as if you mean to > disagree with me but your point only reinforces my position. I.E., that > concepts condition other states. In your film analogy, the experience of > light and > sounds are the "paramattha dhammas." The conceptual experiences are the > ones > that generate the emotions that you refer to. In the book part of your > analogy, its just pure concepts plus the light, paper, and ink, in order to > read the > book that generate reactions. > -------------------------------------- Howard: My point was that there seem to be things that have effects, but those things don't exist, and the effects are actually due to other things that really do exist. When a heterosexual male "falls in love" with a girl in his dream, one might say that the girl caused an emotional response. But that is really just a way of speaking. It is a host of mental functions that constitutes the cause. There is no dream girl. And there is no single mental dhamma that is the dream-girl-idea. Getting away from analogies, and talking instead about the actual matter under discussion: We believe that my watering the lawn made the grass grow. Now all of the alleged entities involved - me, the water, the lawn, the applying of the former to the latter, grass, and growing are all concepts. None of these things truly exists. But there is a host of experiential realities upon which these concepts are imputed, complex relations of conditionality do hold among these dhammas, and a shorthand expression this is the statement that watering the lawn makes the grass grow. ---------------------------------------------- > > Concepts are needed to understand the Dhamma (like training wheels) at least > > until one can learn to "balance" without them. Although it is possible to > learn how to ride a bike without training wheels, I don't think it is > possible to > learn Dhamma without concepts. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Neither do I. On that we agree. ------------------------------------------------ > > TG > > ========================= 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) 40623 From: Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 7:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sense-door process, rupa. Hi Howard, What's the difference between presence of hardness and sensation of hardness? These are just two words for the same experience. By positing a difference between sensation and consciousness aren't you asserting that there is an experiencable external object (external to consciousness)? If so, what experiences this object? If consciousness is different from sensation it can't be the experience of sensation. Is sensation a non-conscious experience? Larry 40624 From: Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 2:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi Howard In a message dated 1/5/2005 7:24:50 PM Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: Howard: My point was that there seem to be things that have effects, but those things don't exist, and the effects are actually due to other things that really do exist. When a heterosexual male "falls in love" with a girl in his dream, one might say that the girl caused an emotional response. But that is really just a way of speaking. It is a host of mental functions that constitutes the cause. There is no dream girl. And there is no single mental dhamma that is the dream-girl-idea. Getting away from analogies, and talking instead about the actual matter under discussion: We believe that my watering the lawn made the grass grow. Now all of the alleged entities involved - me, the water, the lawn, the applying of the former to the latter, grass, and growing are all concepts. None of these things truly exists. But there is a host of experiential realities upon which these concepts are imputed, complex relations of conditionality do hold among these dhammas, and a shorthand expression this is the statement that watering the lawn makes the grass grow. ---------------------------------------------- TG: You seem to be arguing "concepts" from the viewpoint of what you at least use to call "the 'referent' of concepts." I thought that was a way of viewing concepts that you didn't agree with? Not a big deal because you agreed with me below and that was my main point of interest in this topic. :-) > > Concepts are needed to understand the Dhamma (like training wheels) at least > > until one can learn to "balance" without them. Although it is possible to > learn how to ride a bike without training wheels, I don't think it is > possible to > learn Dhamma without concepts. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Neither do I. On that we agree. ------------------------------------------------ > > TG > > ========================= With metta, Howard TG 40625 From: Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 4:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sense-door process, rupa. Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/5/05 10:43:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > What's the difference between presence of hardness and sensation of > hardness? These are just two words for the same experience. ---------------------------------------- Howard: No. Here we are running into language problems. If by "the sensation of hardness" you mean "the awareness of hardness", then the presence of hardness and the sensation of hardness are the same. But when I use the expression "the sensation of hardness", I mean "the sensation which is hardness". Bodily sensations such as hardness, pains, itches, etc are rupas. The experiential *presence* of any one of them is the consciousness of it, and that is different from the sensation itself. The two go together, of course, always. There is never an itch that is not felt, and there is never the awareness of an itch without the itch. ---------------------------------------------- > > By positing a difference between sensation and consciousness aren't you > asserting that there is an experiencable external object (external to > consciousness)? > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: External to it? No. Independent of it? No. But different from it? Yes. It seems to me that you understand by 'rupa' something in a material "external world". I mean no such thing. For me a rupa is a sensation: bodily, visual, auditory, tactile, or olfactory. Any one of these, when it arises, arises as an experiential object. Its experiential presence - and "experiential" is redundant, for that is the only sort of presence a sensation has - is the consciousness of that rupa. ----------------------------------------------- If so, what experiences this object? If consciousness is> > different from sensation it can't be the experience of sensation. Is > sensation a non-conscious experience? > > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Hardness is a sensation, its experiential presence is consciousness of that hardness. They are distinguishable but inseparable. Similarly, the outside and inside of a box are not the same, but there is never one without the other. They are distinguishable but inseparable. Consciousness of an arammana is the mere presence of that arammana. Nothing more. Seeing a sight (i.e., visual consciousness) is just the experiential presence of the sight, and that is different from the sight itself. This is "consciousness" in the sense that is untainted by atta-view. Perhaps you are thinking of consciousness as an operation of a knowing subject, or as, itself, a "knower". That goes too far; that is the vi~n~nana that ceases in the process of dependent cessation. That is consciousness-infected-by-sense-of-self. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 40626 From: Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 5:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, TG - In a message dated 1/5/05 11:00:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > TG: You seem to be arguing "concepts" from the viewpoint of what you at > least use to call "the 'referent' of concepts." I thought that was a way of > > viewing concepts that you didn't agree with? Not a big deal because you > agreed > with me below and that was my main point of interest in this topic. :-) ======================== Yes, you are right. I have come to believe that most of what we think are ideas of ours are not single namadhammas (if that is legit Pali! ;-), but are complex sequences of namas, and, even then, not precisely delimitable. So, with these already being so vague, it doesn't hurt all that much to smear the language even further! ;-) I think what is the clearest language use on this subject may be to talk about conventional objects such as trees, tables, and onion fields as being "concept-only". By this I mean that there really do not exist such objects, but there are complex thought processes which serve as basis for adopting, by an act of reification, the convention in thought and speech of such objects. It is those truly non-existent, merely conventional objects, those imagined, concept-only fictions, that are called "pa~n~natti". In other words, pa~n~natti are actually illusions, but illusions based on complex mental processes the elements of which are not illusions. ===================== 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) 40627 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 11:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Apologies Friend James, All my quotes here are from B.Bodhi’s translation of the Brahmajala Sutta* only (i.e no commentary notes!). --- buddhatrue wrote: > James: In the Brahmajala Sutta, no I don't. I think he was being > very specific to his time period. With the propensity of the human > mind to create wrong views, I think it would be impossible for the > Buddha to enumerate all of them. …. S: “These are those dhammas, bhikkhus, that are deep, difficult to se, difficult to understand, peaceful, and sublime, beyond the sphere of reasoning, subtle, comprehensible only to the wise, which the Tathagata, having realized for himself with direct knowledge, propounds to others; and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tathagata in accordance with reality would speak.” <…> “…’Whatever sizeable creatures there are in this pool, all are trapped within this net, trapped and contained in this very net’…….” … >Sarah: >>“’It is on these sixty-two grounds, bhikkhus…….past…future…… >> all of them do so on these sixty-two grounds, or on a certain one of >> them. OUTSIDE OF THESE THERE IS NONE." …. > James: Now Sarah, why do you feel it necessary to misquote the > Buddha? …. S: There is no misquote. Much of it was repetition of the earlier passage and I had made it clear they were my caps. Here is the full section for you to see: "It is on these sixty-two grounds, bhikkhus, that those recluses and Brahmins who are speculators about the past, speculators about the future, and speculators about the past and the future together, who hold settled views about the past and the future assert various conceptual theorems referring to the past and the future. “Whatever recluses or Brahmins, bhikkhus, are speculators about the past, or speculators about the future, or speculators about the past and the future together, who hold settled views about the past and the future and assert various conceptual theorems referring to the past and the future., all of them do so on these sixty-two grounds, or on a certain one of them. Outside of these there is none.” …… <…> J:> Again, the Buddha isn't talking about all wrong views or even the > wrong views of all times. He is being very specific to the > speculative views put forth by ascetics and Brahmins; he is also > being specific to the ascetics and Brahmins of his time period. He > wasn't trying to codify all wrong views for all times. That would > be an impossible task. …. S: “ ‘This, bhikkhus, the Tathagata understands. And he understands: ‘These standpoints, thus assumed and thus misapprehended, lead to such a future destination, to such q state in the world beyone’. He understands as well what transcends this, yet even that understanding he does not misapprehend. And because he is free from misapprehension, he has realized within himself th state of perfect peace. Having understood as they really are the origin and passing away of feelings, their satisfaction, unsatisfactoriness, and the escape from them, the Tathagata, bhikkhus, is emancipated through non-clinging.” ….. S: I don’t see it as any problem if we all just read the suttas according to our limited understanding and seek guidance from whichever ancient or modern commentaries or explanations we find helpful. No need for any sadness if we reach different conclusions. We’re just here to exchange our ideas and certainly I have no interest in trying to persuade you or anyone else that you should see the Dhamma my way or even Buddhaghosa’s way. I’ve appreciated the discussion and the way you’ve shared your ideas and the way you’ve carefully considered various texts. Metta, Sarah *Highly recommended: ‘The Discourse on the All-embracing Net of Views, The Brahmajaala Sutta and its Commentaries, transl from the Pali by Bhikkhu Bodhi. (our copy was pub. by the BPS some time ago now). ============ 40628 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 11:41pm Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 92 - Volition in the Cycle of Birth and Death (d) 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.5 Volition(cetanaa]in the Cycle of Birth and Death contd] ***** In this life we perform good deeds and bad deeds; we do not know which deed will produce the next rebirth-consciousness. Also a deed which was performed in a past life is capable of producing the next rebirth-consciousness. Since we are now in the human plane of existence, it was kusala kamma which produced the first citta of our life; birth in the human plane is a happy rebirth. If the kamma which will produce the rebirth-consciousness of the next life is akusala kamma, there will be an unhappy rebirth, and if it is kusala kamma there will be a happy rebirth. Nobody can choose his own rebirth, the rebirth-consciousness is a conditioned dhamma, it is saòkhåra dhamma. This life consists of citta, cetasika and rúpa which are conditioned dhammas. Also in a next life there are bound to be citta, cetasika and rúpa, conditioned and kiriyacittas. If we are not born in an unhappy plane there can be again the development of right understanding. ***** [Ch.5 Volition in the cycle of Birth and Death to be contd] Metta, Sarah ====== 40629 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 0:28am Subject: Idle chatter- Andrew L Hi AndrewL, I’ll come back to other points later. For now, I’d like to just discuss ‘idle chatter’ and kamma patha capable of bringing results in the way of akusala vipaka, as you’ve referred to the results of idle chatter or mischief by way of speech many times. --- Andrew Levin wrote: > > S: Unless the idle chatter is of the degree of kamma patha (another > > topic), it cannot bring results, but at the same time all kusala and > > akusala accumulates and can assist kamma patha in future. > A:> I am just lost here. How can idle chatter not be kamma patha?… …. S: For example, as we use the phrase conventionally, we may chatter about the weather, computers, clothes or any other topic. Usually it’s with lobha, dosa or moha and thereby akusala (unwholesome), but not of a degree that the cetana/kamma (intention) involved can lead to any results. For example, there is no intention to ‘sow the seed of discord’ as given in the definition of ‘frivolous talk’ , one of the 10 kinds of kamma patha as given in the following description in the Atthasalini, transl as ‘The Expositor’, Courses of Immoral Action: “ ‘Frivolous talk’ is speaking senseless, useless things. The volition which is at the root of all speech of this sort, and is named calumnious, etc, is here alone to be understood. The volition of one with a corrupt mind, producing the bodily and vocal effort to sow the seed of discord among others, or to endear oneself to others is termed the volition of calumnious speech. “It is a smaller or greater offence, according as the virtue of the person whom he separates is smaller or greater [S: just as we've discussed with regard to killing and other unwholesome deeds whereby the virtue and size of the recipient have some bearing. Killing an insect doesn't take the same effort or bring the same consequences as killing a human to give a simple example]. "There are four constituent factors of this crime: [S: i.e 4 factors to be fulfilled for completed kamma-patha, just like for killing to be completed, there has to be a living being ,knowledge of a living being, the intention to kill, effort and death]. 1) Other persons to be divided; 2) The purpose: ‘they will be sepaated,’ or the desire to endear oneself to another: ‘I shall become dear and intimate’; 3) the corresponding effort; 4) the communication. “But when there is no rupture among others, the offence does not amount to a complete course [S: i.e complete kamma patha likely to bring results]; it does so only when there is a rupture. …. S: So, there are bound to be kusala and akusala intentions when we speak together, but I’m sure there is no intention to sow any discord and certainly no ‘ruptures’ when you write. As I say, I’ll try to come back to another few points later. it's a pleasure. Metta, Sarah p.s a couple more definitions on the same page of immoral speech – I can add more if anyone likes: “ ‘Slander’ means calumnious speech which, by being said to another, reduces to nothing the love which that person or the speaker bears at his own heart to a third person.” “By ‘harsh speech’ is meant the entirely harsh volition which produces a bodily and vocal effort, stabbing another as with a mortal wound.” ============================ 40630 From: Egbert Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 2:11am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi TG, I have some questions, if I may ? > Hi Howard > > I'm not sure what point you mean to be making. It seems as if you mean to disagree with me but your point only reinforces my position. I.E., that concepts condition other states. HH> Are you sure that it is concepts that condition other states? Is there not a possibility that there is a conditioning factor that underlies the creation of concepts? I tend to think that concepts are products of intention. > Concepts are needed to understand the Dhamma (like training wheels) at least until one can learn to "balance" without them. Although it is possible to learn how to ride a bike without training wheels, I don't think it is possible to > learn Dhamma without concepts. HH> I don't think it is possible to learn Dhamma, but I do think that Dhamma is what is left when samsara is unlearnt. Could you give me an example of learnt-by-concept Dhamma? Thanks and Kind Regards Herman > > TG > 40631 From: Ai Le Date: Wed Jan 5, 2005 6:03pm Subject: My new answer, and listening to my "good music". My new answer is 5 things, in this order in my mind: 1. parable of the saw/metta 2. four noble truths 3. anatta 4. something(s?) I get from the 'Happy' chapter of the 'Dhammapada' 5. Majjhima Nikaya 19 Majjhima Nikaya 19 on the net - http://accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn019.html 'Anatta' is 'not-self'. four noble truths are the four aryan truths: Ill, arising, cessation, path. something(s?) I get from the 'Happy' chapter of the 'Dhammapada': "if one were to never meet fools, one would constantly, constantly be happy" "we who have nothing, happy like the Radiant Gods" there is probably more in this 'Happy' chapter that I get. Extra: If one does not meet up with one equal or higher, let one walk alone like a rhinocerous. There is no association with the fool. -- something like this (maybe two places in the 'Dhammapada', but I put together as one here) in the 'Dhammpada'? Listening to my cassette tapes I bought in the past (which my dad brought to me with other stuff I had given), the singers are wiser or just as wise as me, and made me "happy"..., I wish to think "helped" me HA ha ha !! Even though the teaching I wrote up there -- If one does not meet up with one equal or higher, let one walk alone like a rhinocerous. There is no association with the fool. -- may not be what the 'Dhammapada' says, that is what I say <....> from, Ai Le 40632 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 4:54am Subject: [dsg] Re: What the mind does > > Having is not attachment. Losing > > what you have and reacting with negativity is attachment. > > H > I agree, but only in part. Having also prevents approaching the > Teachings. This is from Udana 2:5 > > " > Thus have I heard. On a certain occasion the Blessed One dwelt at > Savatthi, in the Jetavana, the garden of Anâthapindika. ....... ..... > And the Blessed One, in this connection, on that occasion, breathed > forth this solernn utterance:-- > > "Happy is that upright and learned one who has no possessions! > See how the rich man is troubled; > How one man is in bondage to another." Kel: I believe Buddha is talking about an enlightened person when he refers to upright and learned because they have no attachment to possessions. Because if it's just a rich man he's referring to then note where he gave the sutta. In the garden of Anâthapindika, one of the richest men during Buddha's time. If you're familiar with the story of Anâthapindika and how he donated freely even when his wealth was gone but eventually recovered it all. Being a stream- enterer and as a householder he maintained a balanced mind. He showed the volition is what matters by bringing fertile soil for the trees in the garden when he couldn't afford other material things. Is that actions of a troubled rich man? > > Even > > while "being" there's still goals like reaching nibbana. Again > it's > > not the lack of goals, it's how you go about achieving those goals > > and what you do when you fail. An arahant doesn't sit in a forest > > like a vegetable. They go about expounding dhamma to the masses. > > Relieving people of their misery is very much goal-oriented work. > > H > I do not think an arahant thinks "I'm an arahant and they are > not. I will relieve their misery". Arahants do not think in terms of > self, or in terms of other (selves). What an arahant does, an > arahant does. What a worldling perceives an arahant to be doing is > bound to be wrong. Kel: They still have to live in the conventional world and still deal with conventional things like referring to people by name. It's not magical a transformation to an arahant. If you look at the abhidhamma cittas, it's still the same 8 base kusala citta that became kiriya cittas. Kiriya just doesn't have a link to vipaka cittas otherwise not different from kusala. So during 7 javana cittas, they still do think normally as any human being. In fact, 4 out of 8 cittas are without amoha/wisdom so they're not super human all the time. They still have temperament, personalities and tendencies. Just compare stories of Ashin Sariputta and Ashin MahâMoggallâna. Arahants still strive to spread dhamma, just don't have any attachments to the outcome. It's the same reaction if they fail to liberate anyone versus a million people. If they get hit with sticks and stones versus flowers. They just have mastered the art of accepting the reality as it is while doing what they must do. > > Kel: too extreme imho. Buddha taught "right thought" not "no > > thought". > > > Anguttara Nikàya > 1. Ekakanipàta > XVI. Ekadhammapali > > 320 Bhikkhus, just as a little bit of excreta smells and should be > got rid of, I do not specify thinking even for the fraction of a > second. Kel: from the same section i quote: 301. Bhikkhus, I do not know a single thing on account of which non arisen demeritorious thoughts do not arise and arisen demeritorious thoughts fade as right view. Bhikkhus to one with right view non arisen demeritorious thoughts do not arise and arisen demeritorious thoughts fade. 303.Bhikkhus, I do not know a single thing on account of which non arisen right view arises and arisen right view develops as wise thinking. Bhikkhus to one thinking wisely non arisen right view arises and arisen right view develops Obviously it seems a bit contradictory to promote right thoughts/view at the same time also no thought. So I looked at original pali: 320. Seyyathàpi bhikkhave appamattakopi gåtho duggandho hoti, evameva kho ahaü bhikkhave appamattakampi bhavaü na vaõõemi(95), antamaso accharàsaïghàtamattampãti. then I looked at burmese translation and asked my abhidhamma teacher. I'll have to paraphrase second part in english as this: in similar way, I don't see any worth in spending even a split second on thinking about life (bhavaü). So anyway, this particular example seems to be translated inaccurately without inclusion of the subject of the thought Buddha was referring to. - Kelvin 40633 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 5:19am Subject: Re: Idle chatter- Andrew L Hi Sarah, Just curious if you have more information about this. > S: For example, as we use the phrase conventionally, we may chatter about > the weather, computers, clothes or any other topic. Usually it's with > lobha, dosa or moha and thereby akusala (unwholesome), but not of a degree > that the cetana/kamma (intention) involved can lead to any results. .... > "But when there is no rupture among others, the offence does not amount to > a complete course [S: i.e complete kamma patha likely to bring results]; > it does so only when there is a rupture. When you say result, are you including all the unprofitable result minds? Or is this talking about rebirth-linking quality result? - Kelvin 40634 From: seisen_au Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 5:58am Subject: Re: What the mind does Hi Kelvin and All These two suttas have puzzled me for a while now and like you i was suspicious of the translation, but looking at the pali im still not able to understand the meaning. Is anyone able to clear up what kind of thinking these two suttas talk about? 320. Bhikkhus, just as a little bit of excreta smells and should be got rid of, I do not specify thinking even for the fraction of a second. 321. Bhikkhus, just as a little bit of urine, saliva, pus, blood smells and should be got rid of, I do not specify thinking{1) even for the fraction of a second. Notes. ( 1) I do not specify thinking even for a short second. `appamattaka.m pi bhava.m na va.n.nemi' Always thoughts seek connections in the past, for the future or in the present. The bhikkhu who aims extinction should not advocte thinking, as thoughts prolong the journey in existence. Pali: 320. Seyyathaapi,bhikkhave, appamattakopi guutho duggandho hoti; evameva.m kho aha.m, bhikkhave, appamattakampi bhava.m na va.n.nemi, antamaso accharaasa"nghaatamattampi. 321. Seyyathaapi,bhikkhave, appamattakampi mutta.m duggandha.m hoti appamattakopi khe.lo duggandho hoti appamattakopi pubbo duggandho hoti appamattakampi lohita.m duggandha.m hoti; evameva.m kho aha.m, bhikkhave, appamattakampi bhava.m na va.n.nemi, antamaso accharaasa"nghaatamattampi. Atthakatha: 320. Seyyathaapi, bhikkhave, appamattakopi guutho duggandho hotiiti ida.m sutta.m a.t.thuppattiya.m vutta.m. Katara-a.t.thuppattiyanti? Navakanipaate (a. ni. 9.12) sattuppaadasutta a.t.thuppattiya.m. Tathaagato hi ta.m attha.m kathento nava puggalaa nirayato muttaa, tiracchaanayonito muttaa, pettivisayato muttaati kathesi. Athassa etadahosi sace kho pana me puttaa ima.m dhammadesana.m sutvaa khii.nanirayamhaa khii.natiracchaanayonikaa khii.napettivisayaa khii.naapaayaduggativinipaataati ma~n~namaanaa uparimaggaphalatthaaya vaayamitu.m na ma~n~neyyu.m, tesa.m sa.mvega.m janessaamiiti sa.mvegajana nattha.m seyyathaapi, bhikkhaveti ima.m suttamaarabhi. Tattha appamattakoti thokamattako parittappamaa.no, antamaso kusaggenapi gahetvaa upasi"nghiyamaano duggandhova hoti. Appamattakampi bhava.m na va.n.nemiiti appamattakampi kaala.m bhave pa.tisandhi.m na va.n.nayaami. Idaanissa upama.m dassento aaha antamaso accharaasa"nghaatamattampiiti. Sabbantimena paricchedena dve a"nguliyo ekato katvaa pahara.namattampi kaalanti vutta.m hoti. Sesa.m sabbattha uttaanatthamevaati. TIA Steve --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kelvin_lwin" wrote: > > then I looked at burmese translation and asked my abhidhamma > teacher. I'll have to paraphrase second part in english as this: > in similar way, I don't see any worth in spending even a split > second on thinking about life (bhavaü). > > So anyway, this particular example seems to be translated > inaccurately without inclusion of the subject of the thought Buddha > was referring to. > > - Kelvin 40635 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 8:46am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Dear TG, I must say I would reply all the same. Actually you made your questions clear. Maybe I was not clear in my answering. But after reading your 'this reply' I have the same sense and my replies will be the same that is identical. The problems that most people here faced is speaking outside and speaking inside of conventionality. This may make more confusion. If I have to speak outside of conventionality; there is no pannatti as ultimate realities. The foundations are also paramattha dhamma. These paramattha dhammas are interlinked with each other and final attainment is achieved. When we go to school and study The Buddha teachings we were dealing paramattha dhammas. When 'pannatta desana' and 'paramattha desana' are not well differentiated such problems have to arise. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > Hi Htoo > > Your answers show that I didn't make myself clear enough in my questioning. > > I am not talking about using concepts in the final stages of enlightenment. > I am talking about going to school. Learning language. Being exposed to > ideas. Searching for meaning. Finding the Buddha's teachings. Studying those > teachings. Contemplating those teachings. > > I am talking about these things, these largely conceptual things, as being a > foundation for what may eventually be an enlightenment that overcomes or > transcends concepts. > > This is what I am asking about. If concepts are able to "move the mind" > toward enlightenment, or anything for that matter, how so are they not real? I'll > repeat the questions... > > Hi All > > Few questions... > > #1 Did the Buddha ever say "concepts don't exist" or discuss thier ...snip.. "stepping stone" for that attainment? 40636 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 8:49am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Dear Charles D, There are many issues. You agreed partly or all? If partly, which part or which question and answer? With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles DaCosta" wrote: I have to agree, very interesting. ----- Original Message ----- > From: htootintnaing > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 8:15 PM > Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions > Dear TG, > Interesting questions. > Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > TG wrote: > > Hi All > > Few questions... > > #1 Did the Buddha ever say "concepts don't exist" or discuss thier > ontological irrelevence in any manner? (He did say..."In whatever > way it is conceived, the fact is ever other than that." This shows > concepts miss the mark in describing "non-relative truths." But > doesn't say concepts aren't real.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Htoo: > But concepts are not ultimate realilty. > There are many realities. > Science progressively changes many realities. They define 'this' > as 'that' and that becomes a reality. At another time 'that reality' > is no more real and there has to arise another reality. > <....> 40637 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 9:03am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: [TG wrote to Howard] Concepts are needed to understand the Dhamma (like training wheels) at least until one can learn to "balance" without them. Although it is possible to learn how to ride a bike without training wheels, I don't think it is possible to learn Dhamma without concepts. TG ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear TG and Howard, An example of training without pannatti can be seen in case of venerable Culapanthaka Thera. He had been taught by his brother arahatta bhikkhu Mahapanthaka for months. But these concepts did not work for Culapanthaka Thera. The Buddha gave him a cloth and instructed him to rub on the ground saying 'rajo harana.m rajo haranam'. This great bhikkhu's attainment was great. He attained arahatship along with jhanas and abhinnas. This just happen in a single morning while The Buddha and 998 bhikkhus were in a house of householder for feeding. This is learning Dhamma wihtout concept. But this is very exceptional. Again 'this' existed and exist and will exist in future Buddhas' time if conditions are there. With Metta, Htoo Naing 40638 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 9:07am Subject: Re: Concepts and Questions TG old post: > > > > Concepts are needed to understand the Dhamma (like training wheels) at least > > > > until one can learn to "balance" without them. Although it is possible to > > learn how to ride a bike without training wheels, I don't think it is > > possible to > > learn Dhamma without concepts. > > ------------------------------------------------- Howard reply: > Howard: > Neither do I. On that we agree. ------------------------------------------------ Htoo: Dear Howard and TG, I posted a reply regarding attainment without concept with the example 'Venerable Culapanthaka Thera'. With Metta, Htoo Naing 40639 From: Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 4:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Htoo (and TG) - In a message dated 1/6/05 12:08:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, htootintnaing@y... writes: > Dear TG and Howard, > > An example of training without pannatti can be seen in case of > venerable Culapanthaka Thera. > > He had been taught by his brother arahatta bhikkhu Mahapanthaka for > months. But these concepts did not work for Culapanthaka Thera. > > The Buddha gave him a cloth and instructed him to rub on the ground > saying 'rajo harana.m rajo haranam'. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: Ah, but how did Ven. Culapanthaka Thera even understand what his brother was telling him to do without concepts? -------------------------------------- > > This great bhikkhu's attainment was great. He attained arahatship > along with jhanas and abhinnas. This just happen in a single morning > while The Buddha and 998 bhikkhus were in a house of householder for > feeding. > > This is learning Dhamma wihtout concept. > ------------------------------------------- Howard: No, I don't believe that it is. ---------------------------------------- But this is very > > exceptional. Again 'this' existed and exist and will exist in future > Buddhas' time if conditions are there. > > With Metta, > > Htoo Naing > > ======================= 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) 40640 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 9:55am Subject: Dhamma Thread (217) Dear Dhamma Friends, Sometimes the object that arises cannot attract panca-dvara-avajjana citta or 5-sense-door-adverting consciousness to arise at the earliest possible time. Time lapses. There is another visaya-pavatti or 'arising of object' called 'mahanta-arammana' or clear object. Visaya means 'object where citta enjoys and visits' and pavatti means 'arising'. Visaya-pavatti means 'arising of object'. The first kind has been discussed in the previous posts. It was ati-manta- arammana or very clear object. In this visaya-pavatti or 'arising of object' vithi cittas cannot still arise for 5 moments that the object rupa has already been old. R1/B, R2/B, R3/A.B, R4/C.B, R5/U.B R6---R16/-, R17/- and rupa passes away. In the first moment the rupa cannot serve as an object as it is very weak. So R1 or moment1 of rupa has to pass away without arising of any vithi citta. This happens up to the end of R4. But when the rupa serving as an object approaches 5th moment of its life or R5 the first vithi citta starts to arise and it is panca-dvara-avajjana citta or 5-sense-door-adverting consciousness. R1/B, R2/A.B, R3/C.B, R4/U.B, R5/Pancadvara , R6/Vinnana, R7/Sampaticchana, R8/Santirana, R9/Votthapana, R10/1stJavana, R11/2nd, R12/3rd, R13/4th, R14/5th, R15/6thJavana, R16/7thJavana, and R17/NewBhavanga citta. Sometimes vithi citta cannot arise up to R5. In that case 'vithi vara' or 'the turn of processing cittas' will be R1/B, R2/B, R3/A.B, R4/C.B, R5/U.B, R6/Pancadvara, R7/Vinnana, R8/Sampaticchana, R9/Santirana, R10/Votthapana, R11/1stJ, R12/2nd, R13/3rd, R14/4th, R15/5th, R16/6th, and R17/7thJavana citta. In the first sample, at the end of 7th javana citta there left 1 extra moment of life for rupa object. But this one single moment cannot help arising of tadarammana citta and instead bhavanga citta has to arise. In the second sample, at the end of 7th javana citta rupa also passes away along with 7th javana citta. When ati-mahanta-arammana does have tadarammana cittas, these 2 samples do not contain tadarammana cittas. Vithi vara that vithi cittas arise at ati-mahanta-arammana is also known as 'tada-arammana vara'. Vithi vara that vithi cittas arise at mahanta-arammana is also known as 'javana vara'. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: 1.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. 40641 From: Dan D. Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 9:57am Subject: [dsg] Re: Apologies Hi Sarah and James, A very quick check-in with DSG... It's great to see such fervent (and growing) activity still going on here--about 50% more posts per month than when I began posting several years ago. You run a great discussion group, Sarah and Jon. Keep up the good work! Sarah, I think James is right about your misquoting of Buddha. I wouldn't think you'd do so intentionally, but your ellipses-- especially in the context of your discussion with James--are misleading. In particular, James was commenting that the Brahmajala Sutta refers only to the views of bhikkhus at that time and asked you for evidence that he was referring to all views of all time. In your response, you quoted Brahmajala sutta: "'It is on these sixty-two grounds, bhikkhus…….past…future……all of them do so on these sixty-two grounds, or on a certain one of them. OUTSIDE OF THESE THERE IS NONE." When I saw that quote, I thought: "Hmmm... so Brahmajala really DOES refer to the views of bhikkhus of the past and future, ALL bhikkhus." But, really, the "past...future" are referring to views about the past and future rather than bhikkhus in the past and future and the "all of them" refers to views about the past and future, and not about past and future bhikkhus. The quote does not at all address James' suggestion that the sutta discusses only the views held by bhikkhus at that time and not all views. But I think you are right, Sarah, that the sutta is universal. I'm wondering if James can think of some view that is not addressed by the Brahmajala and if you can respond by showing how the essence of the view really is discussed in Brahmajala. Dan > …. > > James: Now Sarah, why do you feel it necessary to misquote the > > Buddha? > …. > S: There is no misquote. Much of it was repetition of the earlier passage > and I had made it clear they were my caps. Here is the full section for > you to see: > > "It is on these sixty-two grounds, bhikkhus, that those recluses and > Brahmins who are speculators about the past, speculators about the future, > and speculators about the past and the future together, who hold settled > views about the past and the future assert various conceptual theorems > referring to the past and the future. > > "Whatever recluses or Brahmins, bhikkhus, are speculators about the past, > or speculators about the future, or speculators about the past and the > future together, who hold settled views about the past and the future and > assert various conceptual theorems referring to the past and the future., > all of them do so on these sixty-two grounds, or on a certain one of them. > Outside of these there is none." > …… > <…> > J:> Again, the Buddha isn't talking about all wrong views or even the > > wrong views of all times. He is being very specific to the > > speculative views put forth by ascetics and Brahmins; he is also > > being specific to the ascetics and Brahmins of his time period. He > > wasn't trying to codify all wrong views for all times. That would > > be an impossible task. > …. > S: " `This, bhikkhus, the Tathagata understands. And he understands: > `These standpoints, thus assumed and thus misapprehended, lead to such a > future destination, to such a state in the world beyone'. He understands > as well what transcends this, yet even that understanding he does not > misapprehend. And because he is free from misapprehension, he has > realized within himself th state of perfect peace. Having understood as > they really are the origin and passing away of feelings, their > satisfaction, unsatisfactoriness, and the escape from them, the Tathagata, > bhikkhus, is emancipated through non-clinging." > ….. > S: I don't see it as any problem if we all just read the suttas according > to our limited understanding and seek guidance from whichever ancient or > modern commentaries or explanations we find helpful. No need for any > sadness if we reach different conclusions. We're just here to exchange our > ideas and certainly I have no interest in trying to persuade you or anyone > else that you should see the Dhamma my way or even Buddhaghosa's way. > > I've appreciated the discussion and the way you've shared your ideas and > the way you've carefully considered various texts. > > Metta, > > Sarah > > *Highly recommended: `The Discourse on the All-embracing Net of Views, The > Brahmajaala Sutta and its Commentaries, transl from the Pali by Bhikkhu > Bodhi. (our copy was pub. by the BPS some time ago now). > ============ 40642 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 10:07am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Dear Howard, TG and All, Pannatti is an area that illude us. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard wrote: Hi, Htoo (and TG) - > In a message dated 1/6/05 12:08:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, > htootintnaing@y... writes: [Htoo's old reply] > > Dear TG and Howard, > > > > An example of training without pannatti can be seen in case of > > venerable Culapanthaka Thera. > > > > He had been taught by his brother arahatta bhikkhu Mahapanthaka for > > months. But these concepts did not work for Culapanthaka Thera. > > > > The Buddha gave him a cloth and instructed him to rub on the ground > > saying 'rajo harana.m rajo haranam'. > > ---------------------------------------- Howard wrote: Howard: Ah, but how did Ven. Culapanthaka Thera even understand what his brother was telling him to do without concepts? -------------------------------------- Htoo: That is where pannatti did not work. His brother taught him and he tried to absorb with concept. But it was like a volatile liquid and nothing left as concept in Culapanthaka's brain. The Buddha knew Culapanthaka's power and potentials. The Buddha just gave very very simple instruction. When complicated and detail teachings were not absorbed, how pannatti would help him attain enlightenment along with rupa jhanas and abhinna. I believe this exceptional example is attainment without the aid of pannatti. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [Htoo's old reply] > > This great bhikkhu's attainment was great. He attained arahatship > > along with jhanas and abhinnas. This just happen in a single morning > > while The Buddha and 998 bhikkhus were in a house of householder for > > feeding. > > > > This is learning Dhamma wihtout concept. > > ------------------------------------------- Howard wrote: Howard: No, I don't believe that it is. ---------------------------------------- Htoo: This is another area. We can disagree. I believe that 'pannatti' always create disputes among abhidhamma learners. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > But this is very > > > exceptional. Again 'this' existed and exist and will exist in future > > Buddhas' time if conditions are there. > > > > With Metta, > > > > Htoo Naing > > > > > ======================= > With metta, > Howard > 40643 From: htootintnaing Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 10:58am Subject: Dhamma Thread (218) Dear Dhamma Friends, The third visaya-pavatti or 'arising of object' is called paritta- arammana or faint object. Ati-mahanta-arammana passes 1 atita bhavanaga citta. Mahanta-arammana passes 2 atita bhavanga cittas or 3 atita bhavanga cittas. In this visaya-pavatti or 'arising of object' there have to pass 4, or 5, or 6, or 7 or, 8 or 9 atita bhavanaga cittas. a) 4 atita bhavanga cittas pass away R1/B, R2/B, R3/B, R4/A.B, R5/C.B, R6/U.B, R7/Pancadvara, R8/Pancavinnana, R9/Sampaticchana, R10/Santirana, R11/Votthapana, R12/Votthapa, R13/B5, R14/B6, R15/B7, R16/B8, R17/B9 and both rupa and citta pass away at the same time there after. At R11 there arise votthapana citta or determining consciousness. This has to be followed by javana cittas. But there left only 6 moments after R11. So javana cittas cannot arise in 6 moments only and instead 2nd votthapana citta has to arise and then bhavanga cittas have to follow it. Votthapana citta is determining consciousness and now as the object is faint he cannot decide how to deeply feel on the object. R for Rupa serving as object and R1 means the rupa serving as an object is 1 moment old. B is for Bhavanga citta. A.B is for Atita Bhavanga citta. C.B is for Bhavanaga Calana citta. U.B is for Bhavanga- Uppaccheda citta. R7/Pancadvara is for pancadvara-avajjana citta arising at 7th moment of rupa. R13/B5 means at 13th moment of rupa object bhavanga citta has to arise. There are 6 samples. They are 4 atita bhavanga citta passed, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. So B5 to B9 are all just B for Bhavanga citta. For the reason of counting they are named here as B5, B6 and so on. So in this vithi vara there are 6 possible vithi varas and all vithi vara end with 2 votthapana cittas. So these vithi varas are called 'votthapana vithi vara'. There is no javana cittas at all and because of arisinw of these vithi vara there does not create any kamma. This is because object is faint and cannot support arising of javana cittas. a)1B,2B,3B,4At,5Ca,6Up,7Pa,8Vi,9Sm,10St,11Vo,12Vo,13B5,14B,15B,16B,17B b)1B,2B,3B,4B,5A,6C,7U,8P,9V,10Sm,11St,12Vo,13V,14B6,15B7,16B8,17B9 c)1B,2B,3B,4B,5B,6A,7C,8U,9P,10V,11Sm,12St,13V,14V,15B7,16B8,17B9 d)1B,2B,3B,4B,5B,6B,7A,8C,9U,10P,11V,12Sm,13St,14V,15V,16B8,17B9 e)1B1,2B2,3B3,4B4,5B5,6B6,7B7,8A,9C,10U,11P,12V,13Sm,14St,15V,16V,17B9 f)1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9B9/Atita,10C,11U,12Pan,13V,14Sm,15St,16Vo,17Vot In a 4 atita bhavanga citta pass away before bhavanga calana citta. In b 5 In c 6 In d 7 In e 8 In f 9 atita bhavnaga cittas already pass away before bhavanga calana citta. So 10th moment of rupais taken up by bhavanga calana citta, 11th by bhavanguppaccheda citta, 12th by panca-dvara-avajjana citta, 13th by pancavinnana citta, 14th by sampaticchana, 15th by santirana, and 16th and 17th are both occupied by votthapana cittas and at the end of 2nd votthapana citta rupa passes away along with passing away of 2nd votthapana citta. In a) to e) 2nd votthapana citta is followed by 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 bhavanga citta and rupa passes away. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: 1.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. 40644 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 11:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Doubt and Confidence Dear Tep, op 06-01-2005 01:28 schreef Tep Sastri op tepyawa@m... > > T: Please do write about your experience in the Dhamma and how you > have steadily made progress over the years, including how the > progress is measured. N: Long ago a Thai friend said to Kh Sujin that from the time she studied Dhamma she discovered many faults and vices within herself. This made her discouraged. True, people may think themselves good Buddhists, keeping the precepts mostly, practising dana, not really hurting others. But there is more in the Dhamma. Do they really know themselves, is there any understanding? Lodewijk said that it is not difficult to consider oneself a beginner. One begins to have more understanding of all akusala accumulations, of the latent tendencies which condition one to always make the same mistakes. I find that through study of Abhidhamma and verifying in life what one learnt one finds out about one's hidden motives. Speech and deeds that seemed good and noble before are in reality mixed with moments of conceit. As to insight: it is not difficult to know one is a beginner. This has nothing to do with despisal of oneself and conceit of thinking oneself less, or false modesty. It is just the plain truth. I have confidence in the Path that I follow, eventually I will get to the goal. But I am not thinking of so much progress today or tomorrow. I just know that insight is difficult, but this does not discourage me at all. Lodewijk said: progress of whom? Are we thinking of ? Then we are again self-involved. He finds the question of progress irrelevant. I think that it is best to consider the citta that is thinking of progress. What type of citta is thinking of progress? T: My understanding is that steady Dhamma progress (e.g. two steps up, > only one step down; or, several steps up and only a few steps down) > only comes after we have clearly seen the drawbacks of the five > aggregates. N: We can see the disadvantages of the five khandhas only after knowing precisely what they are, that is, through the development of insight stage by stage. Knowing one nama and one rupa at a time as it appears. Sati and pañña are sobhana (beautiful) dhammas, accompanying sobhana citta. Here the Abhidhamma can prevent us from going into pitfalls. They are just dhammas and do not belong to anyone. T asked: Could you elaborate a little bit on that (what Howard and TG wrote.)? N: I did not keep their posts, but they were explaining to Chris that ups and downs are quite normal. Nina. 40645 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 11:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what is higher dhamma, abhidhamma? Dear Tep, Here is my attempt to answer: The Buddha taught already Abhidhamma in the sutta. The three characteristics of ultimate realities, is that not Abhidhamma? I read the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta (Vinaya, Mahaavagga, 12) today to Lodewijk. The Buddha explained that the five khandhas are anatta, impermanent, subject to change, dukkha. Here is the higher dhamma, the abhidhamma. The sutta does not deal with a King named so and so, in a country, named so and so. He directly explains the khandhas so that we do not delay being aware of seeing now, hardness now. We apply Abhidhamma. That is vipassana. The khandhas, the elements, the aayatanas, this is all about higher dhamma, or abhidhamma. We do not have to go far to find out what abhidhamma is. Let us prove it here and now. Nina. op 06-01-2005 02:21 schreef Tep Sastri op tepyawa@m...: > If the Abhidhamma is really "higher Dhamma", why didn't the Buddha > tell His disciples to seek the "abhidhammakatham" after their listening > to the suttas such as the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta? The words "full > release" and "there is nothing further for this world" imply that the > discourse content is adequate, there is nothing higher. 40646 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 11:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Non-hatred, non-greed and non-delusion (from Atthasalini) Dear Phil and Joop, op 05-01-2005 21:41 schreef Philip op plnao@j...: the Atthasalini (commentary to the Dhammasangani of the > Abhidhamma Pitaka.) It considers the nature of the wholesome roots. > "Through non-greed (alobha) one does not overrate (an attractive > object) as the lustful person does. Through non-hatred (adosa) one > does not underrate or deprecate (an unattractive or disagreeable > object) as the hater does." > > What a simple but immensely helpful teaching this has been for me > recently. We read in so many suttas about not being "taken in" by > objects, not "taking the lure" of the objects that arise through the > six doors. And how wise attention frees us from doing so. N: Here we see again that the Abhidhamma is meant for application. If we would not know about the akusala roots, we take for kusala what is akusala. What is the use of the classifications of the different types of cittas rooted in the akusala roots of attachment, aversion and ignorance? It helps us to understand ourselves and other people. It bears down directly on our social contact with others. All these defilements are mere dhammas arising because of their own conditions. If we forget this we become impatient about ourselves and others. We cannot accept that others react as they do. We shall blame them and then we have more and more aversion. We do not have to believe the Abhidhamma, it is to be verified in our life. The Abhidhamma makes us see our faults as if in a mirror. We need to have confidence to see the benefit of the Abhidhamma. Phil: Again, so simple but so helpful to reflect on and verify in daily > life. > And re the dynamic between the wholesome roots and the three > characteristics: > > "Through non-greed one will understand impermanence; for a greedy > man, in his longing for enjoyment, will not see impermanence of > transitory phenomena.... N: Thank you, Phil, for sharing, Nina. 40647 From: Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 6:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Htoo - In a message dated 1/6/05 1:14:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, htootintnaing@y... writes: > ---------------------------------------- > Howard wrote: > > Howard: > Ah, but how did Ven. Culapanthaka Thera even understand what > his brother was telling him to do without concepts? > -------------------------------------- > Htoo: > > That is where pannatti did not work. > ==================== I made a mistake in what I wrote. (Sorry.) I meant to write "Ah, but how did Ven. Culapanthaka Thera even understand what THE BUDDHA was telling him to do without concepts?" Even simple instruction involves 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) 40648 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 0:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What the mind does Hi Steve, I have to look quietly at the text. Thanks for the Pali. Nina. op 06-01-2005 14:58 schreef seisen_au op seisen_@h...: > > > 320. Bhikkhus, just as a little bit of excreta smells and should be > got rid of, I do not specify thinking even for the fraction of a > second. 40649 From: Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 7:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions In a message dated 1/6/2005 11:51:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: I made a mistake in what I wrote. (Sorry.) I meant to write "Ah, but how did Ven. Culapanthaka Thera even understand what THE BUDDHA was telling him to do without concepts?" Even simple instruction involves concepts. With metta, Howard Yes Yes. Yes. That's exactly the point!!! TG 40650 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 0:58pm Subject: Re: Apologies Friend Dan, Dan: Sarah, I think James is right about your misquoting of Buddha. I wouldn't think you'd do so intentionally, but your ellipses-- especially in the context of your discussion with James—are misleading. James: Thank you Dan for sharing your perspective on this matter. I also did not mean to imply that Sarah was intentionally misquoting the Buddha, but I did want to warn her of how others would interpret her quoting technique in this instance. I'm glad to hear from at least one person that my fears were justified. Thank you again. Dan: But I think you are right, Sarah, that the sutta is universal. James: Okay, I respect your opinion. I want to get back to this below. Dan: I'm wondering if James can think of some view that is not addressed by the Brahmajala and if you can respond by showing how the essence of the view really is discussed in Brahmajala. James: This is an excellent suggestion! Unfortunately, I already did this in a previous post (#40469) and Sarah ignored my challenge. In that post, I put forward the modern views of Existentialism and Objectivism- two wrong views, of an ontological nature, not described in the Brahmajala Sutta. However, Dan, since you are of the opinion that the Brahmajala Sutta is universal perhaps you would like to pick up the challenge? (Especially since I have ended the thread with Sarah- it was going nowhere because Sarah will not budge when it comes to the commentaries ;-)). You can find the full text of the Brahmajala Sutta at this link: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/ida_b_wells_memorial_sutra_library /brahmajala_sutta.htm Here is some info about Existentialism: A philosophic tendency of the 19th and 20th centuries. The dogma holds that since there are no universal values, man's essence is not predetermined, but is based only on free choice; Man is in a state of anxiety because of his realization of free will; There is no objective truth; and Existence precedes essence. (James's note: This is a wrong view for several reasons but most striking is its denial of the law of kamma.) http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/ http://www.thecry.com/existentialism/ AND Here is some info about Objectivism: Objectivism is the philosophy developed by Ayn Rand; it is presented in her novel Atlas Shrugged and in her other fiction and non-fiction works. The central ideas of Objectivism are: Reason is man's only means of knowledge. The facts of reality are knowable through a process of objective reasoning that begins with sensory perception and follows the laws of logic. Objectivism rejects subjectivism, the belief that knowledge is a matter of opinion; skepticism, the belief that knowledge is impossible and no one can be certain of anything; and every form of mysticism, the belief that knowledge is a product of revelations or insights into a supernatural dimension. Rational self-interest is the objective ethical code. Each man should seek his own happiness through a productive life in which his own independent, rational judgement is his only guide to action. No man should sacrifice himself to others nor others to himself. The primary virtues of the Objectivist ethics are rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, trade, and pride. Objectivism rejects altruism, the doctrine that the highest good is service to others---whether ``others'' denotes a state, a deity, one's family, ``society,'' or the poor and disadvantaged. (James's note: This is a wrong view for several reasons but most striking is its denial of the inherent ignorance/delusion of wordlings) http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/InBrief/ http://www.whatisobjectivism.com/explained/index.htm Metta, James 40651 From: Andrew Levin Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 1:04pm Subject: Re: Idle chatter- Andrew L --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > Hi AndrewL, > > I'll come back to other points later. For now, I'd like to just discuss > `idle chatter' and kamma patha capable of bringing results in the way of > akusala vipaka, as you've referred to the results of idle chatter or > mischief by way of speech many times. > > --- Andrew Levin wrote: > > > S: Unless the idle chatter is of the degree of kamma patha (another > > > topic), it cannot bring results, but at the same time all kusala and > > > akusala accumulates and can assist kamma patha in future. > > > A:> I am just lost here. How can idle chatter not be kamma patha?… > …. > S: For example, as we use the phrase conventionally, we may chatter about > the weather, computers, clothes or any other topic. Usually it's with > lobha, dosa or moha and thereby akusala (unwholesome), but not of a degree > that the cetana/kamma (intention) involved can lead to any results. For > example, there is no intention to `sow the seed of discord' as given in > the definition of `frivolous talk' , one of the 10 kinds of kamma patha as > given in the following description in the Atthasalini, transl as `The > Expositor', Courses of Immoral Action: > > " `Frivolous talk' is speaking senseless, useless things. The volition > which is at the root of all speech of this sort, and is named calumnious, > etc, is here alone to be understood. The volition of one with a corrupt > mind, producing the bodily and vocal effort to sow the seed of discord > among others, or to endear oneself to others is termed the volition of > calumnious speech. Sarah, this ('sowing the seed of discourse') sounds like the definition of divisive speech, one of the four modes of speech the Buddha censured. The opposite of divisive speech is speech which creates concord: MN 41 Saleyyaka Sutta ================================================================== Abandoning malicious speech, he becomes one who abstains from malicious speech: as one who is neither a repeater elsewhere of what is heard here for the purpose of causing division from these, nor a repeater to these of what is heard elsewhere for the purpose of causing division from those, who is thus a reuniter of the divided, a promoter of friendships, enjoying concord, rejoicing in concord, delighting in concord, he becomes a speaker of words that promote concord. ================================================================== I would ask you where you got this definition of frivolous speech. (It started off good at first but the definition doesn't fit. There's malicious or divisive speech for that, the Buddha clearly referenced this as one of the four types of immoral speech, which contains both divisive speech and idle chatter. There is > > "It is a smaller or greater offence, according as the virtue of the person > whom he separates is smaller or greater [S: just as we've discussed with > regard to killing and other unwholesome deeds whereby the virtue and size > of the recipient have some bearing. Killing an insect doesn't take the > same effort or bring the same consequences as killing a human to give a > simple example]. > > "There are four constituent factors of this crime: [S: i.e 4 factors to be > fulfilled for completed kamma-patha, just like for killing to be > completed, there has to be a living being ,knowledge of a living being, > the intention to kill, effort and death]. > > 1) Other persons to be divided; > 2) The purpose: `they will be sepaated,' or the desire to endear oneself > to another: `I shall become dear and intimate'; > 3) the corresponding effort; > 4) the communication. > > "But when there is no rupture among others, the offence does not amount to > a complete course [S: i.e complete kamma patha likely to bring results]; > it does so only when there is a rupture. > …. > S: So, there are bound to be kusala and akusala intentions when we speak > together, but I'm sure there is no intention to sow any discord and > certainly no `ruptures' when you write. > > As I say, I'll try to come back to another few points later. it's a > pleasure. > > Metta, > > Sarah Sarah, also consider: Anguttara Nikaya VIII.40 Vipaka Sutta Results ================================================================== "Frivolous chattering -- when indulged in, developed, & pursued -- is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from frivolous chattering is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to words that aren't worth taking to heart. ================================================================== I hold this to be the truth as it is in accordance with my understanding. So you can see why I'm of the position that idle chatter, in any dose, can rarely bring good results. Another definition the Buddha gave of idle chatter, this from the first sutta: He is a gossip: as one who tells that which is unseasonable, that which is not fact, that which is not good, that which is not the Dhamma, that which is not the Discipline, and he speaks out of season speech not worth recording, which is unreasoned, indefinite, and unconnected with good. And the opposite of that, placed in some suttas after the phrase "Abandoning idle chatter" (implying this mode of speech is its 'opposite' if you will: DN 2 Samannaphala Sutta, The Fruits of the Contemplative Life ==================================================================== "Abandoning idle chatter, he abstains from idle chatter. He speaks in season, speaks what is factual, what is in accordance with the goal, the Dhamma, and the Vinaya. He speaks words worth treasuring, seasonable, reasonable, circumscribed, connected with the goal. ==================================================================== So with the opposites of both frivolous and divisive speech being expounded as what one would logically infer, how can frivolous speech have such an obscure meaning? 40652 From: Matthew Miller Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 6:49am Subject: Re: Seeing & Hearing Howard wrote: > Matthew, our perspectives are completely different. > Yours is the "objective physical world of matter and > energy" story of physics, and mine is the > phenomenological "world of experience". Our base > assumptions are radically different, sufficently different > to make it impossible for me to reply properly > to your question. Actually, our perspectives are not so radically different here. My last posts did indeed describe the "phenomoneological world of experience" arising at the sense-doors, and not "the objective physical world of physics." For example, I wrote: >> Sound is a vibration. It is nothing more than a frequency and >> amplitude of pressure changes which occur in time. This can be experienced. Take any random sound that you can hear right now. This is saddaarammana.na, it is rupa, it is paramattha dhamma, it is that which appears through the earsense and, as Nina says, "it doesn't matter how we name it" (or does it?) What do we experience as saddaarammana.na? Saddaarammana.na is a vibratory frequency (experienced as pitch, high or low). It is amplitude (experienced as loudness). Could there be a sound without pitch and loudness? Would it still be a sound? The abhidhamma literature repeatedly asserts that all sensing is "serial" (e.g. that when one is hearing, the eye is not present). This assertion seems counter-intuitive to me and contradicts my "experience of realities as they arise at the sense-doors." Here's a summary of the experiences I described which seem to contradict the abhidhammic serial-sense theory: 1. Experience of having one sense altered by the simultaneous presence of another sense. The example I gave was hearing and sight. You can actually try this yourself: When sitting in the passenger seat of a car (not while driving please!) close your eyes for a while. Then, the next time the car stops at a light, focus on a random sound. Now open your eyes. Notice how the perception of the sound itself changes with simultaneous vision. Even if you cannot SEE the source of the sound, its direction becomes more clear. (N.B. Before you opened your eyes, there was a vague, inherent direction in the sound, but it comes into sharper focus with the addition of sight) There are other examples of combined senses. I'll post them later. 2. Experience of the durational aspect of hearing. If the "flitting" between senses is as rapid as abhidhammic descriptions imply, a sound vibration unfolding in time would be difficult (if not impossible) to perceive clearly. For a sound to be perceived, the earsense must hold it (resonate) for a certain minimum duration. This is especially true when dealing with low frequencies. We humans can even experience infrasound (very low frequencies which whales and elephants use to communicate over distances of several miles). Here we're talking about frequencies of only 12 cycles/second or less, which would require our earsense holding steady over relatively long periods of time. It's hard to imagine how this could be perceived using a flitting, serial earsense. Here's a third one: 3. You're watching a movie and the sound is not perfectly synced with the picture. The image of an explosion or of an actor's lips moving comes slightly later (or earlier) than the sound. If the earsense and eyesense were not being received in parallel, if there was flitting back and forth from hearing to seeing, how could we detect if they were out-of-sync? Matthew 40653 From: Munawwar Siddique Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 9:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Hello' Thanks, Larry, Another word for 'Tasawwuf' is 'Sufism', one may call it 'Islamic Mysticism' , I guess. Best Regards, Munawwar -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Munawwar, > > Welcome to the group. Could you expand on your comment below. The rule > here is to stay on topic (Theravada Buddhadhamma). So if you tied your > observations into that and didn't go too far afield, that might do. What > is "Tasawwuf"? > > Larry > ---------------------------- > M: "Greetings! all, > I am a practising Muslim interested in the study of comparative > religion. I see a convergence in the paths of of Abidhamma and Tasawwuf. > Peace! > Munawwar" 40654 From: Munawwar Siddique Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 9:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Hello' Thanks Jon, Munawwar --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Hi, Munawwar > > Welcome to the list from me. > > If you are interested in finding out more about the Abhidhamma, I think > you have come to the right place. > > As a member pointed out in a recent post, the Abhidhamma is a > presentation of the teaching that is called the Dhamma. That teaching > describes the way things truly are at the present moment, and the way of > escape from the round of birth and death of which this present life is > but one fleeting moment. > > Jon 40655 From: Munawwar Siddique Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 9:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Hello' Dear Nina, Thank you. I am from Sri Lanka, the land of Therawada Buddhism. Peace, Munawwar --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Munawwar, > Welcome here, and this is really fascinating. How do you see the Abhidhamma? > From which country are you? > When my husband and I were living in Indonesia we had some personal contacts > with Imans and we were deeply impressed by their spiritual life. Actually, > when you strive after knowing yourself more, developing understanding of > your life, Abhidhamma study is perfect. > Nina. 40656 From: Andrew Levin Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 2:34pm Subject: Re: Idle chatter- Andrew L Sarah- In my previous post I did not see your source, so if it has some credibility then just please try to make it clear how it defines the four unwholesome types of speech, in part by their opposites, as the Buddha described them to laypeople in numerous discourses, because what you wrote seems like it has one mixed up with the other. peace, a.l. 40657 From: Andrew Levin Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 2:46pm Subject: Re: Abhidharma - Andrew L - Kelvin, Just one to make sure of one thing. All of the 40 meditation subjects described in the Vissudhimagga take one through the same insights and levels of understanding even if it's at different paces, and different means of getting there, right? Like the example of the meditation of the four elements -- my commentary states that when one completes this, one will be without clinging and thereby at the end of the round of rebirths - it will take one through the same insight knowledges, and the same four stages of enlightenment that a walking or sitting vipassana practise for example, could, right? Just wanting to make sure of this (major) last point. Peace be, Andrew Levin 40658 From: Dan D. Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 2:52pm Subject: Re: Apologies Dear James, I don't have a lot of time to plough through this discussion carefully, so I'll just jot down a quick comment and leave the rest for Sarah (or someone else) to elaborate on as they see fit. James' summary of Existentialism: "A philosophic tendency of the 19th and 20th centuries. The dogma holds that since there are no universal values, man's essence is not predetermined, but is based only on free choice; Man is in a state of anxiety because of his realization of free will; There is no objective truth; and Existence precedes essence." Asserting an "essence" of a "man" is a manifestation of wrong view, of viewing the five aggregates as either having or composing a "self". The existentialist then says that the base of man's essense (i.e., Self) is free choice (or cetana) and so takes the Self to be based in one of the five aggregates. What are the origin and fate of this existing Self? The generic existentialist in your description doesn't say, but once the existence of the Self is asserted, I can't see how would not fit into eternalism, semi-eternalism, annihilationism, or endless equivocation. With any given person, the wrong view arising at a given moment might well fall into any of the categories. [Interesting to note that BB in his CMA (Guide to II.4) states that ditthi means "seeing wrongly" and that wrong interpretations or beliefs are simply manifestations of ditthi, i.e., wrong opinions would be evidence of underlying ditthi, rather than wrong opinions being the ditthi itself. This sure seems right to me!] Best wishes, Sir James. Dan 40659 From: Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 10:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Apologies Hi, James (and Dan & Sarah) - In a message dated 1/6/05 4:02:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > James: This is an excellent suggestion! Unfortunately, I already > did this in a previous post (#40469) and Sarah ignored my > challenge. In that post, I put forward the modern views of > Existentialism and Objectivism- two wrong views, of an ontological > nature, not described in the Brahmajala Sutta. > ======================== Objectivism, besides displaying other errors such as overstating the power of reason and underestimating the harm in craving, falls under wrong view # 51, as Objectivism has a strong materialist, annihilationist, atta-view. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 40660 From: Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 10:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Seeing & Hearing Hi, Matthew - In a message dated 1/6/05 4:28:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, bupleurum@y... writes: > > Howard wrote: > >Matthew, our perspectives are completely different. > >Yours is the "objective physical world of matter and > >energy" story of physics, and mine is the > >phenomenological "world of experience". Our base > >assumptions are radically different, sufficently different > >to make it impossible for me to reply properly > >to your question. > > Actually, our perspectives are not so radically different here. My > last posts did indeed describe the "phenomoneological world of > experience" arising at the sense-doors, and not "the objective > physical world of physics." For example, I wrote: > > >>Sound is a vibration. It is nothing more than a frequency and > >>amplitude of pressure changes which occur in time. > > This can be experienced. Take any random sound that you can hear > right now. This is saddaarammana.na, it is rupa, it is paramattha > dhamma, it is that which appears through the earsense and, as Nina > says, "it doesn't matter how we name it" (or does it?) What do we > experience as saddaarammana.na? Saddaarammana.na is a vibratory > frequency (experienced as pitch, high or low). It is amplitude > (experienced as loudness). Could there be a sound without pitch and > loudness? Would it still be a sound? --------------------------------- Howard: What is doing the vibrating? I still think you are talking physics, not sound-door experience. -------------------------------- > > The abhidhamma literature repeatedly asserts that all sensing is > "serial" (e.g. that when one is hearing, the eye is not present). > This assertion seems counter-intuitive to me and contradicts my > "experience of realities as they arise at the sense-doors." > --------------------------------------- Howard: We also have a sense of "I", do we not? So, does that mean there is an "I"? A basic premiss of the Dhamma is that "I" is illusion. Is it not conceivable to you that simultaneous multi-sense-door experience is also illusion that can be dispelled by Dhammic training? --------------------------------------- Here's a > > summary of the experiences I described which seem to contradict the > abhidhammic serial-sense theory: > > 1. Experience of having one sense altered by the simultaneous > presence > of another sense. The example I gave was hearing and sight. You can > actually try this yourself: When sitting in the passenger seat of a > car (not while driving please!) close your eyes for a while. Then, > the next time the car stops at a light, focus on a random sound. Now > open your eyes. Notice how the perception of the sound itself changes > with simultaneous vision. Even if you cannot SEE the source of the > sound, its direction becomes more clear. > > (N.B. Before you opened your eyes, there was a vague, inherent > direction in the sound, but it comes into sharper focus with the > addition of sight) > -------------------------------------- Howard: I think I already responded to this issue, didn't I? -------------------------------------- > > There are other examples of combined senses. I'll post them later. > > 2. Experience of the durational aspect of hearing. If the > "flitting" > between senses is as rapid as abhidhammic descriptions imply, a sound > vibration unfolding in time would be difficult (if not impossible) to > perceive clearly. For a sound to be perceived, the earsense must hold > it (resonate) for a certain minimum duration. This is especially true > when dealing with low frequencies. We humans can even experience > infrasound (very low frequencies which whales and elephants use to > communicate over distances of several miles). Here we're talking > about frequencies of only 12 cycles/second or less, which would > require our earsense holding steady over relatively long periods of > time. It's hard to imagine how this could be perceived using a > flitting, serial earsense. > ----------------------------------- Howard: I believe this is still physics talk. ---------------------------------- > > Here's a third one: > > 3. You're watching a movie and the sound is not perfectly synced > with > the picture. The image of an explosion or of an actor's lips moving > comes slightly later (or earlier) than the sound. If the earsense > and > eyesense were not being received in parallel, if there was flitting > back and forth from hearing to seeing, how could we detect if they > were out-of-sync? > --------------------------------------- Howard: When images and sounds are lined up (to speak conventionally about "stuff" in the "external world"), sense doors are alternating with each other and with mind door, and mental processing coordinates the other sensations into a coherent cognitive view of images and sound co-occurring. When they are out of synch, the mental processing presents that cognitive perception instead. ---------------------------------------- > > Matthew > > ======================== With metta, Howard P.S. It seems to me that you accept as truth the stories of modern materialist science, and then try to see how our internal processing of experience should be in order to match those stories. But I take experience as primary, and I consider various world views as stories which more or less can properly serve as means to predict future experience on the basis of past and present experience. I see them only as predictive schemes. /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) 40661 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 3:46pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Apologies Friend Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James (and Dan & Sarah) - > > In a message dated 1/6/05 4:02:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, > buddhatrue@y... writes: > > > James: This is an excellent suggestion! Unfortunately, I already > > did this in a previous post (#40469) and Sarah ignored my > > challenge. In that post, I put forward the modern views of > > Existentialism and Objectivism- two wrong views, of an ontological > > nature, not described in the Brahmajala Sutta. > > > ======================== > Objectivism, besides displaying other errors such as overstating the > power of reason and underestimating the harm in craving, falls under wrong view > # 51, as Objectivism has a strong materialist, annihilationist, atta-view. > > With metta, > Howard Would you mind quoting some material from Ayn Rand, or other Objectivism material, to support this position? From my reading, the objectivist position is rather non-committal when it comes to this issue (and not in an "eel-wriggling" sort of way). Here is what Ayn Rand had to say about it: "I am an intransigent atheist, but not a militant one. This means that I am an uncompromising advocate of reason and that I am fighting for reason, not against religion. I must also mention that I do respect religion in its philosophical aspects, in the sense that it represents an early form of philosophy." [Ayn Rand, Letters of Ayn Rand, March 20, 1965] Metta, James Ps. Btw, since you have thrown your hat in, do you think the Brahmajala Sutta describes all possible cases of wrong view? Hmmm??? Don't be quiet on this issue!! ;-)) 40662 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 3:51pm Subject: Re: Apologies Friend Dan, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > Dear James, > I don't have a lot of time to plough through this discussion > carefully, so I'll just jot down a quick comment and leave the rest > for Sarah (or someone else) to elaborate on as they see fit. Thanks for giving some more input on this matter. I won't question or elaborate further on what you state here because it appears that you don't wish to be drawn into prolonged discussion (which I respect, believe me! ;-)). Thanks again. Metta, James 40663 From: Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 3:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sense-door process, rupa. Howard: "Seeing a sight (i.e., visual consciousness) is just the experiential presence of the sight, and that is different from the sight itself." Hi Howard, I still don't understand what you have in mind. What makes you think there is a sight itself? Larry (nothing new below) ------------------------- H: "Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/5/05 10:43:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: Hi Howard, What's the difference between presence of hardness and sensation of hardness? These are just two words for the same experience. ---------------------------------------- Howard: No. Here we are running into language problems. If by "the sensation of hardness" you mean "the awareness of hardness", then the presence of hardness and the sensation of hardness are the same. But when I use the expression "the sensation of hardness", I mean "the sensation which is hardness". Bodily sensations such as hardness, pains, itches, etc are rupas. The experiential *presence* of any one of them is the consciousness of it, and that is different from the sensation itself. The two go together, of course, always. There is never an itch that is not felt, and there is never the awareness of an itch without the itch. ---------------------------------------------- By positing a difference between sensation and consciousness aren't you asserting that there is an experiencable external object (external to consciousness)? ---------------------------------------------- Howard: External to it? No. Independent of it? No. But different from it? Yes. It seems to me that you understand by 'rupa' something in a material "external world". I mean no such thing. For me a rupa is a sensation: bodily, visual, auditory, tactile, or olfactory. Any one of these, when it arises, arises as an experiential object. Its experiential presence - and "experiential" is redundant, for that is the only sort of presence a sensation has - is the consciousness of that rupa. ---------------------------------------------- If so, what experiences this object? If consciousness is> different from sensation it can't be the experience of sensation. Is sensation a non-conscious experience? ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Hardness is a sensation, its experiential presence is consciousness of that hardness. They are distinguishable but inseparable. Similarly, the outside and inside of a box are not the same, but there is never one without the other. They are distinguishable but inseparable. Consciousness of an arammana is the mere presence of that arammana. Nothing more. Seeing a sight (i.e., visual consciousness) is just the experiential presence of the sight, and that is different from the sight itself. This is "consciousness" in the sense that is untainted by atta-view. Perhaps you are thinking of consciousness as an operation of a knowing subject, or as, itself, a "knower". That goes too far; that is the vi~n~nana that ceases in the process of dependent cessation. That is consciousness-infected-by-sense-of-self. With metta, Howard" 40664 From: Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 3:58pm Subject: Vim.XIV 129 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV [THE PERCEPTION AGGREGATE] 129. Now it was said above, 'Whatever has the characteristic of perceiving should be understood, all taken together, as the perception aggregate' (par.81). And here too, what is said to have the characteristic of perceiving is perception itself, according as it is said, 'It perceives, friend, that is why it is called perception' (m.i,293). But though it is singlefold according to its individual essence as the characteristic of perceiving, it is nevertheless threefold as to kind, that is to say, profitable, unprofitable, and indeterminate. Herein, [462] that associated with profitable consciousness is 'profitable', that associated with unprofitable consciousness is 'unprofitable', and that associated with indeterminate consciousness is 'indeterminate'. Since there is no consciousness dissociated from perception, perception therefore has the same number of divisions as consciousness [that is to say, eighty-nine]. 40666 From: Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 11:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Apologies Hi, James - In a message dated 1/6/05 6:49:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > Would you mind quoting some material from Ayn Rand, or other > Objectivism material, to support this position? From my reading, > the objectivist position is rather non-committal when it comes to > this issue (and not in an "eel-wriggling" sort of way). Here is > what Ayn Rand had to say about it: > > "I am an intransigent atheist, but not a militant one. This means > that I am an uncompromising advocate of reason and that I am > fighting for reason, not against religion. I must also mention that > I do respect religion in its philosophical aspects, in the sense > that it represents an early form of philosophy." [Ayn Rand, Letters > of Ayn Rand, March 20, 1965] > --------------------------------- Howard: That material quotes Ms Rand in one of her mellowed-out, relatively sane moments. More usually she was rabidly anti-religion. I haven't read Ayn Rand for many, many years. But when I did, I was quite the devotee. I read virtually all her books, and subscribed to The Objectivist Newsletter, and later The Objectivist, for years. Her book ANTHEM, by the way, a lovely little work, is a paeon to the self!! I do not have any of her books or other writings easily available now. They may be squirreled away somewhere in my basement. In any case, I'm not inclined to do a search for them nor to search through them for material. Be assured that I know what her positions were *quite* well and that what I had to say about Objectivism is correct. ----------------------------------------------- > > Metta, > James > Ps. Btw, since you have thrown your hat in, do you think the > Brahmajala Sutta describes all possible cases of wrong view? > Hmmm??? Don't be quiet on this issue!! ;-)) ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't really know, James, but I would doubt that it is exhaustive. ====================== 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) 40667 From: Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 11:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sense-door process, rupa. Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/6/05 6:55:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Howard: "Seeing a sight (i.e., visual consciousness) is just the > experiential presence of the sight, and that is different from the sight > itself." > > Hi Howard, > > I still don't understand what you have in mind. What makes you think > there is a sight itself? > > Larry > ======================= We are each talking a non-dualism here, Larry, but with you taking the subjective slant and me taking the objective slant. I understand you to be saying that there occurs a mind event of seeing, and the characteristic of one such seeing that distinguishes it from another seeing we call "the sight seen" but that is just a manner of speaking. I, on the other hand, say that a sight arises. The sight is the experience, and the arising of it, it's becoming present, we call "consciousness of the sight". There is really little difference in our positions other than emphasis. I prefer my formulation because of the no-self experience I underwent once, in which "I", the knowing subject, disappeared, but sights, sounds, etc still arose. There were just those experiential events arising, but no knower of them. 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) 40668 From: gazita2002 Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 5:31pm Subject: Re: Doubt and Confidence Dear Chris, I think its fairly common for this to occur. here is a quote which I recite to me on occasions, "i'm blind, my eyes are destroyed. i'v stumbled on a wilderness track. even if I must crawl, i'll go on, but not with an evil companion". Thag.95 patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > > Hello all, > > Strange, isn't it ... how enthusiam for the Dhamma wafts and > wanes ... ? > I've noticed a pattern over the last year or so - great interest, > strong enthusiam, confidence, contentment in the practice .. and > then, boredom, alienation, doubt, discontent. I'm at the bottom of > that cycle at the moment - hope it is a cycle - not sure what to do - > other than having patience, and keeping on keeping on .... > > metta and peace, > Christine > --- The trouble is that you think you have time--- 40669 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 5:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Apologies Friend Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James - > Howard: > That material quotes Ms Rand in one of her mellowed-out, relatively > sane moments. More usually she was rabidly anti-religion. Okay, thanks for the input. Really, I don't know a great deal about Objectivism other than a few things I have read. I had some exposure to Objectivism in college when, in the student cafeteria, I was often approached by members of an Objectivist group on campus to attend one of their meetings. When I told them that I was a Buddhist, they usually left me alone ;-)). I bought a used copy of The Fountainhead here in Cairo and one day I may get around to reading it. Anyway, I will take your word for it and drop the issue of Objectivism-perhaps it does fit within the Brahmajala Sutta. Metta, James 40670 From: Tep Sastri Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 6:11pm Subject: Re: Doubt and Confidence --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Tep, > op 06-01-2005 01:28 schreef Tep Sastri op tepyawa@m... > > > > T: Please do write about your experience in the Dhamma and how you > > have steadily made progress over the years, including how the > > progress is measured. Dear Nina, Thank you for telling a brief story about your Abhidhamma study and how you have applied it. This story persuades me to look at the Dhamma with a broader perspective about insight and its progress. You are pretty clever at explaining your point by touching on it little by little, and making it sound more and more convincing each time. N: Lodewijk said that it is not difficult to consider oneself a beginner. One begins to have more understanding of all akusala accumulations, of the latent tendencies which condition one to always make the same mistakes. T: Lodewijk is a wise man. His words remind me of a sutta that says even a newborn baby has latent tendencies (anusaya?). So it makes sense to talk about effects that are produced by accumulations of akusala from the previous lives. But what about bad "habits" that are being created everyday? Is a bad habit latent tendency too? N: I find that through study of Abhidhamma and verifying in life what one learnt one finds out about one's hidden motives. Speech and deeds that seemed good and noble before are in reality mixed with moments of conceit. T: It is sad that even "noble" speech and deeds are not truly noble. According to the Abhidhamma, are impure hidden motives caused mainly by conceit? Or by tanha? N: As to insight: it is not difficult to know one is a beginner. This has nothing to do with despisal of oneself and conceit of thinking oneself less, or false modesty. It is just the plain truth. I have confidence in the Path that I follow, eventually I will get to the goal. T: I am glad to know that you're following the Path. The words "confidence in the Path" and "eventually" imply that you plan to reach the goal in a finite amount of time, and that you are making progress in the Dhamma. N: Lodewijk said: progress of whom? Are we thinking of ? Then we are again self-involved. He finds the question of progress irrelevant. I think that it is best to consider the citta that is thinking of progress. What type of citta is thinking of progress? T: I do not know what kind of citta thinks of progress. But can we make progress (e.g. accumulating more and more kusala dhamma) without thinking about "our progress" or "who makes the progress"? I think we can. Even the computer can be taught to correct errors and become more intelligent without "thinking" of its progress. N: Sati and panna are sobhana (beautiful) dhammas, accompanying sobhana citta. Here the Abhidhamma can prevent us from going into pitfalls. T: What are the pitfalls? I wish I could understand exactly what you meant above, Nina! Since most DSG members are familiar with sobhana citta, may I ask you to just give me a Web link to the source of this subject matter? Kindest regards, Tep ===== 40671 From: Tep Sastri Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 7:27pm Subject: Re: what is higher dhamma, abhidhamma? Dear Nina and Ken O. - -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Tep, > Here is my attempt to answer: > The Buddha taught already Abhidhamma in the sutta. The three characteristics of ultimate realities, is that not Abhidhamma? > I read the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta (Vinaya, Mahaavagga, 12) today to Lodewijk. > The Buddha explained that the five khandhas are anatta, impermanent, subject to change, dukkha. Here is the higher dhamma, the abhidhamma. The sutta does not deal with a King named so and so, in a country, named so and so. He > directly explains the khandhas so that we do not delay being aware of seeing now, hardness now. We apply Abhidhamma. That is vipassana. > The khandhas, the elements, the aayatanas, this is all about higher dhamma, or abhidhamma. Thank you for answering my questions to Ken O. for me (and other members too). Your answer is very interesting and very clever ! I agree with you that the Dhamma taught by the Buddha in the Anatta- lakkhana Sutta (Vinaya, Mahaavagga, 12) is the highest, there is nothing else above it. That's why (as I told Ken O.) the 5 Noble Disciples became Arahunt after they had listened to this discourse. Knowing that the Higher Dhamma is already in the suttas, all Buddhists, who previously did not believe in the suttas, should prioritize their study on the Vinaya Pitaka and the Sutta Pitaka. They don't even have to study the difficult Abhidhamma Pitaka at all. For those who aim at practicing as soon as possible after the reading, they only have to pay their utmost attention to no more than 20 suttas, for example, the Sekha-patipada Sutta, Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, Maha-satipatthana Sutta, Ahara Sutta, Salayatana-Vibhanga Sutta, and Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta. Without having to worry about looking elsewhere for a "Higher Dhamma", they now can spend a lot more time to practice according to these great suttas. N: > We do not have to go far to find out what abhidhamma is. Let us prove it here and now. T: Yes, it is proven. Kindest regards, Tep ============== 40672 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 7:34pm Subject: Re: Abhidharma - Andrew L - Andrew, > Just one to make sure of one thing. All of the 40 meditation subjects > described in the Vissudhimagga take one through the same insights and > levels of understanding even if it's at different paces, and different > means of getting there, right? > > Like the example of the meditation of the four elements -- my > commentary states that when one completes this, one will be without > clinging and thereby at the end of the round of rebirths - it will > take one through the same insight knowledges, and the same four stages > of enlightenment that a walking or sitting vipassana practise for > example, could, right? Kel: 40 meditation subjects are objects to which our mind can advert to. Now one can use a particular object for either samatha (concentration) or insight (vipassana) meditation. Technically in Visuddhimagga, they're given in concentration section because it's a necessary preparation for insight. One monk equated concentration to being able to "see" the truth. Now that doesn't mean one comprehends the truth. Once you're able to "see", you investigate it repeatedly to understand the truth. Investigation is what leads to insight. People will achieve mental clarity (concentration) at different paces for sure. Now if your ability to see is tainted or weak then insight progress could be slow or incomplete. On the other hand, even some wisdom will in turn help the concentration by giving you better ability to handle difficulities in your practice and life. So you can do them in distinct steps, first concentration and second insight or interleave them as you go. Though don't forget sila (five percepts) is the foundation, make sure it's solid or your practice won't go far. We're using the objects as a mean to develop wisdom. Insight knowledges are landmarks to quantify the maturity of your wisdom, nothing to do with the object. The boundaries between stages can be fussy and you might not experience them in distinct stages. Since everyone must pass through the same landmarks in developing their wisdom, it is the same "path". Again, different pace for different people in how fast they progress on the path. The fruit at the end is the same for everyone. Walking or sitting are just the posture you practice meditation in, not necessarily the object of meditation. Still whatever object you take it should fall in the 40 subjects and it'll take you along the same path. Btw, recollection of deities is one of the 40 subjects. The reason for anapana to 4-element meditation popularity is it's the easiest to start investigating phase for majority of people. - kel 40673 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 8:30pm Subject: Re: What the mind does Hi Steve and Kelvin, My two cents worth: The Buddha taught satipatthana (including vipassana) and only satipatthana. Conceptualising can never amount to satipatthana, and so, undeniably, the Buddha never taught it - not even for a fraction of a second. Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "seisen_au" wrote: > > Hi Kelvin and All > > These two suttas have puzzled me for a while now and like you i was > suspicious of the translation, but looking at the pali im still not > able to understand the meaning. Is anyone able to clear up what kind > of thinking these two suttas talk about? > > > 320. Bhikkhus, just as a little bit of excreta smells and should be > got rid of, I do not specify thinking even for the fraction of a > second. > > 321. Bhikkhus, just as a little bit of urine, saliva, pus, blood > smells and should be got rid of, I do not specify thinking{1) even > for the fraction of a second. > > Notes. > > ( 1) I do not specify thinking even for a short second. > `appamattaka.m pi bhava.m na va.n.nemi' Always thoughts seek > connections in the past, for the future or in the present. The > bhikkhu who aims extinction should not advocte thinking, as thoughts > prolong the journey in existence. > 40674 From: Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 8:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sense-door process, rupa. Howard: "I, on the other hand, say that a sight arises. The sight is the experience, and the arising of it, it's becoming present, we call "consciousness of the sight"." Hi Howard, I think our main difference is that I think of experience as being consciousness and I can't imagine it being anything else. Maybe the problem is a difference in what we mean by "object of consciousness". I think of object of consciousness as being a reference point rather than a specimen under the microscope. For example, when I am angry there is no experienced object of that anger. The object is there causally as a reference point but not in the moment of anger. There is only one player on the stage and it is consciousness. You, on the other hand, seem to think that object and consciousness are both there in experience like the inside and outside of a box. As I see it, the problem with your formulation is that the object has a very nebulous status. But I can see how this idea comes out of the Buddha's explanation of contact. Larry 40675 From: Matthew Miller Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 6:44pm Subject: Re: Seeing & Hearing Howard: > What is doing the vibrating? I still think you are talking physics, > not sound-door experience. Visuddhimagga says that "earsense" is one of the sense-organs, located inside the ear "at a spot shaped like a finger-ring and fringed by tender, tawny hairs." So I suppose that's what vibrating. Matthew 40676 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 10:24pm Subject: Re: what is higher dhamma, abhidhamma? Hi All, > Knowing that the Higher Dhamma is already in the suttas, all > Buddhists, who previously did not believe in the suttas, should I just wanted to point out a link for writings by Ledi Sayadaw: http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL03.html Section: How to Acquire Nama-rupa-pariggaha-nana. Some excerpts: In the chapter on Ditthi-visuddhi in the Visuddhi-magga Atthakatha, the process for full comprehension of the characteristics of physical and mental phenomena has been set out at great length and in great detail, but what has been set out there is only for those who are highly intelligent and who have specially grasped the Abhidhamma. It is not for the beginner in the practice of meditation. When one is prosecuting his studies in Buddhist literature, one should understand all the Teachings in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. However, when one is contemplating mental and physical phenomena for the purpose of acquiring vipassana-nana-dassana-sammaditthi (right view of anicca, dukkha and anatta through insight-wisdom), it is not necessary for one to know all that is contained in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. One should think out which suttanta-method among the methods declared in the Majjhima-nikaya and Samyutta-nikaya, is best suited for one's purpose and should try and attain nama-rupa-pariggaha-nana by that method. In doing so, he should first get instructions from a competent kammatthana teacher who has already attained nama-rupa-pariggaha- nana. Otherwise, if he simply depends on his intellectual power and contemplates as he pleases, he may be able to achieve the desired goal only after a very long period, or may not be able to achieve that goal at all. - kel 40677 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Thu Jan 6, 2005 10:57pm Subject: Re: What the mind does Hi Ken, > My two cents worth: The Buddha taught satipatthana (including > vipassana) and only satipatthana. Kel: I think when you say only satipatthana, it's not proper use of the name and reference which can cause some confusion. I agree Buddha always taught the same thing, Dhamma. > Conceptualising can never amount > to satipatthana, and so, undeniably, the Buddha never taught it - > not even for a fraction of a second. Kel: I don't think i want to start the discussion what is concept and what is not and how it applies to the practice, one thread is enough :) .. I'm definitely not advocating sitting somewhere and thinking really hard as a way to get enlightenment. However let's see what Buddha is telling us. Since you like maha-satipatthana sutta, here's a link to the section about cessation of dukkha. http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/mahasati17.htm Buddha would describe something and end the stanza with "When this craving is abandoned it is abandoned there; when it ceases, it ceases there." Similar to senses, he talks about abandoning craving for initial thinking (vitakka) and continued thinking (vicara) in the last two parts. Now, go to: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/mahasati18.htm Right Concentration? Here (in this teaching), bhikkhus, a bhikkhu being detached from sensual desire and unwholesome states attains and dwells in the first jhana which has vitakka and vicara; and rapture (piti) and sukha born of detachment (from the hindrances).note112 With the subsiding of vitakka and vicara, a bhikkhu attains and dwells in the second jhana, with internal tranquility and one-pointedness of mind, without vitakka and vicara, but with rapture and sukha born of concentration. Already in the second jhana (3rd jhana in Abhidhamma pitaka categorization), you're without both parts of "thinking" process. Yet it is not enough for enlightenment, it is however part of desirable concentration factor. It doesn't have to do with developing wisdom at all which is what liberates us. So just like Buddha didn't advocate destroying the sense-doors, he doesn't advocate "no thinking". Merely to cut off the craving based on those objects using wisdom. I think the spirit is similar `appamattaka.m pi bhava.m na va.n.nemi', he's extolling the need to rid of the craving manifested as thinking of life/existence since life has no value. - kel 40678 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 0:51am Subject: [dsg] Re: Apologies Hi Dan and James, Sarah is not alone in interpreting the Brahmajala Sutta the way she does. Until now, I had never heard of its being interpreted any other way. The very first Buddhist book I ever owned ("What the Buddha Really Taught " by David Maurice) says, "The Buddha, in the Discourse of the Supreme Net, showed that there are sixty-two of these 'views' and that there cannot be more than those he classified. They are all there, existentialism and all. . . ." Perhaps the onus is on you, James, to explain why existentialism and objectivism are not caught-up in the Supreme Net. Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > > > When I saw that quote, I thought: "Hmmm... so Brahmajala really DOES > refer to the views of bhikkhus of the past and future, ALL bhikkhus." > But, really, the "past...future" are referring to views about the > past and future rather than bhikkhus in the past and future and > the "all of them" refers to views about the past and future, and not > about past and future bhikkhus. The quote does not at all address > James' suggestion that the sutta discusses only the views held by > bhikkhus at that time and not all views. But I think you are right, > Sarah, that the sutta is universal. 40679 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 1:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Idle chatter- Andrew L Hi Andrew L, --- Andrew Levin wrote: > > In my previous post I did not see your source, so if it has some > credibility then just please try to make it clear how it defines the > four unwholesome types of speech, in part by their opposites, as the > Buddha described them to laypeople in numerous discourses, because > what you wrote seems like it has one mixed up with the other. …. S: Excellent and you’re perfectly correct, I believe. I was also wondering while I typed, but it is your posts that have sent me back to check more carefully. As I mentioned, the extract was from the English translation of the Atthasalini, which is the commentary to the Dhammasangani, the first Text of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. (Phil also gave a quote from it recently #40606). It’s full of good detail, but unfortunately the English translation doesn’t give any Pali terms. Actually, I’ve had this text for 30 years, but it’s only now with your help that I see there is some confusion here in the English translation on these pages (pp132, 133) . Like you, I think that most (if not all?) of the para I quoted should come under ‘Slander’ which preceded it. I’m not sure why ‘Frivolous Talk’ is mentioned here and I tried to check the Pali text, but wasn’t able to find the right place.*** On the next page after the description and detail on ‘harsh speech’, there is another para on ‘frivolous talk’ which I think you’ll have no problem with. “Immoral volition producing the bodily and vocal effort to communicate useless things, is termed ‘frivous talk’. Its offence is great or small according as it is practiced repeatedly or not. The two constituent factors of this offence are: the inclination towards useless talk – like the stories of the fight of the Bhaaratas and the abduction of Siita , etc – and the narration of such themes. But the offence does not run through the full course of action {S: kamma-patha which is likely to bring results] when others do not accept the story; it does so only when they accept it.” I’d like to stress again that kamma here is the unwholesome cetana (intention) of the degree which can bring results. It is not the words themselves that constitute the act and this is stressed in the comy note to the Sabbasava Sutta. One can enquire after someone’s health or family or almost any topic with kusala or akusala cittas. I had a discussion here with a friend about exchanging greetings and pleasantries which he felt were a waste of time, but we read that even the Buddha exchanged greetings, ‘courteous and amiable talk’ with lay people who came to visit him. When it’s with metta and other wholesome mental states, it’s not ‘idle chatter’, no matter the topic. OK, I’ll add the Sabbasava, MN2, line and cmy note again: “An untaught ordinary person…….attends to those things unfit for attention and he does not attend to those things fit for attention.” BB note:“MA makes the important point that there is no fixed determination in things themselves as to whether they are fit or unfit for attention. The distinction consists rather, in the mode of attention. That mode of attention that is a causal basis for unwholesome states of mind should be avoided, while that mode of attention that is a causal basis for wholesome states should be developed.” .... As we’ve been discussing, cittas are momentary and satipatthana can be developed at any time of any reality, even that of wrong intention. Right Speech as a path factor is the momentary abstaining from wrong speech which accompanies Right Understanding and Awareness etc. Actually in the previous section in the Atthasalini,under ‘harsh specch’, there’s a good example of how it is the intention rather than the words that count(excuse my jumping around here as I write): “For though parents sometimes say thus to their children: ‘May thieves cut you up into pieces!’ yet they do not wish even a lotus leaf to fall on them. Teachers and spiritual guides sometimes say of their pupils: ‘What are we to do with these shameless, reckless lads? Turn them out!’ and yet they wish that they may attain and accomplish. But as words are not harsh if the heart be tender, so are they not gentle, just because speech is soft. The words of one desirous of killing: “let him sleep in comfort!’ are not soft; because of the harshness of thought the words are harsh.” .... So I think all the quotes you give in your other post are very pertinent as long as we remember that it is the intention rather than the words that we’re looking at here. And we can only know those intentions for ourselves with the development of satipatthana. We cannot know for the others. Here’s another quote from DN1, The Brahmajala Sutta, Short section on Morality. Bodhi transl: “Having abandoned idle chatter, the recluse Gotama abstains from idle chatter. He speaks at the right time, speaks what is factual, speaks on the good, on the Dhamma, on the Discipline. His words are worth treasuring: they are timely, backed by reasons, definite, connected with the good.” The commentary stresses that here ‘idle chatter’ is the unwholesome volition occasioning the bodily or vocal effort to communicate something useless. It is less blameworthy when indulgence is mild, more blameworthy when indulgence is great. It then stresses the same two components as given above. Thanks again for the helpful passages you provided. I haven’t forgotten our other thread. Metta, Sarah ***If anyone can help me find the Pali or add any comments on it, I’ll be glad. (I have the Atth in Pali, but the numbering is all different, just a ref would help) =========================== 40680 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 1:31am Subject: [dsg] Re: Apologies Friend Ken H., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Dan and James, > > Sarah is not alone in interpreting the Brahmajala Sutta the way she > does. Until now, I had never heard of its being interpreted any > other way. The very first Buddhist book I ever owned ("What the > Buddha Really Taught " by David Maurice) says, "The Buddha, in the > Discourse of the Supreme Net, showed that there are sixty-two of > these 'views' and that there cannot be more than those he > classified. They are all there, existentialism and all. . . ." > > Perhaps the onus is on you, James, to explain why existentialism and > objectivism are not caught-up in the Supreme Net. > > Ken H Friend Ken H., The `onus' is on me, huh? Well, that's a rather nasty word ;-). What would you propose I do- go through all 62 views, one-by-one, and show why they aren't Existentialism? Why should I do that? All one needs to do is read the Brahmajala Sutta, without reading any commentary, and it will become clear that the Buddha is describing the views of ascetics and Brahmins of his time period. He even goes into detail as to why they each formed their particular views and what specific names they are given (and he doesn't list `Existentialism' ;-)). At no point does he state that he has explained all wrong views for all times. Of course, Ken H, you are going to be able to find a lot of secondary sources which state that the Brahmajala Sutta is about all wrong views because that is what the commentary states. Here is one source which states the opposite (not that my source or your source really prove anything): "The Brahmajala Sutta is the very first text in the Sutta Pitaka of the Pali canon and one of the important discourses spoken by the Buddha. Brahmajala Sutta is "the discourse on the all-embracing net of views''. The Buddha's aim in expounding this discourse is to elaborate on a ''net'' of all possible views / opinions / beliefs / philosophical ideas / speculative thought of His time." http://www.buddhanet.net/bvk_study/bvk214.htm Metta, James 40681 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 1:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Idle chatter- Andrew L Hi Kelvin, --- kelvin_lwin wrote: > > S: For example, as we use the phrase conventionally, we may > chatter about > > the weather, computers, clothes or any other topic. Usually it's > with > > lobha, dosa or moha and thereby akusala (unwholesome), but not of > a degree > > that the cetana/kamma (intention) involved can lead to any > results. > > .... > > > "But when there is no rupture among others, the offence does not > amount to > > a complete course [S: i.e complete kamma patha likely to bring > results]; > > it does so only when there is a rupture. > > When you say result, are you including all the unprofitable result > minds? Or is this talking about rebirth-linking quality result? …. S: Good Question! A deep topic. As I understand: It is not a ‘complete course’ which can bring about rebirth consciousness and other results (vipaka) if all factors are not fulfilled. If some factors are fulfilled, but not all, there can be results, but not of the degree of rebirth-linking and other associated vipaka. (See kamma-patha in U.P)*. For example, unwholesome intentions during dreams can apparently bring results in the present life only, I believe. If the factors listed for kamma-patha are not in place at all such as in this case, intention to cause rupture, effort, communication, and rupture, then there is no kamma-patha and no results at all. Glad for any comments. Btw, I’m appreciating your discussion with Herman v.much , like in #40632 “Arahants still strive to spread dhamma, just don’t have any attachments to the outcome.” More to discuss with you and Andrew L on satipatthana next week I think. Especially important to stress there’s no ‘I’ to do anything or to have sati or panna as Nina stressed at the end of her last Vism post on feelings. “the words ‘I feel’ are merely a conventional expression…..’ etc. (Sorry, out of time to add more now.) Rt understanding, rt thinking etc of course arise together and condition each other as given in the AN1 sutta as I read it. I look f/w to the further discussions. Must dash, Metta, Sarah *I forget if it was you or someone else who wished for more on ‘sobhana’ – also see in U.P. It’s being updated, so possibly check again in a couple of weeks. ========= 40682 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 3:38am Subject: Re: What the mind does Hi Kelvin, ------------- KH: > > The Buddha taught satipatthana (including vipassana) and only satipatthana. > > Kel: I think when you say only satipatthana, it's not proper use of the name and reference which can cause some confusion. I agree Buddha always taught the same thing, Dhamma. -------------- On DSG, many of us are in the habit of using "satipatthana" to describe a moment of right understanding in which a paramattha dhamma is the object of consciousness. That is the meaning of patipatti (practice in accordance with the Dhamma) and of pativedha (penetration of the Dhamma). Conceptual right understanding (pariyatti) is not the way out of samsara (although it can eventually lead to it). The Buddha did not teach conceptual right understanding. Therefore, whenever we uninstructed worldlings experience conceptual right understanding we must be humble and modest - we have not begun to see the true Dhamma. ---------------- KH: > > Conceptualising can never amount > to satipatthana, and so, undeniably, the Buddha never taught it - > not even for a fraction of a second. > > Kel: I don't think i want to start the discussion what is concept and what is not and how it applies to the practice, one thread is enough :) .. ---------------------------- :-) When it comes to 'concepts versus realities,' too much discussion is never enough! -------------- K: > I'm definitely not advocating sitting somewhere and thinking really hard as a way to get enlightenment. --------------- This is where you lose me, Kel. I am not aware of any discussion in which 'thinking really hard' has been advocated as a way to get enlightenment. Do you mean 'concentrating on concepts?' If so, I know what you mean: concentrating on concepts (formal meditation) is not satipatthana: it is not the way to get enlightenment. * --------------------------- K: > However let's see what Buddha is telling us. Since you like maha-satipatthana sutta, here's a link to the section about cessation of dukkha. ---------------------------- Sorry, Kel, I couldn't follow the point you were making in the snipped bit. I'm sure the fault is mine, not yours. I will pick up where you write: ---------------------- > So just like Buddha didn't advocate destroying the sense-doors, he doesn't advocate "no thinking". Merely to cut off the craving based on those objects using wisdom. I think the spirit is similar `appamattaka.m pi bhava.m na va.n.nemi', he's extolling the need to rid of the craving manifested as thinking of life/existence since life has no value. > -------------- That sounds right to me. But what did you think of my interpretation of the two suttas under discussion? (I am not claiming to understand suttas without commentaries, I am just suggesting a possible interpretation.) Do you agree that conceptualising is not satipatthana? It is, at best, pariyatti, but it is not the practice taught by the Buddha. Kind regards, Ken H * Actually, I don't think we agree at all on the subject of formalised meditation (imitation bhavana). Like Htoo, you are a genius in Abhidhamma but you are still missing the point. (No offence intended.) KH 40683 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 5:41am Subject: Re: Doubt and Confidence Dear Dhamma Friends, There are 25 sobhana cetasikas or 25 beautiful mental factors. There are 59 sobhana cittas or 59 beautiful consciousness. When magga cittas arise in the vicinity of different jhana in their power lokuttara cittas or supramundane consciousness are counted as (8 >< 5 Jhana) 40 lokuttara cittas instead of 8 lokuttara cittas. In that case there will be 121 total cittas. Among 121 total cittas 91 cittas are sobhana cittas or beautiful consciousness. 'Paapaahetuka muttaani, sobhanaaniiti vuccare. Ekuunasatthi cittaani, athekanavutiipi va.' 'Paapa' here means 12 akusala cittas or 12 unwholesome consciousness. 'ahetuka' here means 18 ahetuka cittas or 18 rootless consciousness. 'Paapaahetuka' means 12 akusala cittas and 18 ahetuka cittas altogether 30 cittas. They are asobhana cittas or non-beautiful consciousness. 12 akusala cittas are ugly no doubt. But regarding 18 ahetuka cittas not all 18 cittas are ugly. But they all are not beautiful as they do not have any beautiful root dhammas or hetus like alobha, adosa, and amoha. Muttaani means 'free' 'leaving out these'. So after leaving all these 30 asobhana cittas there left sobhana cittas only. Sobhanaaniti is made up of 'sobhana' and 'iti'. Sobhana here means 'sobhana cittas' and iti means 'such' 'like' 'as'. Vuccare means 'should say' 'should assume'. After leaving asobhana cittas, the remaining cittas should be assumed as sobhana cittas. 'Ekuunasatthi' is made up of 'eka' 'uuna' 'satthi'. Eka means 'one' 'single' 'a'. Una means 'minus' 'deduction' 'reduction' and satthi means 'sixty'. So ekuunasatthi means 'one reducing from sixty' or '59'. So There are 59 sobhana cittas. Athekanavuttiipi is made up of 'atha' 'eka' 'navuti' 'pi'. Atha means 'another way' 'moreover' 'besides'. Eka means 'one'. Atheka means 'in another way'. Navuti means 'ninety' and 'pi' means 'such' 'like this'. There are 59 sobhana cittas. Moreover, in the another way to speak there are 91 sobhana cittas. Sobhana cittas = ( 89 total cittas - 30 asobhana cittas) = 59 Sobhana cittas = (121 total cittas - 30 asobhana cittas) = 91 These 59 cittas or 91 cittas have been explained in detail in Dhamma Thread series old posts. There are 25 sobhana cetasikas or 25 beautiful mental factors. Because they accompany sobhana cittas or beautiful consciousness. They are 19 sobhanasaadhaarana cetasikas, 3 virati cetasikas, 2 appamanna cetasikas and 1 pannindriya cetasika. 19 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 25 sobhana cetasikas. 19 sobhanasadharana cetasikas are as follow. In Dhamma Thread I use the similes of 2 forces of the king. The king has 2 forces. One is army and another is navy. Here the king is 'citta' and members of forces are cetasikas. Army 1. saddha (general) 2. hiri (leutinent-general) 3. ottappa(leutinent-general) 4. sati (secretary) 5. cittapassaddhi (soldier) 6. cittalahuta (soldier) 7. cittamuduta (soldier) 8. cittakammannata(soldier) 9. cittapagunnata (soldier) 10.cittujukata (soldier) Navy 1. saddha (admiral) 2. alobha (rear-admiral) 3. adosa (rear-admiral) 4. tatramajjhattata (secretary) 5. kayapassaddhi (soldier) 6. kayalahuta (soldier) 7. kayamuduta (soldier) 8. kayakammannata (soldier) 9. kayapagunnata (soldier) 10.kayujukata (soldier) This is for memory and saddha is repeated. Actually saddha is the leader of both forces. Without saddha cetasika no sobhana citta can arise. All these 19 cetasikas have been explained in Dhamma Thread posts. 3 virati cetasikas are 1. kayaducarita virati / samma-kammanta 2. vaciducarita virati / samma-vaca 3. dujiva virati / samma-ajiva Virati means 'avoidance'. Carita is habit, actions. Du means bad. Jiva here means 'livelihood'. 2 appamanna cetasikas are 1. karuna 2. muduta Appamanna means 'limitless' 'boundless'. These 2 cetasikas are for boundless or limitless beings. 1 pannindriya cetasika It is panna. It is amoha. It is pannidriya cetasika. In terms of hetu pannidriya cetasika become 'amoha'. It is called amoha hetu. It is not called panna hetu. May you be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 40684 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 5:51am Subject: Re: what is higher dhamma, abhidhamma? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kelvin_lwin" wrote: > > Hi All, > > > Knowing that the Higher Dhamma is already in the suttas, all > > Buddhists, who previously did not believe in the suttas, should > > I just wanted to point out a link for writings by Ledi Sayadaw: > http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL03.html > Section: How to Acquire Nama-rupa-pariggaha-nana. ...snip...a very long period, or may not be able to achieve > that goal at all. > - kel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Kel, Could you please explain on the word 'pariggaha'. In your message it appeared twice and this cannot be flaw. What I have heard is 'nama-rupa-pariccheda-nana' and 'paccaya- pariggaha-nana'. But I have not heard 'nama-rupa-pariggaha-nana'. With much respect, Htoo Naing 40685 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 6:10am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Htoo - > > In a message dated 1/6/05 1:14:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, > htootintnaing@y... writes: > > > ---------------------------------------- > > Howard wrote: > > > > Howard: > > Ah, but how did Ven. Culapanthaka Thera even understand what > > his brother was telling him to do without concepts? > > -------------------------------------- > > Htoo: > > > > That is where pannatti did not work. > > > ==================== > I made a mistake in what I wrote. (Sorry.) I meant to write "Ah, but > how did Ven. Culapanthaka Thera even understand what THE BUDDHA was telling him > to do without concepts?" Even simple instruction involves concepts. > > With metta, > Howard ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear Howard, You made me smile. While Venerable Mahapanthaka put his brother Culapanthaka Thera on conceptual knowledge, The Buddha did not teach him any concept. This is the point why I said Culapanthaka Thera's attainment is through paramattha dhamma and not via the path of pannatti. That is learing in theory first followed by practical and so on. I do not argue that pannatti are useless. Pannatti serve as vehicle. Medicinal solutions are liquid. They are medicine mixed up with vehicle to be taken by sick people. Patients are taking medicine. No one will think that vehicle or solvent is taken along with medicine contents. When you and I are communicating our words are vehicle. When The Buddha instructed Culapanthaka The Buddha use vehicle or pannatti to bring the meaning right down to understanding of Culapanthaka. But WHAT I SAID is not that of 'communicating words'. ''-- Come on Culapanthaka. This is citta, this is cetasika, this is rupa, this is cakkhuvinnana, etc etc are not conceptualized--'' Culapanthaka had a great akusala in his past lives and that akusala caused him very unintelligent. If he is taught more than a few sentence all will be forgotten. The Buddha knew his potentials and ripeness. 'Rajo haranam' is just a vehicle. It is to micmic teaching. Culapanthaka would think 'rajo haranam' is the teaching. Still he did not foret it as it is so short to forget. But his enligghtenment is not through 'Rajo haranam'. But by 'seeing the change in colour of the cloth' and in a matter of in that single morning he attained arahatta magga nana along with all jhanas and abhinnas. Our focus is not the same at this time. You started with 'attainment cannot be achieved without pannatti' and I replied that there are exceptional cases. In you reply now you focus on 'The Buddha instruction to Culapanthaka' the whole of which is pannatti. Yes it is pannatti. But what I reply was Culapanthaka was not taught any conceptual dhamma for his attainment. I hope this is clear to you, Howard. With much respect, Htoo Naing 40686 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 6:12am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > In a message dated 1/6/2005 11:51:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, > upasaka@a... writes: > I made a mistake in what I wrote. (Sorry.) I meant to write "Ah, but > how did Ven. Culapanthaka Thera even understand what THE BUDDHA was telling > him > to do without concepts?" Even simple instruction involves concepts. > > With metta, > Howard > > Yes Yes. Yes. That's exactly the point!!! > > TG > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Dear TG and Howard, I have replied to Howard and please see the details of reply there in that post. I did catch the point. But the original point was another. With Metta, Htoo Naing 40687 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 6:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What the mind does, sutta Hi Steve and Kelvin, Where is this sutta taken from and who translated it? I would like to know this. It does not fit the Pali. I did not follow all of your thread, but here is my attempt. See below. op 06-01-2005 14:58 schreef seisen_au op seisen_@h...: former translation: 320. Bhikkhus, just as a little bit of excreta smells and should be > got rid of, I do not specify thinking even for the fraction of a > second. > > 321. Bhikkhus, just as a little bit of urine, saliva, pus, blood > smells and should be got rid of, I do not specify thinking{1) even > for the fraction of a second. ================================= Nina's translation: words: va.n.neti : to explain, praise. bhava: birth, becoming, life. > Pali: > 320. Seyyathaapi,bhikkhave, appamattakopi guutho duggandho hoti; >Bhikkhus, just as a little bit of excreta has a bad smell, evameva.m kho aha.m, bhikkhave, appamattakampi bhava.m na > va.n.nemi, antamaso accharaasa"nghaatamattampi. evenso do I not praise life even for a very short time, not even for the duration of a fingersnap (accharaasa"nghaata). > 321. Seyyathaapi,bhikkhave, appamattakampi mutta.m duggandha.m hoti > appamattakopi khe.lo duggandho hoti appamattakopi pubbo duggandho hoti appamattakampi lohita.m duggandha.m hoti; Bhikkhus, just as a little bit of urine, saliva, pus, blood has a bad smell, evameva.m kho aha.m, bhikkhave, appamattakampi bhava.m na va.n.nemi, antamaso > accharaasa"nghaatamattampi. evenso do I not praise life even for a very short time, not even for the duration of a fingersnap. The Commentary, summary (not a word by word translation): > Atthakatha: > 320. Seyyathaapi, bhikkhave, appamattakopi guutho duggandho hotiiti > ida.m sutta.m a.t.thuppattiya.m vutta.m. Katara-a.t.thuppattiyanti? > Navakanipaate (a. ni. 9.12) sattuppaadasutta a.t.thuppattiya.m. Co refers to Gradual Sayings, Book of the Nines (9, 12). Pali: Tathaagato hi ta.m attha.m kathento nava puggalaa nirayato > muttaa, tiracchaanayonito muttaa, pettivisayato muttaati kathesi. N: Here the Buddha speaks about nine people who will not have an unhappy rebirth, in hell, in an animal womb, as a ghost. Pali: Athassa etadahosi sace kho pana me puttaa ima.m > dhammadesana.m sutvaa khii.nanirayamhaa khii.natiracchaanayonikaa khii.napettivisayaa > khii.naapaayaduggativinipaataati ma~n~namaanaa > uparimaggaphalatthaaya vaayamitu.m na ma~n~neyyu.m, N: If my sons hear this teaching they shall think that since they are freed from those unhappy rebirths they need not strive for the highest path and fruit (of arahatship), tesa.m sa.mvega.m janessaamiiti sa.mvegajana nattha.m seyyathaapi, > bhikkhaveti ima.m suttamaarabhi. N: I shall generate a sense of urgency (sa.mvega) in them with the sutta, beginning with Pali: Tattha appamattakoti thokamattako parittappamaa.no, antamaso kusaggenapi gahetvaa upasi"nghiyamaano duggandhova hoti. N: Thus, when they sniffing up those smells for only a very short moment from the tip of a blade of grass that they have taken, it is indeed a bad smell. Pali: Appamattakampi bhava.m na va.n.nemiiti > appamattakampi kaala.m bhave pa.tisandhi.m na va.n.nayaami. I do not praise life even for a short time, be it even the moment of rebirth. Pali: Idaanissa upama.m dassento aaha antamaso > accharaasa"nghaatamattampiiti. N: Thus I show this simile and I say, not even for the duration of the snipping of the fingers. Pali: Sabbantimena paricchedena dve > a"nguliyo ekato katvaa pahara.namattampi kaalanti vutta.m hoti. N: the time it takes to put two fingers together and snip them. Pali: Sesa.m sabbattha uttaanatthamevaati. N:All the rest is evident. Remark: the Buddha shows the disadvantage of rebirth which has a bad smell. He exhorts herewith the monks to strive for the end of rebirth. Nina. 40688 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 6:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Doubt and Confidence Dear Tep, op 07-01-2005 03:11 schreef Tep Sastri op tepyawa@m...: Lodewijk is a wise man. His words remind me of a sutta that says > even a newborn baby has latent tendencies (anusaya?). So it makes > sense to talk about effects that are produced by accumulations of > akusala from the previous lives. But what about bad "habits" that are > being created everyday? Is a bad habit latent tendency too? N: someone may use coarse speech all the time. The akusala citta with dosa or aversion that motivates this falls away but the aversion is added to the accumulated aversion more and more. This motivates again coarse speech, it has become a bad habit. We read that even an arahat who had as a brahmin to use deprecating speech to those of a lower caste, could not abandon this habit. It is called vasana. He had no akusala citta but still this accumulation. Only Buddhas have eradicated vasana. >> T: It is sad that even "noble" speech and deeds are not truly noble. > According to the Abhidhamma, are impure hidden motives caused > mainly by conceit? Or by tanha? N: When the akusala citta arises it is not ahidden motive or latent tendency, but motivate by it. All sorts of latent tendencies, not only conceit and clinging motivate akusala citta. Also dosa, wrong view, etc. > > N: What type of citta is thinking of progress? > > T: I do not know what kind of citta thinks of progress. But can we make > progress (e.g. accumulating more and more kusala dhamma) without > thinking about "our progress" or "who makes the progress"? I think we > can. N: I agree, it is in accordance with the teachings. As the Buddha said, it can be done. N: Sati and panna are sobhana (beautiful) dhammas, accompanying > sobhana citta. Here the Abhidhamma can prevent us from going into > pitfalls. > > T: What are the pitfalls? I wish I could understand exactly what you > meant above, Nina! Since most DSG members are familiar with > sobhana citta, may I ask you to just give me a Web link to the source > of this subject matter? N: When we really understand that sati and pañña are sobhana cetasikas that arise because of conditions, which are: listening, study, considering, application in life, it helps us not to take them for self. They are dhammas, not me. The pittfall is the second noble Truth all the time. Before we realize it. There is no specific web link, only the India talks life that Jon uploaded. Sarah can give you the link again. Nina. 40689 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 6:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what is higher dhamma, abhidhamma? Dear Tep, op 07-01-2005 04:27 schreef Tep Sastri op tepyawa@m...: > Knowing that the Higher Dhamma is already in the suttas, all > Buddhists, who previously did not believe in the suttas, should prioritize > their study on the Vinaya Pitaka and the Sutta Pitaka. They don't even > have to study the difficult Abhidhamma Pitaka at all. N: Of course, it is very difficult to read the whole Abhidhamma Pitaka. The Abhidhammattha Sangaha (transl as the Guide) is good as a beginning. Then we learn the main principles of citta, cetasika and rupa in daily life. We study those in order to understand them. Also the Visuddhimagga, this is an encyclopedia of the Abhidhamma. Today dana, generosity is very much in our minds. We should learn what type of citta gives: is there a wish for some gain for ourselves? Is there conceit: I am the giver, he is the receiver? There can be purity of citta when we think only of the wellbeing of the receiver, wish him well. Understanding one's citta, that is Abhidhamma. People are inclined to think of books when they hear the word Abhidhamma. T: For those who aim > at practicing as soon as possible after the reading, they only have to > pay their utmost attention to no more than 20 suttas, N: It depends on people's inclinations what suttas they read. If we only say those twenty they may overlook the suttas on giving. There are so many sound advices for daily life, and, there is Abhidhamma contained in such advices. Knowing one's citta more. Citta, cetasika, rupa, that is Abhidhamma. They occur now. As to aiming at practising soon after the reading: let us combine reading, considering, and verifying in life, this is already a beginning. If one sets a time it seems like directing the citta. Nina. 40690 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 7:15am Subject: Dhamma Thread (219) Dear Dhamma Friends, The fourth visaya-pavatti or 'arising of object' is ati-paritta- arammana or very faint object. The cittas that arise at this object are collectively called 'mogha vara'. Mogha means 'without value'. Because there is no vithi cittas in this vara. But it is counted in visaya-pavatti because there are 2 moments of bhavanga calana citta. After 10, or 11, or 12, or 13, or 14 or 15 atita bhavanga cittas have passed away there arise 2 successive bhavanga calana cittas or vibrating bhavanga cittas. At the end of 2nd bhavanga calana citta, there arise usual bhavnga cittas in flow continuously. After passing 10 atita bhavanga cittas there left 7 moments of life in rupa object. 1.bhavanga calana, 2. bhavanguppaccheda, 3. pancadvaravajjana, 4.pancavinnana 5. sampaticchana 6. santirana 7.votthapana There cannot arise 2 votthapana and so this is not the case. In stead there arise 1.atita bhavanga(11), 2. bhavanga calana, 3.bhavanga calana, 4.bhavanga(usual)12,5. bhavanga13 6.bhavanga14 7.bhavanga15 There are 6 possible varas. They are a) 10 bhavanga cittas, 11.calana, 12.calana, 13.bhavanga11 14.bhavanga12, 15.bhavanga13, 16.bhavanga14, 17.bhavanga15 b) 11 bhavangas, 12.calana, 13.calana 14.B12, 15.B13, 16.B14, 17.B15 c) 12 B, 13.calana, 14.calana, 15.B13, 16.B14, 17.B15 d) 13 B, 14.calana, 15.calana, 16.B14, 17.B15 e) 14 B, 15.calana15, 16.calana, 17.B15 f) 15 B, 16.calana, 17.calana These varas are called mogha vara as there is no vithi citta at all. But they do have bhavanga calana cittas which are the marker of disturbance that there arisen an object. So far there have beed discussed 4 visaya-pavatti. 1. ati-mahanta-arammana or very clear object 2. mahanta-arammana or clear object 3. paritta-arammana or faint object 4. ati-paritta-arammana or very faint object Actually these objects do not have to be very clear or clear or faint or very faint. It is the arising of vithi cittas and their number. This again is because they have to ground on vatthu. When there arise rupa-arammana or visual object but there is no cakkhu vatthu there cannot arise any vithi cittas. Likewise when vatthu is very weak full series of vithi cittas cannot arise. Example can be seen in marana-asanna-javana cittas. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: 1.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. 40691 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 7:24am Subject: [dsg] Re: Doubt and Confidence --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Tep, > op 07-01-2005 03:11 schreef Tep Sastri op tepyawa@m...: > Lodewijk is a wise man. His words remind me of a sutta that says > > even a newborn baby has latent tendencies (anusaya?). So it makes > > sense to talk about effects that are produced by accumulations of > > akusala from the previous lives. But what about bad "habits" that are > > being created everyday? Is a bad habit latent tendency too? > N: someone may use coarse speech all the time. The akusala citta with dosa > or aversion that motivates this falls away but the aversion is added to the > accumulated aversion more and more. This motivates again coarse speech, it > has become a bad habit. We read that even an arahat who had as a brahmin to > use deprecating speech to those of a lower caste, could not abandon this > habit. It is called vasana. He had no akusala citta but still this > accumulation. Only Buddhas have eradicated vasana. ...snip... link, only the India talks life that Jon uploaded. > Sarah can give you the link again. > Nina. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Nina, Tep and All, As Nina said only The Buddha can discard or eradicate vasana. Limping man will walk with limping even when he becomes an arahat. This is habit. A simile is here that there are defilements bottles. Arahats upside down the bottle and discard all the defilement. The Buddha is also an arahat and the first arahat. He also discards all defilements from the bottle. But arahatta bottles are like spirit bottles. Even though all spirit has been discarded there is smell. In case of The Buddha the bottle is like water bottle. When all defilements are discarded there is no more defilements at all. The bottle is now totally pure unlike other arahats' bottles. Those who speak fast will speak fast even after attainment of arahatta magga. With respect, Htoo Naing 40692 From: Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 2:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sense-door process, rupa. Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/6/05 11:44:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Howard: "I, on the other hand, say that a sight arises. The sight is the > experience, and the arising of it, it's becoming present, we call > "consciousness of the sight"." > > Hi Howard, > > I think our main difference is that I think of experience as being > consciousness and I can't imagine it being anything else. > --------------------------------------- Howard: I don't think that is where we differ. We have nothing *but* experiencing. Consciousness isn't something extra that is applied to an experience. An unexperienced experience [I don't just mean just subliminal, below one's current threshhold of registering] is a contradiction in terms and non-existent. In a sense, consciousness is the stage (or the screen) on which all experience occurs - EXCEPT, and this is important, the stage or screen doesn't exist without the show; in fact, it is the mere presence of the show, and the arising of (any frame of) the film-show and the arising of the screen are mutual and inseparable. The assumption of a consciousness-stage or consciousness-screen that exists independently of the show is a species of subjectivist eternalism. It is Sati's error, in fact. Of course, denying consciousness is an opposite error, tending towards a reifying of what is experienced. Because our perspectives are different slants on what is a non-dual phenomenon, each of our positions can, if pushed too far, one way or the other, be turned into either one or the other of these erroneous extremes. Your position is, I believe, more vulnerable to the eternalist extreme, and mine to the nihilist extreme, but at times these can switch places. ---------------------------------------------- > > Maybe the problem is a difference in what we mean by "object of > consciousness". I think of object of consciousness as being a reference > point rather than a specimen under the microscope. For example, when I > am angry there is no experienced object of that anger. The object is > there causally as a reference point but not in the moment of anger. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: I agree that at a moment of being angry, usually the anger is not arammana; it is only cetasika - it flavors the mindstate but is not the "object". But there are also mindstates in which it can be arammana - in fact, I suspect that there are mindstates in which anger is both arammana *and* cetasika. ---------------------------------------- > There is only one player on the stage and it is consciousness. > --------------------------------------- Howard: No, there is *no* player on the stage, except in one's atta-bound imagination. That is reification of the subject. The opposite extreme is reification of the object. Each of us is vunerable to each of these errors. --------------------------------------- You, on> > the other hand, seem to think that object and consciousness are both > there in experience like the inside and outside of a box. As I see it, > the problem with your formulation is that the object has a very nebulous > status. > --------------------------------------- Howard: Not at all. If anything, for me the "objective" content (for lack of a better word) takes priority, with consciousness being nothing more than its presence. There really is no subject. There really is no object. There is just experiential content and its presence, with those two being inseparable aspects of an experiential state. --------------------------------------- But I can see how this idea comes out of the Buddha's> > explanation of contact. > > Larry > ==================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 40693 From: Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 2:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Seeing & Hearing Hi, Matthew - In a message dated 1/7/05 12:18:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, bupleurum@y... writes: > Howard: > >What is doing the vibrating? I still think you are talking physics, > >not sound-door experience. > > Visuddhimagga says that "earsense" is one of the sense-organs, located > inside the ear "at a spot shaped like a finger-ring and fringed by > tender, tawny hairs." So I suppose that's what vibrating. ------------------------------------- Howard: I consider that to be one of those cases in which Buddhaghosa, the "champion of paramattha dhammas" confuses paramattha and samutti, confuses paramattha dhammas with pa~n~natti. And it isn't he who originated that. This actual-earsense-material-within-the-conventional-ear-organ notion originates in the Abhidhamma itself, I believe. --------------------------------------- > > Matthew =================== 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) 40694 From: jwromeijn Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 7:44am Subject: [dsg] Re: Doubt and Confidence Dear Nina Thanks for your answers. You proposed me to read " The Roots of Good and Evil". I knew it already, as a long chapter in Nyanaponika's "The Vision of the Dhamma". And to be honest: I did not start to read this chapter because the concepts 'good' and 'evil' don't attract me (now). I prefer to read about 'emptiness' and 'the miracle of life' and prefer to read Nagarjuna or Nyanaponika's 'The four Sublime States' from the same book. Do you never read Mahayana texts? Another point, I first quote myself and then your reaction: J: Especially the lack of doubt by you and some other > dsg-contribuants gives me the most problems. Stating the complex > details of Abhidhamma without ever explaining how you get this > information, without any emperical reference, does not give me > inspiration, is only scholastic. N: I have to think this over and discuss with Lodewijk. It is understandable that you get such an impression. It would be helpful if you could give one concrete example. I could then work on that. I give an exemple. In # 40439, subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread (212), submoments You wrote: " Dear Htoo, I could add something from my Thai translation to help here. 'The duration of rúpa when compared with the duration of citta is seventeen moments of citta. Rúpa does not fall away as quickly as citta. Citta can be subdivided into three infinitesimal moments, the moment of its arising, uppåda khaùa, the moment of its presence, tiììhi khaùa, and the moment of its falling away, bhanga khaùa. When we take this subdivision into account, rúpa lasts as long as three times seventeen, that is, fiftyone moments of citta.' Nina." This is to me a good example of what I don't like in Abhidhamma- discussions: a. 17 (and 51) are numbers, and numbers are only concepts, even when talking about a number of dhamma's. b. "time" itself is a concept too, I had started a thread about that some weeks ago: in an ultimate way it is an illusion. c. How do you, or commentators or even the composers of the Abhidhamma know that number, is it exactly 17.0 or perhaps 16.9 or 17.1 ? When such numbers are used as a ratio, it are empirical measured entities or they should not be used at all. d. Perhaps the number was 17.0 a 2500 year ago but has now changed in 10 or 25, how do we know it is not changed ? e. Using a commentary as a source of authority, in this case a Thai one, without convincing me that it deserves that authority. f. Perhaps it's an unimportant detail, but is it correct to say "rupa last as long ..", I prefer to talk in phenomenolocical way and prefer to say: "Rupa are experienced by a human being as long …" g. But the most important aspect: I already was convinced of the propertie (I like that term) of all dhammas that they are annica. What is the soteriological use of this kind of scholastic quasi- information? Metta Joop 40695 From: Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 2:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Htoo - In a message dated 1/7/05 9:12:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, htootintnaing@y... writes: > > In you reply now you focus on 'The Buddha instruction to > Culapanthaka' the whole of which is pannatti. Yes it is pannatti. But > what I reply was Culapanthaka was not taught any conceptual dhamma > for his attainment. > > I hope this is clear to you, Howard. > ======================== I agree that the Buddha did not try to teach Buddhist concepts to him. He was too "slow" for that. The Buddha may even not have used any words with him. What he may well have done was merely show him the taking of a rag in the Buddha's hand, the rubbing of the rag with thumb and a finger or two, and then with gestures, indicate that Culapanthaka should take the rag and do the same with it. All that (possibly) wordless instruction involved a host of concepts. That is my point and TG's as well, I believe. We are immersed in concept, and the raison d'etre of concept is communication. It is indispensable for learning the Dhamma, not only in theory but in practice as well. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 40696 From: Tep Sastri Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 8:25am Subject: [dsg] Re: what is higher dhamma, abhidhamma? Dear Nina - In the message # 40689, you wrote: > Understanding one's citta, that is Abhidhamma. > People are inclined to think > of books when they hear the word Abhidhamma. > As to aiming at practising soon after the reading: let us combine > reading, considering, and verifying in life, > this is already a beginning. If one sets a time > it seems like directing the citta. Thank you so much for preaching the Abhidhamma with the common sense of one who sees clearly. Because of you, the image of the "Abhidhamma books" in my mind is now replaced by the "Higher Dhamma" in the suttas. Further, the Sutta Pitaka and the Abhidhamma Pitaka have morphed into one meaningful whole -- the Dhamma of the Buddha. Kindest regards, Tep ===== 40697 From: Tep Sastri Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 8:45am Subject: [dsg] Re: Doubt and Confidence --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > > Dear Nina, Tep and All, > > As Nina said only The Buddha can discard or eradicate vasana. > > Limping man will walk with limping even when he becomes an arahat. > This is habit. > > A simile is here that there are defilements bottles. Arahats upside > down the bottle and discard all the defilement. Dear Htoo - I very much appreciate reading your supplementary information about vasana as a non-erasable habit. Since all 7 anusayas are eradicated completely by the Arahat, because it is gone with no residue, it seems to me that the non-erasable vasana (like the Indian-ink stain on a piece of white cloth?) is not in the class of anusaya. It is not a kilesa either. It is not a kind of memory (perception, sanna) either, otherwise it would also be erased from the Arahat's citta (the smelly bottle)? How then should vasana be classified, according to the Abhidhamma point of view? What kind of ultimate reality is it? With deep respect, Tep ====== 40698 From: Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 4:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions In a message dated 1/7/2005 6:14:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, htootintnaing@y... writes: Htoo: Dear TG and Howard, I have replied to Howard and please see the details of reply there in that post. I did catch the point. But the original point was another. With Metta, Htoo Naing Hi Htoo Naing The original point was the same. The point being that concepts are stepping stones to understanding higher knowledge's. And how can you "step on a stone" that doesn't exist? How can it have any efficacy if it doesn't exist? I believe Howard has successfully shown that even in the most extreme case, a case that certainly doesn't apply to anyone in this group, concepts still played a roll. The incredible roll they play with folks actively studying Sutta, Abhidhamma, and related commentaries and subjects; and discussing those ideas with others in a group like this ... is virtually incalculable. There are some who have an idea that -- 'concepts don't play any roll in my practice.' Now someone may get to that point, but it still has a foundation partially built on concepts. I wanted to see if others might show me wrong, but haven't been shown yet. Nor has anyone answered how nonexistent concepts can have the power to affect states. For myself, I don't think discerning "realities" in the sense of -- 'what's more real than something else' is the theme of the Buddha's teaching. I don't think he cares if you think concepts are the most real or unreal things in the world. I think he wants you to break attachments that lead to suffering. Hey...if rubbing a cloth will do the job, that's fine with him! TG 40699 From: htootintnaing Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 9:50am Subject: [dsg] Re: Doubt and Confidence --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" > wrote: > > > > > Dear Nina, Tep and All, > > > > As Nina said only The Buddha can discard or eradicate vasana. > > > > Limping man will walk with limping even when he becomes an arahat. > > This is habit. > > > > A simile is here that there are defilements bottles. Arahats upside > > down the bottle and discard all the defilement. > Dear Htoo - > I very much appreciate reading your supplementary information about > vasana as a non-erasable habit. Since all 7 anusayas are eradicated > completely by the Arahat, because it is gone with no residue, it seems > to me that the non-erasable vasana (like the Indian-ink stain on a piece > of white cloth?) is not in the class of anusaya. It is not a kilesa either. It is not a kind of memory (perception, sanna) either, otherwise it would > also be erased from the Arahat's citta (the smelly bottle)? > How then should vasana be classified, according to the Abhidhamma > point of view? What kind of ultimate reality is it? > With deep respect, > Tep ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Tep, It would fall under pannatti I think. With Metta, Htoo Naing > ====== 40700 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 11:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Idle chatter- Andrew L Dear Sarah, op 07-01-2005 10:10 schreef sarah abbott op sarahprocterabbott@y...: > Actually, I’ve had this text for 30 years, but it’s only now with your > help that I see there is some confusion here in the English translation on > these pages (pp132, 133) . Like you, I think that most (if not all?) of > the para I quoted should come under ‘Slander’ which preceded it. I’m not > sure why ‘Frivolous Talk’ is mentioned here and I tried to check the Pali > text, but wasn’t able to find the right place.*** N: I have the edition of 1958. Pinna said that the more recent one has changes. P. 132, above, I have a note, [2] after abuse, saying, this para should precede the previous one. Perhaps there is first some summing up, and then he goes deeper into the different kinds of wrong speech. Nina. 40701 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 11:46am Subject: Re: what is higher dhamma, abhidhamma? Saya Htoo, > > I just wanted to point out a link for writings by Ledi Sayadaw: > > http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL03.html > > Section: How to Acquire Nama-rupa-pariggaha-nana. > > ...snip...a very long period, or may not be able to achieve > > that goal at all. > > > > - kel > ------------------------------------------------------------------- --- > Dear Kel, > > Could you please explain on the word 'pariggaha'. In your message it > appeared twice and this cannot be flaw. > > What I have heard is 'nama-rupa-pariccheda-nana' and 'paccaya- > pariggaha-nana'. But I have not heard 'nama-rupa-pariggaha-nana'. if you have time, I recommend reading the whole Dipani for the full explanation. I'll try to copy some excerpts as to the meaning of pariggaha. Under: Five Kinds of Sammi-ditthi Nama-rupa-pariggaha-sammaditthi (right view arising from full comprehension of the characteristics of the physical and mental phenomena of existence). under:Ati-olarika-ditthi And Ditthi-visuddhinana (very coarse atta- ditthi versus wisdom arising from clearness of view). [Note--Nama-rupa-pariggha-nana (wisdom arising from full comprehension of the characteristics of the physical and mental phenomena), namarupa-vavatthana-nana (wisdom in determining the physical and mental phenomena) and ditthi-visuddhi (wisdom arising from clearness of view) are the same. They are mere synonyms of nama- rupa-pariggaha- sammaditthi. With reference to this sammaditthi, it has been stated in the Paramattha-Sankhepa: 'The self-belief will be dispelled and clearness of view will arise if one can determine name and form (nama-rupa) with reference to their respective nature, function, essence, tendency (or propensity) and basis.] The two kinds of sammaditthi--nama-rupa-pariggaha-sammaditthi and hetu-paccaya-sammaditthi--are able to root out the coarse atta- ditthi which are actually or actively arising in beings. But they are not able to root out the subtle soul-beliefs that lie latent in beings, nor are they able to root out the tendency to sceptical doubt. This proclivity--the subtle soul-belief--is the root-cause or the seed of all wrong views. Sukhuma-atta-ditthi and Vipassana-nana (Subtle Soul-Belief And Insight-knowledge Arising from Practice of Meditation). When insight-knowledge has been gained by contemplating on anicca, dukkha and anatta, the subtle soul-belief and sceptical doubts are extinguished, but the extremely subtle soul-belief and the latent sceptical doubts will remain intact. Ati-sukhuma-atti-ditthi and Magga-phala-nana (extremely subtle soul- belief and the wisdom arising from the attainment of the holy path and the fruition thereof). When the sotapatti-magga-phala-sammaditthi (insight-knowledge arising from the path of stream-winner and the fruition thereof) which is the first of the four lokuttara-sammaditthi arises, the extremely subtle atta-ditthi and latent sceptical doubts are expelled. When soul-belief and sceptical doubts are dispelled completely, the evil and mean deeds that would cause one to arise in the four lower worlds or in the woeful course of existence are also completely extinguished. - kel 40702 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 0:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Doubt and Confidence Dear Joop, op 07-01-2005 16:44 schreef jwromeijn op jwromeijn@y...: And to be honest: I did not start to read this chapter > because the concepts 'good' and 'evil' don't attract me (now). N: Could it be the words good and evil? The Buddha taught about kusala and akusala and how to eradicate akusala, how to cultivate kusala, all good qualities. Well, it depends on your interest. J: Do you never read Mahayana texts? N: I am interested in streams outside the Theravada, in other religions, but I have to limit myself. The Tipitaka and Commentaries are for me most effective. J: 'The duration of rúpa when compared with the duration of citta is > seventeen moments of citta....submoments, etc.... > > This is to me a good example of what I don't like in Abhidhamma- > discussions: > a. 17 (and 51) are numbers, and numbers are only concepts, even when > talking about a number of dhamma's. N: I understand. I knew that I addressed Htoo, since he understands details. But for many people these details go too far. This does not matter, we are all different individuals. The Thais had a discussion which I rendered, but it is all commentarial material. Actually, the number 17 makes sense when we consider one rupa as object experienced by a whole series of cittas. But you need not study so many details. When you reflect on your own citta which is different all the time since it is accompanied by then good qualities, then bad qualities (we come here again to the roots of good and evil), that is Abhidhamma. Abhidhamma is not a book you have to learn by heart. You do not have to remember numbers. That is not the essence of Abhidhamma. As to the commentaries: read them and see whether they help you to understand the Tipitaka. That is the only way to see what they are like. J: . But the most important aspect: I already was convinced of the > propertie (I like that term) of all dhammas that they are annica. > What is the soteriological use of this kind of scholastic quasi- > information? N:We can think in general terms about anicca, impermanence, but this will not change our life, our outlook. We have to understand first what dhamma is. Do we know? Dhamma is impermanent. That is: dhamma that appears now: seeing, colour, hardness. But these seem to last a while. It is insight that can directly realize their arising and falling away. Study of nama and rupa, of cittas arising in processes, basic principles of Abhidhamma can help us with the development of insight. Nina. 40703 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 0:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Seeing & Hearing Hi Howard, I do not think this is the case. The infinitely tiny rupa earsense is located somewhere in the body, and this is described here. Just like eyesense, in the middle of the black circle. This is not a matter fo confusing paramattha and samutti. Nina. op 07-01-2005 16:35 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > I consider that to be one of those cases in which Buddhaghosa, the > "champion of paramattha dhammas" confuses paramattha and samutti, confuses > paramattha dhammas with pa~n~natti. 40704 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 0:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Doubt and Confidence Dear Htoo and Tep, could we not say that it has to do with accumulations? Not the latent tendencies, but besides latent tendencies which are seven, there are many other qualities accumulated. Citta and cetasikas motivate the arahat to speak fast, or to use a coarse word. Nina. op 07-01-2005 18:50 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: Tep: How then should vasana be classified, according to the Abhidhamma >> point of view? What kind of ultimate reality is it? > Htoo: It would fall under pannatti I think. 40705 From: Egbert Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 0:59pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi TG, I am presuming you are not going to answer these questions, which is, of course, fine. I'll answer them myself :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > > Hi TG, > > I have some questions, if I may ? > > Hi Howard > > > > I'm not sure what point you mean to be making. It seems as if you > mean to disagree with me but your point only reinforces my > position. I.E., that concepts condition other states. > > HH> Are you sure that it is concepts that condition other states? Is > there not a possibility that there is a conditioning factor that > underlies the creation of concepts? I tend to think that concepts > are products of intention. Concepts do not condition anything. Just like air might be taken to sustain life, but it is not so, it is only a component present in air under most circumstances, namely oxygen. Intention leads to concept formation, and intention is the factor that conditions other states. Behind every concept is a knowable intention. > > > > Concepts are needed to understand the Dhamma (like training > wheels) at least until one can learn to "balance" without them. > Although it is possible to learn how to ride a bike without > training wheels, I don't think it is possible to > > learn Dhamma without concepts. > > HH> I don't think it is possible to learn Dhamma, but I do think > that Dhamma is what is left when samsara is unlearnt. Could you give me an example of learnt-by-concept Dhamma? No, I can't give myself an example of learnt-by-concept either :-). The Dhamma is not conceptual, and after the days of the Buddha direct hearing is not a possibility. The means of the transmission of the Tipitaka requires years and years of first learning to read, then learning to read Suttas, Vinaya, Commentaries, Abhidhamma etc etc. The Tipitaka is conceptual, and it is transmitted conceptually. It is not Dhamma. It is not effective in producing enlightenment, because the means is entirely contrary to the end. Sure, I accept that human communication is conceptual in nature, but is anyone here going to suggest that insight knowledge is conceptual? And that it's arising is conditioned by concept? Where's the evidence of that? Kind Regards Herman 40706 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 1:15pm Subject: Re: What the mind does Ken, > On DSG, many of us are in the habit of using "satipatthana" to > describe a moment of right understanding in which a paramattha Kel: I understand your statement better now. > Conceptual right understanding (pariyatti) is not the way out of > samsara (although it can eventually lead to it). The Buddha did not > teach conceptual right understanding. Therefore, whenever we > uninstructed worldlings experience conceptual right understanding Kel: I agree intellectual understanding is not the way out however it's a necessary stepping stone toward enlightenment. Buddha expounded on dhamma using concepts and illustrations for people will understand. He just showed how to use the intellect combined with experience to achieve the ultimate goal. If one doesn't understand the underlying concepts then the true wisdom is hopeless. Even paramattha dhammas you mentioned is not free of concepts, it's just a way of describing how the universe work. The true paramattha is nibbana since it's out of the whole universe of mind and matter phenonema as we experience it. The pannati versus paramattha categorization is just for convenience when discussing the philosophy. I have used my book-learning knowledge to guide my practice. Whatever experiences I go through I reconcile with what the teachers and Buddha taught to make sure i haven't strayed from the path. Many times at interviews I've heard other students immersed in flickering lights or visions during their sits. The ten imperfections of wisdom when properly observed without getting attached will pass away. However due to lack of the knowledge about them students chase these experiences fruitlessly. With strong samadhi, experiences of piti and sukha cause people to dwell instead of analyzing them properly. For bhanga, initially it feels like everything is gone and there's nothing left to note. Then after repeated penetration (without just noting nothingness), the mind is able to feel the underlying vibrations which were previously unexperienced so the mind couldn't comprehend at first. I think every practitioner pass through these road-blocks and intellectual knowledge allows one to overcome them easier. > Do you agree that conceptualising is not > satipatthana? It is, at best, pariyatti, but it is not the practice > taught by the Buddha. Kel: Even in patipatti, we use concepts or things in the mundane world to guide us to the truth. When you truly see the nature of concepts in terms of three signs that's when you arrive at paramattha. I don't see how Buddha can teach without concepts. He can't exactly show the truth directly to people. He explains how things work and tell people to go experience it for themselves thereby making it their own understanding. He also explains it in different ways depending on how different people think, hence you see the different break-downs of phenomena. I think this argument is similar to Howard's in "Concepts and Questions" thread. > genius in Abhidhamma but you are still missing the point. (No > offence intended.) kel: not offended but confused as to what point I'm missing. -kel 40707 From: Egbert Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 1:32pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Doubt and Confidence Hi Joop, You wrote the following, and I could have written it too, but you wrote it more gently :-). Some more thoughts, below. > a. 17 (and 51) are numbers, and numbers are only concepts, even when > talking about a number of dhamma's. > b. "time" itself is a concept too, I had started a thread about that > some weeks ago: in an ultimate way it is an illusion. > c. How do you, or commentators or even the composers of the > Abhidhamma know that number, is it exactly 17.0 or perhaps 16.9 or > 17.1 ? When such numbers are used as a ratio, it are empirical > measured entities or they should not be used at all. > d. Perhaps the number was 17.0 a 2500 year ago but has now changed in > 10 or 25, how do we know it is not changed ? > e. Using a commentary as a source of authority, in this case a Thai > one, without convincing me that it deserves that authority. > f. Perhaps it's an unimportant detail, but is it correct to say "rupa > last as long ..", I prefer to talk in phenomenolocical way and prefer > to say: "Rupa are experienced by a human being as long …" > g. But the most important aspect: I already was convinced of the > propertie (I like that term) of all dhammas that they are annica. > What is the soteriological use of this kind of scholastic quasi- > information? > The Abhidhamma is a number of models of reality. At a certain point of involvement one can loose sight of the fact that it is only a model of reality, not reality. Just as with mathematics, you can start with a few basic axioms, and build a fantastic edifice of interrelations. Numbers end up having their own characteristics, and we may marvel at the properties of "pi", having forgotten that "pi" is a consequence of the model, without a necessary connection to reality. It is a necessary consequence of the model that cittas are serial in nature, and that 17 of one kind last the same duration as only 1 of another kind. If it were otherwise, the model would fall apart. Those relationships in the model that result from transcendental notions, remain unasaillable to verification or falsification. But where the model becomes specific, one can compare between reality and the model. In the case of a discrepancy, some will hasten to the defense of the model, assuming an error of observation or interpretation, while others will try to redefine the model in terms what is observed, or put forward another one. The actions of all camps are guided by intention, and if the intention is to have a model that explains more or better than other models, good and well. Of course, in Buddhism, the aim is not to have a better model of reality, although you could be forgiven for thinking that at times. Everybody has a model of reality, and most confuse between reality and their model. Model making is certainly a possibility, but definitely not a necessity. All the best Herman 40708 From: Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 8:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions In a message dated 1/7/2005 1:02:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, hhofman@t... writes: Sure, I accept that human communication is conceptual in nature, but is anyone here going to suggest that insight knowledge is conceptual? And that it's arising is conditioned by concept? Where's the evidence of that? Kind Regards Herman Hi Herman I guess on this we'll just endlessly disagree... for I would say that insight knowledge has a conceptual component and a conceptual foundation. There may be nothing more conceptually complex than the Sutta and Abhidahmma. If someone feels they need to study the concepts there-in to make progress toward insight...that's the conceptual component and foundation for insight. Does insight "itself" have a conceptual component? I would say it depends on the level of insight. If a mind is using concepts to try to deepen insight, it still has a conceptual component. If someone has a fully developed intuitive knowledge, i.e., an Arahat, they no longer have any use for concepts and they can discard them like "The Raft" that is no longer needed once the river is crossed. TG 40709 From: Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 8:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions In a message dated 1/7/2005 1:02:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, hhofman@t... writes: The Dhamma is not conceptual, and after the days of the Buddha direct hearing is not a possibility. The means of the transmission of the Tipitaka requires years and years of first learning to read, then learning to read Suttas, Vinaya, Commentaries, Abhidhamma etc etc. The Tipitaka is conceptual, and it is transmitted conceptually. It is not Dhamma. It is not effective in producing enlightenment, because the means is entirely contrary to the end. Hi Herman I missed this part. Very interesting. In it you admit the conceptual nature of the Tipitaka. And say it takes years and years of learning. Then it appears you say..."It is not effective in producing enlightenment." If its a necessary step in producing enlightenment, then enlightenment is dependent on it, and it has affect! It doesn't matter what "stage" it comes at, the fact is it structures the ability to achieve enlightenment. Those concepts ... ya gotta luv em! ;-) TG 40710 From: Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 8:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Seeing & Hearing Hi, Nina - In a message dated 1/7/05 3:37:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@x... writes: > Hi Howard, > I do not think this is the case. The infinitely tiny rupa earsense is > located somewhere in the body, and this is described here. Just like > eyesense, in the middle of the black circle. This is not a matter fo > confusing paramattha and samutti. > Nina. > op 07-01-2005 16:35 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > >I consider that to be one of those cases in which Buddhaghosa, the > >"champion of paramattha dhammas" confuses paramattha and samutti, confuses > ================== Yes, we definitely disagree on this one, Nina. ;-) What is that "body" it is located in, Nina? There is, from the ultimate perspective, no such thing - is that not 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) 40711 From: Egbert Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 1:55pm Subject: Re: Concepts and Questions Hi TG, Gotta go soon, so I'll just quickly reply below. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > In a message dated 1/7/2005 1:02:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, > hhofman@t... writes: > The Dhamma is not conceptual, and after the days of the Buddha > direct hearing is not a possibility. The means of the transmission > of the Tipitaka requires years and years of first learning to read, > then learning to read Suttas, Vinaya, Commentaries, Abhidhamma etc > etc. The Tipitaka is conceptual, and it is transmitted conceptually. > It is not Dhamma. It is not effective in producing enlightenment, > because the means is entirely contrary to the end. > > Hi Herman > > I missed this part. Very interesting. In it you admit the conceptual nature > of the Tipitaka. And say it takes years and years of learning. Then it > appears you say..."It is not effective in producing enlightenment." > > If its a necessary step in producing enlightenment, then enlightenment is > dependent on it, and it has affect! It doesn't matter what "stage" it comes at, > the fact is it structures the ability to achieve enlightenment. Those > concepts ... ya gotta luv em! ;-) > Yes, the Tipitaka is entirely conceptual. I would never confuse it with Dhamma, though. Unless I'm very much mistaken, you are putting forward that reading the conceptual Tipitaka is or can be a factor that produces enlightenment. Mmmmmmmmmm, I'll have all day to ruminate about :-) Catch U later Herman 40712 From: Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 9:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions In a message dated 1/7/2005 1:57:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, hhofman@t... writes: Yes, the Tipitaka is entirely conceptual. I would never confuse it with Dhamma, though. Unless I'm very much mistaken, you are putting forward that reading the conceptual Tipitaka is or can be a factor that produces enlightenment. Mmmmmmmmmm, I'll have all day to ruminate about :-) Catch U later Herman Hi Herman Not only am I putting this idea forward, the Buddha does. Of course, I've ripped off most of "my" ideas from him. ;-) And as you can see...the Buddha does call the teachings "Dhamma." “…when he gives ear (listens), he hears the Dhamma; having heard the Dhamma, he memorizes it and examines the meaning of the teachings he has memorized; when he has examined their meaning, he gains a reflective acceptance of those teachings; when he has gained a reflective acceptance of those teachings, zeal springs up; when zeal springs up, he applies his will; having applied his will, he scrutinizes; having scrutinized, he strives; resolutely striving, he realizes with the body the ultimate truth and sees it by penetrating it with wisdom.â€? In this way, Bharadvaja, there is the discovery of the truth; in this way one discovers the truth; in this way we describe the discovery of the truth. But as yet there is no final arrival at truth.â€? … “The final arrival of truth Bharadvaja, lies in the repetition, development, and cultivation of those same things.â€? (The Buddha . . . Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, pg. 782, With Canki, Canki Sutta, #95) TG 40713 From: dharmabum253 Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 8:21am Subject: jhanas I've been confused on a particular point for some time and hope someone could offer me some of their personal experience or some scriptural reference. The traditional Theravadin stance on the jhanas is that absorption cannot be used for insight practice due to the mind's being too still to glean any insight. It is believed that phala cannot be realized with jhana. This has always seemed peculiar to me. Ajahn Brahmavamso, in his article Travelogue to the Jhanas, states that the fruit of jhana practice is phala. His reference here is to the Pasadika Sutta. I have also read elsewhere that the result of the mundane jhanas is rebirth in a desire realm, fine material realm, etc and that the fruit of jhana practice is not nirvana. Did the Buddha say this or does this cosmology only appear in Abhidhamma? I'd really appreciate any help anyone could give me. Peace, Dave 40714 From: Andrew Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 3:25pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Apologies --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Friend Ken H., > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" > wrote: > > > > Hi Dan and James, > > > > Sarah is not alone in interpreting the Brahmajala Sutta the way > she > > does. Until now, I had never heard of its being interpreted any > > other way. The very first Buddhist book I ever owned ("What the > > Buddha Really Taught " by David Maurice) says, "The Buddha, in the > > Discourse of the Supreme Net, showed that there are sixty-two of > > these 'views' and that there cannot be more than those he > > classified. They are all there, existentialism and all. . . ." > > [snip] > "The Brahmajala Sutta is the very first text in the Sutta Pitaka of > the Pali canon and one of the important discourses spoken by the > Buddha. Brahmajala Sutta is "the discourse on the all-embracing net > of views''. The Buddha's aim in expounding this discourse is to > elaborate on a ''net'' of all possible views / opinions / beliefs / > philosophical ideas / speculative thought of His time." > http://www.buddhanet.net/bvk_study/bvk214.htm Hello James and Ken H and others I'm coming in late on this one (and ill-prepared as usual). Has somebody had a look at Bhikkhu Bodhi's take? Apologies if you have already. This is from his Introduction the the Brahmajala Sutta: "... The wrong views mentioned by the Buddha [throughout the suttas] can be classified into three general categories: wrong views with fixed consequences (niyatamicchaditthi), speculative views (ditthigata) and personality view (sakkayaditthi) ... Speculative views include all metaphysical theories, religious creeds, and philosophical tenets concerning issues that lie beyond the reach of possible experiential verification. These views are not necessarily an obstacle to rebirth in the higher worlds, but in every case act as impediments to the path to liberation. All such views arise out of personality view, the fundamental belief in a self or ego-entity, which as the root of its more sophisticated philosophical elaborations is reckoned separately. The Brahmajala Sutta is an attempt at a methodical survey of the most populous of these three classes, the class of speculative views. The other two classes are not specifically mentioned in the sutta, yet they too are drawn in by implication. For the first class, wrong views with fixed consequences, rests its ethically disruptive tenets upon doctrinal presuppositions coming into purview of the Brahmajala's project, while the third, personality view, forms the seed out of which all speculations evolve ... The Brahmajala's claim to exhaustiveness is thundered out in the refrain which brings each section of the exposition to a close: 'outside of these there are none'. The title of the sutta further underscores this claim while the same idea is given concrete shape in the memorable simile with which the discourse ends. The scheme of sixty-two cases is a net ... [which] takes as its target not only those [philosophical theories] which were being formulated by the thinkers contemporary with the Buddha, or those which have come to expression in the course of man's intellectual history but all that are capable of coming to expression whether they have actually appeared or not ... Whether the sutta, in its present form, really does succeed in matching this claim is difficult to assess ..." Sorry for the abbreviating ... running out of time. So BB disagrees with James' source and he goes on to suggest that doubts about the sutta's claims (such as those expressed by James) *may* be the result of lack of insight into the range of the particular view under discussion. Food for thought. (-: Best wishes Andrew T 40715 From: Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 4:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sense-door process, rupa. Hi Howard, I'm still not understanding you. What is experience in dhamma terms? Larry ---------------------- H: "We have nothing *but* experiencing. Consciousness isn't something extra that is applied to an experience. An unexperienced experience [I don't just mean just subliminal, below one's current threshhold of registering] is a contradiction in terms and non-existent. In a sense, consciousness is the stage (or the screen) on which all experience occurs - EXCEPT, and this is important, the stage or screen doesn't exist without the show; in fact, it is the mere presence of the show, and the arising of (any frame of) the film-show and the arising of the screen are mutual and inseparable." 40716 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 4:48pm Subject: Re: Apologies Friend Andrew, Thank you so much for quoting from the introduction to Bhikkhu Bodhi's book on the Brahmajala Sutta. I don't have a copy, and Sarah suggested I get one (in her usual `school teacherly' way ;-)), so it is nice that you went to the effort to type out part of it. I normally don't disagree with anything BB writes, this is going to be the first time for me ;-), but I disagree when he writes about the metaphor at the conclusion of the Brahmajala Sutta: "The scheme of sixty-two cases is a net ... [which] takes as its target not only those [philosophical theories] which were being formulated by the thinkers contemporary with the Buddha, or those which have come to expression in the course of man's intellectual history but all that are capable of coming to expression whether they have actually appeared or not" Wow! That's a pretty big claim! Let's look at that section of the sutta: "Whatever ascetics and Brahmins who are speculators about the past or the future or both, having fixed views on the matter and put forth speculative views about it, these are all trapped in the net with its sixty-two divisions, and wherever they emerge and try to get out, they are caught and held in this net. Just as a skilled fisherman or his apprentice might cover a small piece of water with a fine-meshed net, thinking : `Whatever larger creatures there may be in this water, they are all trapped in the net, caught, and held in the net', so it is with all these : they are trapped and caught in this net." First, to my reading, the Buddha is talking specifically about ascetics and Brahmins. I introduced the modern views of Existentialism and Objectivism and neither of them was put forth by ascetics or Brahmins. Now, one could say, "Well, the Buddha meant `anyone' when he stated ascetics and Brahmins" but I don't buy that. The Buddha was typically very specific and meant exactly what he said. Secondly, I don't read anything in this metaphor about all speculative views that are "capable of coming to expression" as BB writes. Again, something is being read into this sutta that just isn't there in my opinion. Please, someone, anyone, quote to me (from the sutta itself) where the Buddha states that these 62 wrong views cover all wrong views for all times. I just don't see that anywhere in the sutta! Really, BB is just stating that it is IMPLIED by the title of the sutta, and the refrain of `there are no others', and the metaphor of the net, but something IMPLIED is not good enough for me, especially something of this magnitude. If I am going to believe it, it should be stated specifically by the Buddha in the sutta. Andrew: So BB disagrees with James' source and he goes on to suggest that doubts about the sutta's claims (such as those expressed by James) *may* be the result of lack of insight into the range of the particular view under discussion. James: Sure, I could go along and say that this sutta is universal, but I just don't see it in the sutta itself. What would be the point of doing that? Maybe this is because I lack insight, as you suggest Andrew, and that could be. I just have myself and the Buddha to count on, no one else. Metta, James 40717 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 6:45pm Subject: Re: Apologies Hi James, I know you like to rely on Buddha's original words for the most part. However, may I suggest reading this exposition on right view: http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL03.html I'll quote the part that attempts to define samana and brahmana, which is the sticky point for you. Though I'm not sure if it's enough to satisfy you: How virtuous practice can be impaired. If desire-to-do and energy to perform, what should be done and to avoid what should be refrained from do not arise in the minds of those people who hold the pubbekata-hetu view, they being, unable to perceive what is good and what is evil, remain without performing wholesome volitional actions which should be performed, and on the other hand perform unwholesome volitional actions which should be avoided. They having no mindfulness and self-restraint, their view cannot be a righteous samana-vada. In the world there are such conventional terms as "samana" (one endeavouring to extinguish the passions), "brahmana" (a person leading a pure, stainless and ascetic life), "virtuous people" and "people", because these are the people who perform what should be performed and avoid what should be avoided. The conventional terms of "righteous person", "persons leading a pure and stainless life" or a "sappairisa" (worthy man) cannot be applied to those who hold this pubbekata-hetu view, because to them there is no difference between what actions should be done and what should be refrained from, which courses of action are usually practised by householders, samanas and wise people alike. In reality, there are actions which should be refrained from. Some people do not always perform wholesome volitional actions which should be done, and do those evil actions which should be abstained from. Such people are called pakati-manussa (worldlings). Some people, having mindfulness and self-restraint, perform good actions and abstain from evil actions. They are called "samana", "brahmana", or "sappurisa". If one differentiates between these classes of people--evil ones and wise ones--he is said to maintain the right samana view or the right brahmana view. As the pubbekata-hetu view disclaims all present causes such as mindfulness, etc., and firmly believes in the volitional actions performed by beings in their past existences, only their view should be regarded as a wrong view. - kel 40718 From: Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 2:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sense-door process, rupa. Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/7/05 7:39:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > I'm still not understanding you. What is experience in dhamma terms? > > Larry > ---------------------- > H: "We have nothing *but* experiencing. Consciousness isn't something > extra that is applied to an experience. An unexperienced experience [I > don't just mean just subliminal, below one's current threshhold of > registering] is a contradiction in terms and non-existent. In a sense, > consciousness is the stage (or the screen) on which all experience > occurs - EXCEPT, and this is important, the stage or screen doesn't > exist without the show; in fact, it is the mere presence of the show, > and the arising of (any frame of) the film-show and the arising of the > screen are mutual and inseparable." > > ====================== I'm afraid that I can't restate what I wrote any more clearly. I'm not sure I understand what you are looking for when you ask "What is experience in dhamma terms?" By an experience, speaking in ordinary language, I mean anything we are aware of. In Dhammic terms, an experience is a 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) 40719 From: Matthew Miller Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 7:38pm Subject: Re: Seeing & Hearing Nina wrote: > > I do not think this is the case. The infinitely tiny rupa > earsense is located somewhere in the body, and this is described > here. > An "infinitely tiny" thing somewhere in the body "shaped like a finger-ring and fringed by tender, tawny hairs"? Hmm. Sounds like a pretty darn good description of the cochlea of the inner ear. There is indeed a very tiny (though not "infinitely" tiny) area lined with so-called "hair cells" which are sensory cells topped with hair-like structures called stereocilia. When sound vibrates the hair cells they send nerve impulses to the brain, which are perceived as a sound of whatever pitch the hair cell is associated with. (Sorry Howard, I'm definitely indulging in physics here -- but it is quite remarkable that Buddhaghosa described this so accurately!) While we're hanging out inside the ear, one thing has always puzzled me... When describing the pasada rupas, why doesn't the abhidhamma include the sense of balance? Is balance-sense not a rupa, just like eye- sense, ear-sense, etc? They all have specialized sense-organs in the body (the balance organ is right next to the "hairy finger-ring", in the semicircular canals of the labyrinth). The object of the balance-sense is circular motion, just as the object of the ear-sense is sound. Just as destruction of the ear-door creates deafness, destruction of the balance-door creates dizziness, disorientation, etc. Why is hearing a pasada rupa but not balance? Balance isn't any more samutti or pa~n~natti than any of the other senses. They are all rupas at the sense doors, no? Matthew 40720 From: Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 2:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sense-door process, rupa. In a message dated 1/7/2005 7:27:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: An unexperienced experience [I > don't just mean just subliminal, below one's current threshhold of > registering] is a contradiction in terms and non-existent. Hi Howard A couple of weeks ago you were saying that the absolute lack of visual-object was still visual-consciousness if one was attempting to pay attention to Vision. I.E., if I understood you correctly, that a lack of "visual-object was still a visual experience of "no sight" given the mind attempting to access "visual-object." In light of what you've typed above, have you changed your perspective on that? Just curious. TG 40721 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 7:51pm Subject: Re: Apologies Hi James ----------------- J: > The `onus' is on me, huh? Well, that's a rather nasty word ;-). ----------------- Yes, but it was meant in the nicest possible way. :-) ---------------------------- J: > What would you propose I do- go through all 62 views, one-by- one, and show why they aren't Existentialism? ---------------------------- Yes, if that is what it takes. -------------- J: > Why should I do that? All one needs to do is read the Brahmajala Sutta, without reading any commentary, and it will become clear that the Buddha is describing the views of ascetics and Brahmins of his time period. -------------- We have discussed many times whether we should learn the Tipitaka in the way the ancient commentators understood it, or whether we should learn the Tipitaka in the way James (or KenH or anyone else) understands it. We have different opinions on that. ---------------- J: > Here is one source which states the opposite (not that my source or your source really prove anything): "The Brahmajala Sutta is a ''net'' of all possible views / opinions / beliefs / philosophical ideas / speculative thought of His time." --------------- I agree it doesn't prove anything, but I wonder if Krishnamurti necessarily agrees with you. Is he implying that the speculative thought of the Buddha's time was more restricted than the speculative thought of subsequent times? Remember the old adage, 'There is nothing new under the sun.' Kind regards, Ken H 40722 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 7:59pm Subject: Re: What the mind does Hi Kel, I did not make myself clear: I was not arguing against right intellectual understanding. The point I was trying to make was; the Buddha taught satipatthana and every word of his teaching should be understood in terms of satipatthana. (That is not an original statement: if I remember correctly, it is attributed to K Sujin.) ------------------------ Kel: I agree intellectual understanding is not the way out however it's a necessary stepping stone toward enlightenment. ------------------------ Exactly so, and I didn't mean to disagree. ------------ K: > Buddha expounded on dhamma using concepts and illustrations for people will understand. He just showed how to use the intellect combined with experience to achieve the ultimate goal. If one doesn't understand the underlying concepts then the true wisdom is hopeless. Even paramattha dhammas you mentioned is not free of concepts, it's just a way of describing how the universe work. ----------- Whoa there! Paramattha dhammas are entirely free of concepts. They are definitely not just a way of describing the universe. They exist in their own right regardless of whether we have any concept of their existence - regardless of whether we are Buddhist or non- Buddhist, awake or asleep - or anything! ------------------------ K: > The true paramattha is nibbana since it's out of the whole universe of mind and matter phenonema as we experience it. ------------------------- I don't know what you mean, but I know I don't like it. :-) ----------- K: > The pannati versus paramattha categorization is just for convenience when discussing the philosophy. I have used my book-learning knowledge to guide my practice. Whatever experiences I go through I reconcile with what the teachers and Buddha taught to make sure i haven't strayed from the path. Many times at interviews I've heard other students immersed in flickering lights or visions during their sits. The ten imperfections of wisdom when properly observed without getting attached will pass away. However due to lack of the knowledge about them students chase these experiences fruitlessly. With strong samadhi, experiences of piti and sukha cause people to dwell instead of analyzing them properly. For bhanga, initially it feels like everything is gone and there's nothing left to note. Then after repeated penetration (without just noting nothingness), the mind is able to feel the underlying vibrations which were previously unexperienced so the mind couldn't comprehend at first. I think every practitioner pass through these road-blocks and intellectual knowledge allows one to overcome them easier. ------------ The above may be an accurate description of various insights, I don't know. But I do know that insights occur only to the wise. There is no rite or ritual by means of which insight arises in the unwise. ------------------ K: > Even in patipatti, we use concepts or things in the mundane world to guide us to the truth. ------------------ No, in patipatti there is no concept of the conventional world. There is only direct knowledge of the real, conditioned, world. ----------------------- K: > When you truly see the nature of concepts in terms of three signs that's when you arrive at paramattha. I don't see how Buddha can teach without concepts. ---------------------- This is where I didn't make myself clear: I have no disagreement with this. In fact, I believe in studying the Dhamma as distinct from trying to practise it. True practice occurs when right understanding arises. And that is due entirely to conditions, not to any ideas that illusory beings (you and me) might have. ---------- <. . .> K: > not offended but confused as to what point I'm missing. ------- As I was saying, every word of the Buddha's teaching is to be understood in terms of satipatthana. In satipatthana, there is no concept of a being who is practising, there are only namas and rupas. However, as worldlings, we naturally desire to become wise and wonderful beings, and so we naturally misunderstand the Dhamma. Most of us, at some time or another, are attracted to various meditation techniques whereby we, supposedly, experience what the ariyans experience. But those techniques are not mentioned in the Dhamma. The Dhamma simply teaches us to know the presently arisen reality regardless of whether it is wonderful or deplorable or just plain ordinary. Ken H 40723 From: Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 8:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sense-door process, rupa. Howard: "an experience is a dhamma" Hi Howard, Okay, I think I've got what you're saying. An experience is any dhamma that either accompanies consciousness or is the object of consciousness, as a cetasika or rupa for example. Presumably cetasikas could be either object or accompanier but rupa, concept, or nibbana would be only object. Or is there no difference between object and accompanier insofar as they are experiences except that cetasika and concept have a reference point while rupa doesn't? If that is it, the only thing left to hash out is the relationship between experience, as you call it, and consciousness. I believe you said this is not a subject/object relationship. You called consciousness presence and the relationship nondual. If they are not two then they are the same and presence is just a quality of the phenomenon. Is this what you have in mind? Larry 40724 From: connieparker Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 9:25pm Subject: patience, courage and good cheer Thank you to all the Pilgrims for the great discussions. There is a lot of encouragement there. Here are some, all out of order, that caught my attention: *** To say it is difficult is praising the wisdom of the Buddha. Who can know all about the teachings? Buddha himself said "Who knows all of what I have said?" It helps to know how limited our own level is. Even a sotapanna still needs to hear more. There's always potential for sati to arise because there are always realities. But it is impossible for it to arise without there being intellectual understanding. One will not go wrong because one knows the details; it makes for firmness about the right path. Just to be sankhara khandha for awareness, no expectation. Little by little. How many times a day? We don't mind, otherwise lobha is there again. Just begin again. As we know the way, we'll reach that point. Development of a certain amount of panna is still asaya. *** On that last one, we usually talk about anusayas/defiled latent tendencies and how they are dormant in each citta, even the kusala ones, so we don't know what we're capable of and can't really say "well, I'd never...", but it's the same with the good accumulations/asaya... who knows when or what will condition just a little more sati, just a little more understanding, just a little more... and I think the kusala must be stronger than the akusala in the long run. And maybe the most encouraging of all: "Well, there hasn't been cuti yet!" peace, connie 40725 From: Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 4:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Seeing & Hearing Hi, Matthew - In a message dated 1/7/05 10:39:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, bupleurum@y... writes: > Nina wrote: > > > >I do not think this is the case. The infinitely tiny rupa > >earsense is located somewhere in the body, and this is described > >here. > > > > An "infinitely tiny" thing somewhere in the body "shaped like a > finger-ring and fringed by tender, tawny hairs"? Hmm. Sounds like a > > pretty darn good description of the cochlea of the inner ear. There > is indeed a very tiny (though not "infinitely" tiny) area lined with > so-called "hair cells" which are sensory cells topped with hair-like > structures called stereocilia. When sound vibrates the hair cells > they send nerve impulses to the brain, which are perceived as a sound > of whatever pitch the hair cell is associated with. > > (Sorry Howard, I'm definitely indulging in physics here -- but it is > quite remarkable that Buddhaghosa described this so accurately!) > --------------------------------------- Howard: Matthew, it doesn't bother me at all that you raise this. You are making exactly my point, that Buddhagosa is mixing conventional objects, samutti dhamma, with paramattha dhammas. I certainly do not deny that the cochlea is a conventional reality. Abhidhamma, however, considers eye/eyesense to be a rupa, a paramattha dhamma. But a paramattha dhamma doesn't have parts like hairs!! ---------------------------------------------- > > While we're hanging out inside the ear, one thing has always puzzled > me... > > When describing the pasada rupas, why doesn't the abhidhamma include > the sense of balance? Is balance-sense not a rupa, just like eye- > sense, ear-sense, etc? They all have specialized sense-organs in the > body (the balance organ is right next to the "hairy finger-ring", in > the semicircular canals of the labyrinth). The object of the > balance-sense is circular motion, just as the object of the ear-sense > is sound. Just as destruction of the ear-door creates deafness, > destruction of the balance-door creates dizziness, disorientation, > etc. > > Why is hearing a pasada rupa but not balance? Balance isn't any more > samutti or pa~n~natti than any of the other senses. They are all > rupas at the sense doors, no? > > Matthew > ======================= 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) 40726 From: Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 4:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sense-door process, rupa. Hi, TG - In a message dated 1/7/05 10:42:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > Hi Howard > > A couple of weeks ago you were saying that the absolute lack of > visual-object > was still visual-consciousness if one was attempting to pay attention to > Vision. I.E., if I understood you correctly, that a lack of "visual-object > was > still a visual experience of "no sight" given the mind attempting to access > "visual-object." > > In light of what you've typed above, have you changed your perspective on > that? Just curious. > > TG > ====================== No, no change. As best I can tell, what I'm speaking of here, and what I spoke of before are apples & oranges. 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) 40727 From: Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 5:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sense-door process, rupa. Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/7/05 11:27:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Howard: "an experience is a dhamma" > > Hi Howard, > > Okay, I think I've got what you're saying. An experience is any dhamma > that either accompanies consciousness or is the object of consciousness, > as a cetasika or rupa for example. > -------------------------------- Howard: Yes. ------------------------------- Presumably cetasikas could be either> > object or accompanier but rupa, concept, or nibbana would be only > object. > ------------------------------ Howard: Well, cetasikas *as such* are accompaniers. As objects, I wouldn't call them cetasikas. (Here I'm just talking about how we refer to them.) ------------------------------ Or is there no difference between object and accompanier insofar > > as they are experiences except that cetasika and concept have a > reference point while rupa doesn't? ------------------------------ Howard: No, I think there is a difference between being present as an object and as a concomitant. -------------------------------- > > If that is it, the only thing left to hash out is the relationship > between experience, as you call it, and consciousness. I believe you > said this is not a subject/object relationship. You called consciousness > presence and the relationship nondual. If they are not two then they are > the same and presence is just a quality of the phenomenon. Is this what you > have in mind? > --------------------------------------- Howard: Nonduality does not mean identity. Nondualism isn't monism. The relationship of nonduality is the relationship of mutual dependence and insep arability, but it does not imply indistinguishability. Again, it is like inside and outside surfaces of a box. They are inseparable, but yet distinguishable and not one. I would agree that the presence of something is much *like* a property of it. Not quite, but very similar. And yes, it is not a subject/object relationship. A knowing subject is, in fact, a "self". There is no such thing. When I had that brief no-self experience I have described, there was no subject. And with that being so, nothing experienced had the flavor of "object", because there was no subject opposing it. -------------------------------------- > > > > Larry > > ========================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 40728 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 10:38pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing & Hearing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: You are > making exactly my point, that Buddhagosa is mixing conventional objects, samutti > dhamma, with paramattha dhammas. I certainly do not deny that the cochlea is a > conventional reality. Abhidhamma, however, considers eye/eyesense to be a > rupa, a paramattha dhamma. But a paramattha dhamma doesn't have parts like hairs!! > ---------------------------------------------- > Dear Howard and Sarah, The Dhamma is often taught using pannatti and paramattha dhamma in the same sentence. Take the the expression "woman's voice". The sound is real, but the woman is not real. I don't know how much you have studied the section on the sense bases in the Visuddhimagga but Buddhaghosa in no way was confused about what was paramattha and what was not. In the case of sotapasada he says that it FOUND in the place that is shaped like a finger-stall. However, he is clear that the actual rupa that is the pasada is incredibly sublime. It might even be so refined as to be unmeasuarable by scientific instruments. This applies also to the other sense organs (pasada rupa). The Atthasalini remarks that the very purpose of using the term pasada is to dismiss the popular misconception of what we think an eye or an ear is. (see karunadasa p45). Sarah, I just saw a post where you said that there was no location for cittas of hearing, seeing etc. This is not so: they arise at the eyebase or earbase etc. Robertk 40729 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 10:56pm Subject: Re: What the mind does Ken, K: > Buddha expounded on dhamma using concepts and illustrations for > people will understand. He just showed how to use the intellect > combined with experience to achieve the ultimate goal. If one > doesn't understand the underlying concepts then the true wisdom is > hopeless. Even paramattha dhammas you mentioned is not free of > concepts, it's just a way of describing how the universe work. > ----------- > > Ken: Whoa there! Paramattha dhammas are entirely free of concepts. They > are definitely not just a way of describing the universe. They exist > in their own right regardless of whether we have any concept of > their existence - regardless of whether we are Buddhist or non- > Buddhist, awake or asleep - or anything! > ------------------------ Kel: Buddha always described things from moralistic point of view. Who's to say scientific point of view of matter isn't describing the same reality? Bottom line is the body is made out of smaller particles, whatever they maybe called or separated into. Quantum theory is confirming what Buddha described 2.5k years ago, just not using the same elements. There's no permanent core and it's useless to be attached to it. If you get that basic principle then the categorization or names shouldn't matter. Now the question is can you apply this basic knowledge of anatta in your bodily, verbal and mental actions. If you truly believe this, why can't you do it? To become an ariya, you have to live like one. Does your mind have enough strength to not stray and not commit unwholesome actions even in thoughts? > K: > The true paramattha is nibbana since it's out of the whole > universe of mind and matter phenonema as we experience it. > ------------------------- > Ken: I don't know what you mean, but I know I don't like it. :-) Kel: As long as we're still in the mundane universe it's still not the truth. Only Nibbana is the truth, the goal. The whole field of mind-matter is going through arising and passing away and not free of concept. Nibbana cannot be described fully with any concept we know because it is free of concept and process of becoming. > Ken: The above may be an accurate description of various insights, > don't know. But I do know that insights occur only to the wise. > There is no rite or ritual by means of which insight arises in the > unwise. Kel: Who mentioned rites or rituals? During deep meditation sessions we experience and see glimpses of the insights. After repeatedly experiencing them, they become mature and steady insights worthy of being called vipassana-nanas. > ------------------ > K: > Even in patipatti, we use concepts or things in the mundane > world to guide us to the truth. > ------------------ > > Ken: No, in patipatti there is no concept of the conventional world. > There is only direct knowledge of the real, conditioned, world. > > ----------------------- Kel: Patipatti just means way/practice. Now when someone becomes a sotapanna, they can enjoy the fruit/phala whenever they want. There's really two modes for them when they enter meditation. When they want to obtain higher stages, they will again have to sharpen their minds and dig further to find the defilements still latent in the mind. Or they merely relive the successive nana's (loki) and enter phala(lokuttara) for some time. A sotapanna householder is not meditating deeply 24/7 when they go about their daily routine. They live normally, just will no longer commit actions caused by the removed defilements. They'll still commit unwholesome actions due to the remaining defilements. So even when an ariya is applying the way of living properly, patipatti, they do not have a constant "direct knowledge of the real, conditioned, world". > Most of us, at some time or another, are attracted to various > meditation techniques whereby we, supposedly, experience what the > ariyans experience. But those techniques are not mentioned in the > Dhamma. Kel: There's nothing wrong with practicing a particular technique. They're once again vehicle one rides to get to the goal. As long as one doesn't form an attachment to a particular technique and start believing it is the only way. If it's a proper technique within the confines of satipatthana, and one is practioning properly why wouldn't we experience the nana's? Meditation is an exercise of the mind and depending on the stage of the person, different methods should be used. > The Dhamma simply teaches us to know the presently arisen reality > regardless of whether it is wonderful or deplorable or just plain > ordinary. Kel: That's the goal, but blindly trying to get there isn't going to work. We clear our minds by practicing sila. We sharpen our minds by practicing samadi. Only then when you practice insight, you might actually be aware of the reality that has arisen. If your sati/samadhi is not strong, even if you have equanimity, it'll still be observing at superficial levels because your mind is still obstructed by moha. - kel 40730 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 11:05pm Subject: Re: What the mind does --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kelvin_lwin" wrote: > > For bhanga, initially it feels like > everything is gone and there's nothing left to note. Then after > repeated penetration (without just noting nothingness), the mind is > able to feel the underlying vibrations which were previously > unexperienced so the mind couldn't comprehend at first. ============== Dear Kelvin, Do you have a reference for this statement. RobertK 40731 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 11:20pm Subject: Re: What the mind does Hi Robert, > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kelvin_lwin" > wrote: > > > > For bhanga, initially it feels like > > everything is gone and there's nothing left to note. Then after > > repeated penetration (without just noting nothingness), the mind > is > > able to feel the underlying vibrations which were previously > > unexperienced so the mind couldn't comprehend at first. > ============== > Dear Kelvin, > Do you have a reference for this statement. > RobertK I'm afraid no handy online literature reference. It was from my own experience and what my meditation teachers have told me. I read/heard lectures about checking for subtlest phenomena by Burmese monks. It is mentioned in connection with Passaddhi by SN Goenka in his Satipatthana course in English too. Other than that I can't furnish anything at the moment, sorry. I was just trying to make a point without instructions, I would've been lost as to how to handle that experience. - Kel 40732 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 0:21am Subject: Re: jhanas Hi Dave, > someone could offer me some of their personal experience or some > scriptural reference. The traditional Theravadin stance on the I certainly can't give scriptural references as I'm sure other people in DSG can. Hopefully someone will furnish them for you. However, I can offer some personal views and what I was taught. > jhanas is that absorption cannot be used for insight practice due > to the mind's being too still to glean any insight. It is believed > phala cannot be realized with jhana. Common way to develop the mundane jhanas is of course samatha or concentration meditation. The goal is to pick a subject and train the mind on it without interruption. Once it's so trained to perceive the subject as a counterpart sign, it'll appear as permanent. Then one practice to be able to advert the mind to this sign whenever and however long one wants. Absorption is when one gets really good and can stay solely on this sign for a long time. Even five minutes would be consider a long time in terms of how many citta moments that entails. Anyway hopefully you can see it is not a suitable object for insight meditation because it is culivated and appears to be permanent. So after one comes out of absorption, instead of the sign, one can use the sharp mind resulting from jhana to train it back on the mind itself for investigation. There it transition to vipassana and wisdom for enlightenment can arise leading to phala. If someone stays with the signs and jhana without doing vipassana then phala cannot be realized. Buddha says the 4th jhana produced mind is the best mind to meditate with since it's so pure and equanimous. So if one does transition like they're suppose to then the fruit of jhana practice is phala. > the result of the mundane jhanas is rebirth in a desire realm,fine > material realm, etc and that the fruit of jhana practice is not > nirvana. So if one merely achieves rupa-jhanas, then they will be reborn into corresponding rupa-brahmic planes. If they achieve arupa- jhanas then they'll be reborn in arupa-brahmic planes. If they also achieve enlightenments then they'll be born into appripriate planes. Of course for arahants there's no rebirth, achieve nibbana/nirvana. So really both positions are true. With just mundane jhanas, you can't achieve enlightenment but they create the best mind (focused and equanimous) to use in achieving enlightenment. Some call sannavedayitanirodha the 9th jhana or supramundane jhana. This is in addition to the 4 paths and 4 fruits (phala) of enlightenment. The 9th jhana can be reached by anagamis and arahants who are also trained in the 8 jhanas. During Buddha's time, other teachers also taught and achieved the 8 jhanas. So it's just a differentiation that had to be made to show that merely achieving the 8 jhanas is not the way out of samsara. You need to take the extra step of vipassana and achieve sannavedayitanirodha for total cessation that one can enter absorption, just like mundane jhanas. The big difference is the mind and mind-caused matter complete stops in sannavedayitanirodha. It is as close as you can get to experiencing the total experience of Nibbana while still alive. A further reference: http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/jhanas/jhanas06.htm - kel 40733 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 1:23am Subject: Re: Apologies Friend Ken H., Ken: Yes, but it was meant in the nicest possible way. :-) James: That's good to hear. ;-) Ken: Yes, if that is what it takes. James: Well, you can forget it! ;-) You see, the `onus' is not really on me; it is on those who state that the Brahmajala Sutta is universal. Personally, I don't see anything in the sutta itself which states that the Buddha was being universal; and no one has been able to quote where the Buddha states that specifically. Therefore, the `onus' (burden of proof) is on you Ken H., not me. You could just do what Howard did: quote the wrong view which you believe is Existentialism. (BTW, I granted the argument concerning Objectivism to Howard because I respect his opinion, but I am not entirely convinced that the `heart' of Objectivist thought is a materialistic, atta-view…that could only be a side issue, a false view that arises from the main false view: that all of reality can be known through rational/logical thought.) Ken: We have discussed many times whether we should learn the Tipitaka in the way the ancient commentators understood it, or whether we should learn the Tipitaka in the way James (or KenH or anyone else) understands it. We have different opinions on that. James: Well, the Buddha already answered that before he died and told his sangha to `be a light unto themselves'. Anyway, I don't reject all of the commentaries, only some of them. I simply advocate that people learn to think for themselves (and develop intuition through meditation) and then they will know which commentaries to trust and which ones they should disregard. Personally, I don't understand why anyone would blindly accept all of the commentaries, especially since their sources are unknown. Ken: I agree it doesn't prove anything, but I wonder if Krishnamurti necessarily agrees with you. Is he implying that the speculative thought of the Buddha's time was more restricted than the speculative thought of subsequent times? James: I don't think he is implying that. If you think he is, then explain why you think so. But really, I would rather just focus on the sutta rather than argue secondary sources. Ken: Remember the old adage, 'There is nothing new under the sun.' James: Did the Buddha teach that? ;-)) Metta, James 40734 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 1:26am Subject: Re: Apologies Friend Kelvin, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kelvin_lwin" wrote: > > Hi James, > > I know you like to rely on Buddha's original words for the most > part. However, may I suggest reading this exposition on right view: > http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL03.html Thank you for this post but I don't understand how it relates specifically to this thread. Could you please explain in your own words so that I may better understand? Metta, James 40735 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 2:23am Subject: Re: Apologies James, > > I know you like to rely on Buddha's original words for the most > > part. However, may I suggest reading this exposition on right > view: > > http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL03.html > > Thank you for this post but I don't understand how it relates > specifically to this thread. Could you please explain in your own > words so that I may better understand? Kel: If I read your arguments correctly then you're saying sutta specifically mentioned the ascetics and Brahmins and their views. And you're saying that basically means it only apply to ascetics and Brahmins who exist at Buddha's time and their wrong views right? I thought the work of Ledi Sayadaw offered a broader definition of the words you translated as Ascetics and Brahmins. ascestic = "samana" (one endeavouring to extinguish the passions) brahmin = "brahmana" (a person leading a pure, stainless and ascetic life) Those definitions seem to suggest people who are trying to find the way out of samsara outside of just Buddha's time period. So for anyone striving to find the truth, the wrong views enumerated are all the possible mistakes they can make due to their improper or partial understanding of the truth. I myself was taught there are 62 wrong views and always figured it didn't matter what they are as long as I under the right view. - kel 40736 From: Egbert Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 2:35am Subject: Re: Concepts and Questions Hi TG, This is the bit where I circambulate according to the custom of the day (circambulation du jour). My reply is below :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > In a message dated 1/7/2005 1:57:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, > hhofman@t... writes: > Yes, the Tipitaka is entirely conceptual. I would never confuse it > with Dhamma, though. > > Unless I'm very much mistaken, you are putting forward that reading > the conceptual Tipitaka is or can be a factor that produces > enlightenment. > > Mmmmmmmmmm, I'll have all day to ruminate about :-) > > Catch U later > > > Herman > > Hi Herman > > Not only am I putting this idea forward, the Buddha does. Of course, I've ripped off most of "my" ideas from him. ;-) And as you can see...the Buddha > does call the teachings "Dhamma." === The teachings of the Buddha are oral in nature. That is Dhamma. It is a quantum leap to suggest that the Buddha refers at any time to the Tipitaka, which is a written tradition initiated upto hundreds of years after his own death. === > > “…when he gives ear (listens), he hears the Dhamma; having heard the Dhamma, === Exactly !!!!!!!!! (note the emphasis :-) He gives ear, listens, hears. That hasn't happened for about 2000 years. There is a world-wide difference between reading and hearing. A new-born does not need to be taught how to hear. Hearing is the primary vehicle of learning. Hearing is the sense by which a person is susceptible to another. A new-born does need to be taught how to read, by which I mean that symbolic representation to the nth degree in not innate. The necessity to learn to read has nothing to do with liberation, only with survival in a society that demands alienation from reality. It takes years and years of training to learn to read, to rewire the mind so that when it looks at black and white dots it sees meaning (where there isn't any, wasn't any, and never will be any). (Just imagine if those self-same years were spent developing purity of mind and view) I put forward that the mind that has become literate is so far removed from reality, so embedded in conceptuality, that enlightennment is out of the question. (The NSPW* index since a few years after the Buddha's paranibbana bears that out) *NSPW - new sotapannas per week). The notion that intellectual understanding is a pre-cursor to anything leading to extinction through lack of clinging will be the macabre joke of the next few millenia. Intellectual understanding *IS* clinging. Intellectual understanding *IS* the split mind confirming itself. Sending little Johnny to primary school, high school and then university to learn to regurgitate whichever Abhidhamma has ascendancy will ensure he won't ever get close to seeing clearly again, which he did fairly well when he was born. My three cents only, of course. Kind Regards Herman > he memorizes it and examines the meaning of the teachings he has memorized; > when he has examined their meaning, he gains a reflective acceptance of those > teachings; when he has gained a reflective acceptance of those teachings, zeal > springs up; when zeal springs up, he applies his will; having applied his > will, he scrutinizes; having scrutinized, he strives; resolutely striving, he > realizes with the body the ultimate truth and sees it by penetrating it with > wisdom.â€? In this way, Bharadvaja, there is the discovery of the truth; in this way > one discovers the truth; in this way we describe the discovery of the truth. > But as yet there is no final arrival at truth.â€? … “The final arrival of > truth Bharadvaja, lies in the repetition, development, and cultivation of those > same things.â€? > (The Buddha . . . Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, pg. 782, With > Canki, Canki Sutta, #95) > > TG > > 40737 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 4:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Absolute' (was, False Identification of Paramattha Dhammas and Realities) Hi, Herman Thanks for your detailed comments. Some more thoughts of my own follow. Egbert wrote: >... My point was simply that comparisons are a relation that are based >on at least three components, and that the relation cannot be >deduced from any one or even two of the components on their own. > In the context in which this question arose (i.e., conditions as being the relations between dhammas) I would not consider a comparison to be relation. Comparisons are made in relation to a chosen yardstick, and are clearly purely mind-constructed. However, we are perhaps getting away from the main point here, which is that (a) presently arisen dhammas have characteristics that are knowable to (i.e., directly experiencable by) panna, and (b) the conditioning factors in relation to a presently arisen dhamma are similarly knowable to panna. >The division of dhammas into classes is certainly possible. The >number of classes into which dhammas can be divided is limited only >by imagination. This classification is not an experiential process, >it is very much an after-the-fact, thinking only, artifice. > > I think you are saying here that any 'practice' that involves classifying dhammas as they arise cannot be direct knowledge and can only be after-the-fact thinking. I agree with that, and would include, as well as 'classifying' dhammas, any practice that involves observing, identifying or knowing dhammas (as a deliberate thing-to-do). Furthermore, not only would it be after-the-fact thinking, it would also not be any form of kusala mentioned in the texts. I believe any such 'practice' would only reinforce the idea of a self who is able to control things (by having kusala by wilful application). The purpose of classifying of dhammas, which of course occurs extensively in the suttas, is surely to assist the arising of understanding of dhammas for those of us whose understanding is weak. But the aim remains the understanding of dhammas, not the accumulation of knowledge of classifications. >When attributing membership of dhammas to certain classes I do not >think it is possible to avoid the same difficulties as one >encounters when attempting to pigeonhole the Tathagata. > >Is it the same Tathagata that wakes in the morning as the one who >went to sleep the night before? Is it the same dhamma now as a >previous occasion? > >The whole point about avoiding such classifications is the wrong >views that lurk on all sides. > > If you are talking about a 'practice' of classifying dhammas as they arise, then I agree. On the other hand, I would see a knowledge of the various classifications given by the Buddha, properly understood, as being a necessary part of the learning process. >"A=A" does not apply in Buddhism. Given the three characteristics, >perhaps at best (but still doubtful) we can say "A was". > >I agree with you that experience is absolute, but precisely because >of that, a classification system is a complete denial of that >absoluteness. I see no neccesity in classifying, but certainly a >need to see that classification is happening. > Again, 'classifying' presently arising dhammas would not be any part of the development of insight. The classifying has been done by the Buddha, to give us a better chance of understanding. >H> As Howard and I discussed before (not implying that Howard agrees >with me BTW :-)) the experience is the knowing. It is an absolute >event. Nothing else happens. Any knowing after that is a selective >apprehension of a selected past. It is story-telling. > >I do not agree that what is later called eg sound has a >characteristic of belonging to any classification or group. >Classification is completely arbitrary. The "classes" have no >existence. Just like the khandas, they are just explanatory devices. > > Agreed. The dhamma that is sound can be classified (i.e., is in fact classified in the texts) in a number of different ways -- for example as a khandha, an ayatana, an element. But it is just that dhamma, having a particular characteristic that only sound has (and having also the 3 characteristics that it shares with all other conditioned dhammas). I have snipped your quote from Nyanatiloka because I do not find it controversal. I have also snipped your comments about the development of the path and will respond on that part separately, as this post is already lomg enough ;-)). Jon 40738 From: jwromeijn Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 4:44am Subject: [dsg] Re: Doubt and Confidence Dear Nina and Herman (and all) Herman, I think your words are as gently as mine, and more written in a quit way. You said: "Of course, in Buddhism, the aim is not to have a better model of reality, although you could be forgiven for thinking that at times. Everybody has a model of reality, and most confuse between reality and their model. Model making is certainly a possibility, but definitely not a necessity." I agree with this, but don't forget the theme of this thread is: 'Doubt and Confidence', the danger is in being busy with the model to forget ones reality. Nina, you have (of course) not totally convinced me but I understand your way of reasoning a bit better. J >> because the concepts 'good' and 'evil' don't attract me (now). N: >Could it be the words good and evil? The Buddha taught about > kusala and akusala and how to eradicate akusala, how to > cultivate kusala, all good qualities. Joop: it's not the words, language is just conceptual reality (also Pali is), I'm not sure at a ontological-psychological level if the dimension good-evil really exists or only is a human cultural invention. I must experience myself if for me the dimension kusala - akusala exists, in daily life or in meditation. I know being revengeful to somebody doesn't really help me, but why should I abstract this insight and call 'revengeful' kusala and 'starting again with somebody' akusala ? Making it abstract is making a system. N: >the number 17 makes sense when we consider one rupa as object experienced by a whole series of cittas. Joop: it's funny, that we discuss with different styles. My question is not if the number 17 makes sense but if this as a empirical fact brought number is correct or just a metaphorical way of saying. Now I understand of you that's only a metaphore, meaning: a rupa is experienced by a human being longer than a citta. And about 'making sense': not everythings makes sense, a tsunami doesn't make sense: making sense is not an argument. Nina: Study of nama and rupa, of cittas arising in processes, basic principles of Abhidhamma can help us with the development of insight. Joop: Yes, that's right, that's important; but not only cittas arsing, also rupas arsing, citta is to me not more important than rupa. And: not always more than studying 'basic principles' are wholesome: 1. Buddhism (or whatever label of it was used) was a living, a dynamical, spiritual movement 2. I can imagine monks hundreds of years ago were so glad to discover the high level of truth of it, that when they at the same moment discovered that the essence of this disappeared as sand between their fingers when contemplating it, that they made a system of it, in which nothing was forgotten. That they even added aspects to it were the Buddha didn't talk about. 3. But the tragedy is that as a result of making it perfect, in this way "life", the core, got out buddhism as a spiritual path by 'translating' the narrative style of the sutta's by a abstract style of abhidhamma. 4. So it's not talking about details I don't comprehend, that irritates me; it's the scholasticism itself. I will not say that scholasticism dies living spirituality in general but it does with me. 5. So in this way I state: studying Abhidhamma can be dangerous. With metta Joop 40740 From: Date: Fri Jan 7, 2005 11:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Seeing & Hearing Hi, Robert - In a message dated 1/8/05 1:39:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > Dear Howard and Sarah, > The Dhamma is often taught using pannatti and paramattha dhamma in > the same sentence. > Take the the expression "woman's voice". The sound is real, but the > woman is not real. > > I don't know how much you have studied the section on the sense > bases in the Visuddhimagga but Buddhaghosa in no way was confused > about what was paramattha and what was not. > In the case of sotapasada he says that it FOUND in the place that is > shaped like a finger-stall. ======================== I get your point, Robert, and it is a good one. And I can see that a sense of a physical location for hearing does at least suggest a rupa that is physical base. In fact a physical location with which is associated a function that is, in its objective aspect, physical might well, itself, constitute a sort of rupa. I will hold this matter in abeyance, but your comments have moved me closer to a position of acceptance. [You see, what I always look for with regard to the alleged reality of something, is that it be possible to be experienced. Your emphasizing of *location* is useful to me in that regard.] 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) 40741 From: Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 0:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Apologies Hi, James - In a message dated 1/8/05 4:24:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > (BTW, I granted the argument concerning > Objectivism to Howard because I respect his opinion, but I am not > entirely convinced that the `heart' of Objectivist thought is a > materialistic, atta-view…that could only be a side issue, a false > view that arises from the main false view: that all of reality can > be known through rational/logical thought.) > ========================== The emphasis on an objective physical reality, an entirely materialist "world", with annihilation at death, and *most of all* the emphasis on "I", "me", "mine", and "self" are central to objectivism. (BTW, one of her non-fiction works is entitled "The Virtue of Selfishness"! ;-) Note: To be fair, by "selfishness" she means egoism and self-interest, but not an attitude that consider violations of others' rights to be proper. 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) 40742 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 5:52am Subject: [dsg] Re: Doubt and Confidence --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: Dear Htoo and Tep, could we not say that it has to do with accumulations? Not the latent tendencies, but besides latent tendencies which are seven, there are manyother qualities accumulated. Citta and cetasikas motivate the arahat to speak fast, or to use a coarse word. Nina. op 07-01-2005 18:50 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > > Tep: How then should vasana be classified, according to the Abhidhamma > >> point of view? What kind of ultimate reality is it? > > > Htoo: It would fall under pannatti I think. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Nina, What Tep asked is a difficult question. I just tried to reply simply. When I look into it again what I believe is like the followings. An arahat speaks fast. Another arahat speaks slowly. Both behave the same as before they attained arahatta magga nana. Slow or fast is what we are thinking. In arising and passing away of dhamma such as 'vaci-vinatti', cittas, cetasikas are now all pure in arahats. But that fastness-slowness cannot be found. That is why I put it under panatti. Any thoughts or comments on this Nina, Tep and anyone. With respect, Htoo Naing 40743 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 5:56am Subject: What is mental development (was, 'Absolute' etc) Hi again, Herman Egbert wrote: >H> I tend to think of mental development as a natural deconstructive >process. Rather than building at a superstructure of layer upon >layer of non-existent classifications, I see value in >becoming aware of how even what seems to be bare awareness is also >formed of mistaking non-existent classifications for something that >actually happened. > > I get the impression you find it easier to talk about what mental development isn't than to say what it is ;-)). The description you offer here is 'a natural deconstructive process', but that could cover a multitude of things. To my way of thinking, the path must be something that is (potentially) capable of development at the present moment, as one is reading a message or composing a reply. You mention 'bare awareness'. No doubt there is a lot of mistaking after-the-fact thinking for bare awareness; but what in fact is the awareness or mindfulness about which the Buddha spoke? >I think what the Buddha taught Bahiya does not need to be improved >upon. > >'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be >merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; >in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you >should train yourself, Bahiya. > >"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the >cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not >be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, >you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' >then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the >two. Just this is the end of suffering." > >Now through this brief Dhamma teaching of the Lord the mind of >Bahiya of the Bark-cloth was immediately freed from the taints >without grasping. ' > > Well I of course have no disagreement with the sentiment that what the Buddha taught cannot be improved upon. But as usual there's room for interpretation if one takes the words of the sutta in isolation. So how do you see the teaching to Bahiya as applying to the present moment? On my reading, it has to do with dhammas and their characteristics. Jon 40744 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 6:03am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: Hi, Htoo - In a message dated 1/7/05 9:12:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, htootintnaing@y... writes: > > In you reply now you focus on 'The Buddha instruction to > Culapanthaka' the whole of which is pannatti. Yes it is pannatti. But > what I reply was Culapanthaka was not taught any conceptual dhamma > for his attainment. > > I hope this is clear to you, Howard. > ======================== I agree that the Buddha did not try to teach Buddhist concepts to him. He was too "slow" for that. The Buddha may even not have used any words with him. What he may well have done was merely show him the taking of a rag in the Buddha's hand, the rubbing of the rag with thumb and a finger or two, and then with gestures, indicate that Culapanthaka should take the rag and do the same with it. All that (possibly) wordless instruction involved a host of concepts. That is my point and TG's as well, I believe. We are immersed in concept, and the raison d'etre of concept is communication. It is indispensable for learning the Dhamma, not only in theory but in practice as well. With metta, Howard ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Howard ( and TG ), Here I do not think idea, concepts, pannatti are equivalent. That is why you both are arguing on the matter. The concept, the idea may well be part of pannindriya cetasika while there is no pannatti as reality. Pannatti does not include in ayatana dhamma. The problem here is using of translated English words which are actually not equivalent. The Buddha instructed Culapanthaka. There did have background idea. The reason why He gave that rag or cloth to rub was that once in a life Culapanthaka-to-be was a farmer ploughing in a peddy field and when he wiped out his sweat his cloth went dirty and he was shocked. This is a part of anicca sanna. The Buddha has Aasaanusaya nana and He knew that Culapanthaka would benefit from such instruction. This is background idea. That idea resided in nana or pannindriya cetasika loaded cittas. So I believe that concept, idea, conceptualization are not completely the same as pannatti dhamma. I do hope you both now have a clear mind on the matter. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 40745 From: Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 1:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Htoo - In a message dated 1/8/05 9:04:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, htootintnaing@y... writes: > So I believe that concept, idea, conceptualization are not completely > the same as pannatti dhamma. > > I do hope you both now have a clear mind on the matter. > ==================== I think that the distinguishing you are taking about here may well be important, but it is not clear to me exactly what you mean. I would like to hear more. 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) 40746 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 6:17am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Dear TG (and Howard) I try to reply your message. But I already responded to Howard reagarding concept matter. Please see below for discussion. With Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: In a message dated 1/7/2005 6:14:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, htootintnaing@y... writes: >Htoo: > Dear TG and Howard, > I have replied to Howard and please see the details of reply there in that post. > I did catch the point. But the original point was another. > With Metta, > Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TG wrote: Hi Htoo Naing The original point was the same. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I do not think the same. The original one is attainment without being taught the concepts to attain arahatta magga nana. The Buddha instruction was just a simple one and not teaching on concept. That is why I said Culapanthaka attained arahatta magga nana without pannatti. But what Howard said was 'The Buddha words to Culapanthaka of 'Rajo haranam rajo haranam' which is pannatti. So I do not believe the points are not the same. But I grasp what you both are trying to argue on pannatti. If pannatti dhamma is well understood that matter may not arise. The problem is use=age of inaccurate English words which are serving as translated words. Concept that Howard said is not simple pannatti. Concepts and idea may well be part of pannindriya cetasikas loaded cittas. But pannatti never exist as ultimate realities. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TG wrote: The point being that concepts are stepping stones to understanding higher knowledge's. And how can you "step on a stone" that doesn't exist? How can it have any efficacy if it doesn't exist? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: Been explained. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TG wrote: I believe Howard has successfully shown that even in the most extreme case, a case that certainly doesn't apply to anyone in this group, concepts still played a roll. The incredible roll they play with folks actively studying Sutta, Abhidhamma, and related commentaries and subjects; and discussing those ideas with others in a group like this ... is virtually incalculable. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: What we are studying now are accumulating. What we have acquired are not pannatti. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TG wrote: There are some who have an idea that -- 'concepts don't play any roll in my practice.' Now someone may get to that point, but it still has a foundation partially built on concepts. I wanted to see if others might show me wrong, but haven't been shown yet. Nor has anyone answered how nonexistent concepts can have the power to affect states. For myself, I don't think discerning "realities" in the sense of -- 'what's more real than something else' is the theme of the Buddha's teaching. I don't think he cares if you think concepts are the most real or unreal things in the world. I think he wants you to break attachments that lead to suffering. Hey...if rubbing a cloth will do the job, that's fine with him! TG ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Htoo: I hope now you both now have a clear view. With Metta, Htoo Naing 40747 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 6:45am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions Dear Howard (and TG and All) Dhamma is wide, deep, large and endless. What we are discussing here on the list are just very small portion of what The Buddha taught, which again He mentioned that it was just like a handful of leaves in his hand showing to bhikkhus while The Dhamma is more than leaves in the whole forest. As you requested, I think discussion on dhamma should continue here. You started that concept etc and I replied that there are cases that attainment without pannatti can happen. What The Buddha said through out His living life were just pannatti. They were sadda-pannatti. But these sadda-pannatti bear attha- pannatti. But when all pannatti are eaxmined there is nothing in it as ultimate realities. Pannatti are not citta. They are not cetasika. They are not rupa. They are not nibbana. So pannatti are not ultimate realities. Someone argue that 'The Buddha did not say pannatti does not exist'. Pannatti are naming. Defining. Here naming is pannatti. But defining has a mixture of pannatti and some idea that there have to be idea as background for definition. When things are defined, pannatti have to be used. Examples are Citta is nature that know the object of its attention. 1.'citta' the word is pannatti. 2. 'nature' the word is pannatti. 3.'the object' here the words are pannatti. 4. 'know' is pannatti which carries idea 5. 'attention' is pannatti but carries idea indicating characterisitics While the whole sentence is pannatti, the whole bear the idea indicating what citta means. But in reality citta is citta and even when it is not explained it exists when it arises and it is an ultimate reality. Here we are defining on 'citta'. There are words like 'know' 'attention'. These are characterisation. These are idea. But they are part of understanding and they are just part of pannidriya cetasikas loaded cittas especially when in nana sampayutta javana cittas in mano-dvara vithi vara. Not all Pali words fit with a single English word for each. Example Citta = consciousness ; this may be wrong Rupa = material ; this may be wrong With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: Hi, Htoo - > > In a message dated 1/8/05 9:04:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, > htootintnaing@y... writes: > > > So I believe that concept, idea, conceptualization are not completely > > the same as pannatti dhamma. > > > > I do hope you both now have a clear mind on the matter. > > > ==================== > I think that the distinguishing you are taking about here may well be > important, but it is not clear to me exactly what you mean. I would like to > hear more. > > With metta, > Howard > 40748 From: Tep Sastri Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 7:20am Subject: Re: Concepts and Questions Hi, Htoo, Egbert, TGrand, and Howard - I have read the ongoing dialogue on 'concept' and 'Dhamma learning' with great interest, and would like to discuss about the relevant point you all have made as follows: TGrand in #40618: "Although it is possible to learn how to ride a bike without training wheels, I don't think it is possible to learn Dhamma without concepts". Howard in message #40695: "We are immersed in concept, and the raison d'etre of concept is communication. It is indispensable for learning the Dhamma, not only in theory but in practice as well." Egbert in #40612 and # 40630: "I believe the unenlightened state is a learnt state. ... I think enlightenment requires only willingness to let go of meaningless meanings. "I don't think it is possible to learn Dhamma, but I do think that Dhamma is what is left when samsara is unlearnt". Htoo in message #40744 and #40746: "Here I do not think idea, concepts, pannatti are equivalent. .. The concept, the idea may well be part of pannindriya cetasika while there is no pannatti as reality. ... I believe that concept, idea, conceptualization are not completely the same as pannatti dhamma". "What we are studying now are accumulating. What we have acquired are not pannatti ...That is why I said Culapanthaka attained arahatta magga nana without pannatti.". Tep's Comment: I think you are talking about the same thing, although the individual points may sound different. It is my understanding that pannatti is the conventional truth (vohara- sacca), that is not paramattha (realities in the highest sense). Concepts are a part of pannatti; they are useful as a vehicle (a "raft") for crossing over the river of samsara, and what we have as the result of Dhamma learning (crossing over the samsara) is the penetration of the paramattha dhamma. Once the Dhamma is learnt, we don't need any concepts or pannatti and there are no thoughts (mental formations, sankhara) in the Arahat. Warm regards, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > > Dear TG (and Howard) > > I try to reply your message. But I already responded to Howard > reagarding concept matter. > > Please see below for discussion. > > With Metta, > > Htoo Naing 40749 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 7:23am Subject: Dhamma Thread (220) Dear Dhamma Friends, So far 4 visaya-pavatti or 'arising of object' have been discussed. They are ati-mahanta-arammana or very clear object, mahanta-arammana or clear object, paritta-arammana or faint object, and ati-paritta- arammana or very faint object. All these are for panca-dvara vithi vara or 'citta processes at arise at 5-sense-doors. When vithi cittas arise at mano-dvara or mind-sense-door or mind door there are two possible vithi varas depending on arammana or object. That arising of object or visaya-pavatti may be one of two alternatives namely vibhuta-arammana or very obvious object and avibhuta-arammana or not-very-obvious object or obvious object. Regarding arammana or object that arise at mind door they have been expalined in the previous posts under heading of Dhamma Thread. The dvara or door for entrance of these arammana or dhamma-arammana or mind object is called manodvara or mind door. This is nama dhamma. It is a citta. It is the citta that arises just before arising of manodvara-avajjana citta or mind-door-adverting consciousness. That citta is called bhavanguppaccheda citta or arresting life-continuing consciousness. When there is arising of bhavanaga cittas continuously there is no other cittas. When a dhamma-arammana or mind object arises the flowing bhavanga cittas are disturbed and mind door opens. That door is bhavanguppaccheda citta or arising of that citta. Then the object enters through that door and mano-dvara-avajjana citta or mind-door- adverting consciousness arises and the object is passed on to the following 7 successive javana cittas. When the dhamma-arammana is very obvious there follow 2 more cittas known as tadarammana cittas and the last tadarammana citta or retaining consciousness is followed by usual bhavanga cittas who take their own object and not the current object of interest[dhamma-arammana here]. So in a vibhuta-arammana vithi cittas will be like the followings. BBBBBBBBBBBBBBMJJJJJJJTTBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB B = bhavanga citta M = manodvara-avajjana citta J = javana citta T = tadarammana citta There are 10 vithi cittas in this vithi vara of vibhuta-arammana visaya-pavatti. In terms of functional classification, there are only 3 kinds of vithi cittas in this vibhuta-arammana or very obvious object. They are avajjana citta [here manodvara-avajjana citta], javana cittas, and tadarammana cittas. Manodvaravajjana citta is one citta only. For javana function here 55 javana cittas can do the job of javana citta at mind door. These 55 javana cittas are a) 12 akusala cittas(most cittas in daily life especially in disaster) b) 1 hasituppada citta (smiling citta of arahats) c) 8 mahakusala cittas(when we have karuna,mudita,bhavana,sila,dana) d) 8 mahakiriya cittas(when arahats do dana,sila, bhavana) e) 5 rupakusala cittas(when in rupa jhana) f) 5 rupakiriya cittas(when arahats are in rupa jhana) g) 4 arupakusala cittas(when in arupa jhana) h) 4 arupakiriya cittas(when arahats are in arupa jhana) i) 4 magga cittas(at the exact time when enlightened at each stage) j) 4 phala cittas(immediately after magga or when in phala samapatti) ---------------- 55 javana cittas But not all these are possible in a given vithi vara. In vibhuta- arammana all are kama objects that is sight, sound, smell, taste, touches and their related ideas. This is why tadarammana cittas follow javana cittas in vibhuta-arammana. Tadarammana cittas are vipaka cittas of kama satta or sensuous planes beings. There are 11 tadarammana cittas. They are 3 santirana cittas and 8 mahavipaka cittas. These 11 cittas are kamavacara cittas. So they arise only in kama bhumi. Brahmas of rupa and arupa do not have any of these 11 cittas. So in vithi vara that arise at vibhuta-arammana there are 3 kinds of vithi citta namely manodvaravajjana citta, javana citta and tadarammana citta. In number of citta there are 1 manodvaravajjana citta, 55 javana cittas and 11 tadarammana cittas. (1+55+11= 67cittas) In avibhuta-rammana tadarammana cittas cannot arise. Instead there follow bhavanga cittas at the end of javana cittas. So in that vithi vara there will be only 2 kinds of vithi citta namely avajjana citta and javana citta and there are 1 manodvaravajjana citta and 55 javana cittas altogether 56 cittas in total. So far there are 6 visaya-pavatti or arising of object. They are 1.ati-mahanta-arammana or very clear object 2.mahanta-arammana or clear object 3.paritta-arammana or faint object 4.ati-paritta-arammana or very faint object in pandva-dvara vithi vara and 5.vibhuta-arammana or very obvious object 6.avibhuta-arammana or obvious object All these 6 are about kama javana vara. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: 1.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. 40750 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 7:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Seeing & Hearing Hi Howard, op 07-01-2005 22:47 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > Yes, we definitely disagree on this one, Nina. ;-) What is that "body" > it is located in, Nina? There is, from the ultimate perspective, no such > thing - is that not so? N: From birth to death there is body, but it is constituted by different parts which are impermanent. The rupas of the body are originating from kamma, citta, nutrition and temperature. Some parts like the sense organs are definitely originating from kamma. If we keep this in mind there need not be confusion about ultimate realities and conventional realities when talking about eyesense and earsense and where they are located. Sure, they are not located in the sky. Your tree is consists of rupas originating from heat, not from kamma. It has no sense organs. I think I heard you say that Dhamma is taught by means of conventional truth. Conventional truth helps to explain realities. Teaching about body: this is a means of teaching realities. We have to see through the term and the notion of body. The purpose of teaching is always: to help us realizing realities as they are: as impermanent, dukkha, anatta. As you also have stated time and again. You find the rupa nutrition not acceptable. This is the same. Nutrition is a conventional term but it denotes a dhamma: that rupa present in all groups of rupa which supports the other connascent rupas. It is a conditioning factor: nutrition-condition, ahaara-paccaya. It supports and preserves. There are four kinds: one physical and three mental. The three mental nutritions are: contact, volition and consciousness. Nina. 40751 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 7:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: pasada rupas Hi Matthew, Thank you for your post. I just wrote to Howard again about the purpose of teaching about the body. Earsense is located somewhere, not outside the body. The description of the tiny hairs is merely a means of teaching. The purpose is not medical science but detachment. It is the same in the case of the eye. The Expositor speaks about the fleshly eye and the eyesense rupa. Hearing itself is not a pasada rupa. it arises conditioned by the impingement of sound on the pasada rupa of earsense. Seeing conditions leads to detachment. The rupas are not samutti, they are realities arising because of condiitons and in their turn they serve as conditions. Balance has to do with medical science. A different field. Helpful for curing diseases, but not serving detachment from nama and rupa. Nina. op 08-01-2005 04:38 schreef Matthew Miller op bupleurum@y...: > Why is hearing a pasada rupa but not balance? Balance isn't any more > samutti or pa~n~natti than any of the other senses. They are all > rupas at the sense doors, no? 40752 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 7:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] jhanas Hi Dave, op 07-01-2005 17:21 schreef dharmabum253 op dharmabum253@y...: The traditional Theravadin stance on the > jhanas is that absorption cannot be used for insight practice due to > the mind's being too still to glean any insight. N: Yes, jhana can be proximate cause for insight. When emerging from jhana the yogavacara has to be mindful of nama and rupa and develop all stages of insight. Some people believe that samatha that is not of the degree of jhana can be the proximate cause for insight. As I understand it, jhana has to be attained and then it can be a foundation for insight. This concerns people who have accumulated skill for jhana. D: It is believed that > phala cannot be realized with jhana. N: We have to distnguish mundane jhana and lokuttara jhana. Even for someone who has not developed jhana, lokuttara citta is accompanied by samadhi that has the strength of the concentration of the first jhana. This is because the object is nibbana. D: .... I have also read elsewhere that > the result of the mundane jhanas is rebirth in a desire realm, fine > material realm, etc and that the fruit of jhana practice is not > nirvana. N: Maybe it is clearer now? The practice of jhana alone, without insight cannot lead to enlightenment. The Buddha said this in the suttas. Jhana alone cannot eradicate defilements, but it can temporarily suppress them. But sati and wisdom are needed to develop jhana. The yogavacara has to know precisely when the citta is kusala and when akusala. We can check for ourselves at this very moment: do we know this precisely or not? Nina. 40753 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 7:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] patience, courage and good cheer Dear Connie, Thank you for quoting from the India talks life. I am so glad you find them useful. I add something here and there. op 08-01-2005 06:25 schreef connieparker op connieparker@i...: > > To say it is difficult is praising the wisdom of the Buddha. N: We say, satipatthana is so difficult and it takes so long before even reaching a stage of insight knowledge. Some people become discouraged and are looking for ways to accelerate the development. But this is impossible. Pañña grows because of its own conditions. We actually praise the Buddha when we realize that the way is long and difficult. We can at such a moment remember that the Buddha had to accumulate pañña with utmost perseverance during aeons. He did not come to a halt half-way, he never gave up. No matter how long it took. C: It helps to know how limited our own level is. > Even a sotapanna still needs to hear more. N: It is dangerous to believe that we are advanced. It leads to indolence. The Buddha also warned the monks and told them not to be indolent. Listening and considering is never enough. True, when I listen to recordings I always find new points to consider. C: There's always potential for sati to arise because there are always > realities. > But it is impossible for it to arise without there being intellectual > understanding. N: We have to know what are the objects of sati: dhammas appearing through the six doors, one at a time. They appear now. C: One will not go wrong because one knows the details; it makes for firmness > about the right path. N: We learn about details and we may wonder what is the use if we do not know them through direct experience. But they are beneficial because they are foundation knowledge. At first we may not see their relevance, but later on we can see their benefit. Even the three moments of citta: its arising, the moment of its presence and the moment of its falling away. We cannot experience this now, but it is useful to know. Citta is there for a very short time and then it falls away. It is beneficial to know that rupa lasts longer than citta, then we understand that visible object is not only experienced by seeing, but also by for example akusala cittas with attachment. It helps us to understand that cittas arise in processes. We can understand that the akusala cittas that have just fallen away can still be object of awareness in a following process. It has to be a following process, because akusala cittas cannot arise in the same process as kusala cittas. In this way we can understand the Application of Mindfulness of Citta. The citta with lobha is the first mentioned citta that can be object of awareness. It is encouraging to know that akusala citta can be object of awareness, and that at the moment of awareness the citta is kusala! C: Just to be sankhara khandha for awareness, no expectation. N: Understanding stemming from listening and considering is accumulated as sankhara khandha, the khandha of formations, the cetasikas other than feeling and perception. In combination with other sobhana cetasikas included in sankhara khandha it is the condition for direct awareness and understanding that arise later on. C: Little by little. How many times a day? We don't mind, otherwise lobha is there again. > Just begin again. As we know the way, we'll reach that point. N: No need to count cittas with sati or to measure our progress, that is a waste of time and it distracts from the task of developing understanding at this moment. And that is the sure way. We should have confidence. Thank you, Connie, you helped me and inspired me to consider just a little more. Please continue quoting, it is useful. Nina. 40754 From: Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 3:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Seeing & Hearing Hi, Nina - In a message dated 1/8/05 10:56:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@x... writes: > Hi Howard, > op 07-01-2005 22:47 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > >Yes, we definitely disagree on this one, Nina. ;-) What is that "body" > >it is located in, Nina? There is, from the ultimate perspective, no such > >thing - is that not so? > N: From birth to death there is body, but it is constituted by different > parts which are impermanent. The rupas of the body are originating from > kamma, citta, nutrition and temperature. Some parts like the sense organs > are definitely originating from kamma. If we keep this in mind there need > not be confusion about ultimate realities and conventional realities when > talking about eyesense and earsense and where they are located. Sure, they > are not located in the sky. > Your tree is consists of rupas originating from heat, not from kamma. It has > no sense organs. > I think I heard you say that Dhamma is taught by means of conventional > truth. Conventional truth helps to explain realities. Teaching about body: > this is a means of teaching realities. We have to see through the term and > the notion of body. The purpose of teaching is always: to help us realizing > realities as they are: as impermanent, dukkha, anatta. As you also have > stated time and again. > You find the rupa nutrition not acceptable. This is the same. Nutrition is a > conventional term but it denotes a dhamma: that rupa present in all groups > of rupa which supports the other connascent rupas. It is a conditioning > factor: nutrition-condition, ahaara-paccaya. It supports and preserves. > There are four kinds: one physical and three mental. The three mental > nutritions are: contact, volition and consciousness. > Nina. > > ========================= Nina, please see my very recent post to Robert in which I indicate movement in the direction of accepting sense bases as rupas. As I point out there, being able to be experienced is a critical criterion for me. As regards life force and nutrition being rupas, I must hold that in abeyance, and with less likelihood of acceptance than for sense bases being rupas. 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) 40755 From: m. nease Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 11:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Seeing & Hearing Hi Robert, Howard, Sarah and All, This reminded me of this from the 'Summary': (42) "Therein, when by means of a concept people bring about knowledge of something that exists in an ultimate sense, such as materiality and feeling, this is a concept of something existent. But when by means of a concept people bring about knowledge of something that does not exist in an ultimate sense, such as the earth or mountains, this is a concept of something non-existent. The others should be understood by the combination of both with reference to respectively 'one who has the six higher knowledges', 'the sound of a woman', 'eye-consciousness' and ' 'a king's son'. Commentary 42. By means of a concept people bring about knowledge: they explain using the words 'materiality', 'feeling', etc. Of both" of the two, existent and non-existent. One who has the six higher knowledges is one who has the six higher knowledges, namely the five higher knowledges and the knowledge of the destruction of the taints. An herein, since the six higher knowledges exist while the person abstaining them does not exist, this is called a concept of the non-existent with the existent. Similarly, since the woman does not exist while the sound does exist, 'the sound of a woman' is a concept of the existent with the nonexistent. Since the sensitive eye and the consciousness dependent on that exist, 'eye-consciousness' is a concept of the existent with the existent. And since the king and the son are conventional realities, 'a kin's son' is a concept of the non-existent with the non-existent. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "rjkjp1" To: Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 10:38 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing & Hearing > Dear Howard and Sarah, > The Dhamma is often taught using pannatti and paramattha dhamma in > the same sentence. > Take the the expression "woman's voice". The sound is real, but the > woman is not real. 40756 From: Larry Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 11:49am Subject: [dsg] Re: sense-door process, rupa. Howard: "Nonduality does not mean identity. Nondualism isn't monism. The relationship of nonduality is the relationship of mutual dependence and inseparability, but it does not imply indistinguishability. Again, it is like inside and outside surfaces of a box. They are inseparable, but yet distinguishable and not one. I would agree that the presence of something is much *like* a property of it. Not quite, but very similar. And yes, it is not a subject/object relationship. A knowing subject is, in fact, a "self". There is no such thing. When I had that brief no-self experience I have described, there was no subject. And with that being so, nothing experienced had the flavor of "object", because there was no subject opposing it." Hi Howard, First a language quibble. In my language conventions nondual means not two and dependence means two. Nonduality is necessarily a monism. What else could it be? I think the reason people say nonduality is not a monism is because what they mean by nonduality is that one can't get outside it and count. Counting is necessarily dualistic even if you just count to one. But this is a misunderstanding of an all inclusive monism. However, maybe a compound can be an all inclusive nondual monism in the sense that the elements of the compound are inseparable and we can't get outside it. I think that is what you have here, but it needs a name. What do you want to call the compound of experience and consciousness? I suppose we could call it dependent co-arising. I'm not sure I want to understand pa.ticcasamuppaada this way, but I'll give it a think. As for your experience of no self, there is another way to interpret it. One could see it as a kind of jhana of 5-door consciousness without desire, aversion, and ignorance. This is a kind of suppression. A full understanding of anatta must recognize that the sense of self (desire, aversion, ignorance) is also not self. Larry 40757 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 11:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Doubt and Confidence Studying Abhidhamma can be dangerous Dear Joop, op 08-01-2005 13:44 schreef jwromeijn op jwromeijn@y...: .... I'm not sure at a ontological-psychological level if the > dimension good-evil really exists or only is a human cultural > invention. > I must experience myself if for me the dimension kusala - akusala > exists, in daily life or in meditation. I know being revengeful to > somebody doesn't really help me, but why should I abstract this > insight and call 'revengeful' kusala and 'starting again with > somebody' akusala ? Making it abstract is making a system. N: The Buddha spoke about cause and result. Good and bad deeds bring their results accordingly. That is what he taught. It is up to the individual to agree with it or not. He taught what is kusala and what is akusala. It is understanding that sees the benefit of kusala and the danger of akusala. It depends on the individual's accumulated inclinations whether he understands this or not. I think it does not have to do anything with a system, I do not see it as abstract. Everybody can verify this in his life. When he helps others without thinking of himself, does this bring him more peace? He can verify this. > N: >the number 17 makes sense when we consider one rupa as object > experienced by a whole series of cittas. > Joop: it's funny, that we discuss with different styles. My question > is not if the number 17 makes sense but if this as a empirical fact > brought number is correct or just a metaphorical way of saying. Now I > understand of you that's only a metaphore, meaning: a rupa is > experienced by a human being longer than a citta. N: Several cittas experience one rupa. It is a comparison. The number seventeen is from the Commentaries. But who could count them? It is all too fast. ..... J: > Nina: Study of nama and rupa, of cittas arising in processes, basic > principles of Abhidhamma can help us with the development of insight. > Joop: Yes, that's right, that's important; but not only cittas > arsing, also rupas arising, citta is to me not more important than > rupa. N: Yes, quite right. J: And: not always more than studying 'basic principles' are wholesome: > 1. Buddhism (or whatever label of it was used) was a living, a > dynamical, spiritual movement.....(Snipped).. .... they made a system of it, in > which nothing was forgotten..., in this > way "life", the core, got out buddhism as a spiritual path > by 'translating' the narrative style of the sutta's by a abstract > style of abhidhamma. N: Here I put question marks. To me Abhidhamma is the essence of the suttas. Abhidhamma is life. But I do not try to convince you. I think that several people do not understand what Abhidhamma is. They see it as abstract, dry, bookish. J: 5. So in this way I state: studying Abhidhamma can be dangerous. N: Here you have a point. If one studies in the wrong way, if one studies things which are above one's head, then it can lead to madness. The Expositor warns for this. The study should go together with the development of right understanding in daily life. Understanding of all that appears through the six doors. All that appears through the six doors, that is Abhidhamma. An example of trying to know the impossible is trying to know about particular results of particular kammas. These things are only the Buddha's field. Nina. 40758 From: Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 7:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sense-door process, rupa. Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/8/05 2:49:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > First a language quibble. In my language conventions nondual means > not two and dependence means two. Nonduality is necessarily a monism. > ------------------------------------- Howard: It is not always used that way. Often 'nonduality' means "non-separateness". I've also seen it described as "Not one, not two". In any case, a Buddhist nonduality would be different from monism - it would be a middle-way notion. -------------------------------------- > What else could it be? I think the reason people say nonduality is > not a monism is because what they mean by nonduality is that one > can't get outside it and count. Counting is necessarily dualistic > even if you just count to one. But this is a misunderstanding of an > all inclusive monism. However, maybe a compound can be an all > inclusive nondual monism in the sense that the elements of the > compound are inseparable and we can't get outside it. I think that is > what you have here, but it needs a name. What do you want to call the > compound of experience and consciousness? > ------------------------------- Howard: Why name it? ------------------------------ I suppose we could call it > > dependent co-arising. I'm not sure I want to understand > pa.ticcasamuppaada this way, but I'll give it a think. > > As for your experience of no self, there is another way to interpret > it. One could see it as a kind of jhana of 5-door consciousness > without desire, aversion, and ignorance. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: Actually all 6 senses were involved. And unfortunately, fear and aversion also strongly arose, spurring the cessation of the experience.So the subliminal, unrealized sense of self still asserted itself! ;-)) ----------------------------------------- This is a kind of > > suppression. > --------------------------------------- Howard: *What* is a kind of suppression? I don't get you. --------------------------------------- A full understanding of anatta must recognize that the > > sense of self (desire, aversion, ignorance) is also not self. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Well, of course. What is your point? ---------------------------------------------- > > Larry > > > ======================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 40759 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 0:24pm Subject: Re: Dhamma Thread (220) Thanks Htoo for these threads. They really help me in terms of getting the equivalent pali terms from Burmese version. I can't keep the two straight. - kel 40760 From: Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 7:24am Subject: 5 Aggregates / Concepts / Ultimate Realities “Form is like a lump of foam, Feeling like a water bubble; Perception is like a mirage, Volitions like a plantain trunk (coreless), And consciousness like an illusion, (The Buddha . . . Connected Discourses of the Buddha, vol. 1, pg. 952 – 953) Hi All From my perspective, this is a perfectly good way to view concepts as well. It seems to me that the last thing the Buddha would have wanted to a mind to do was to reify these things as "ultimate realities." TG 40761 From: m. nease Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 2:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Doubt and Confidence Hi Htoo, Nina and Tep, Htoo, since you asked for comments, this seems to me maybe to fall under sa.nkhaarakha.nda--of course for the arahat, not uppaadanakha.nda. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "htootintnaing" To: Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 5:52 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Doubt and Confidence > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom > wrote: > > Dear Htoo and Tep, > could we not say that it has to do with accumulations? Not the latent > tendencies, but besides latent tendencies which are seven, there are > manyother qualities accumulated. Citta and cetasikas motivate the > arahat to speak fast, or to use a coarse word. > Nina. > > op 07-01-2005 18:50 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: >> >> Tep: How then should vasana be classified, according to the > Abhidhamma >> >> point of view? What kind of ultimate reality is it? >> > >> Htoo: It would fall under pannatti I think. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dear Nina, > > What Tep asked is a difficult question. I just tried to reply simply. > When I look into it again what I believe is like the followings. > > An arahat speaks fast. Another arahat speaks slowly. Both behave the > same as before they attained arahatta magga nana. > > Slow or fast is what we are thinking. In arising and passing away of > dhamma such as 'vaci-vinatti', cittas, cetasikas are now all pure in > arahats. But that fastness-slowness cannot be found. > > That is why I put it under panatti. > > Any thoughts or comments on this Nina, Tep and anyone. 40762 From: Larry Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 2:31pm Subject: [dsg] Re: sense-door process, rupa. Howard: "What* is a kind of suppression? I don't get you." Hi Howard, Suppression of the sense of self by concentration. My only point is that the experience of no sense of self is different from insight into no self. You called the experience an experience of no self; I would call it an experience of no sense of self. I believe jhana is traditionally described as suppression but I don't have a quote close at hand. I do see how this experience would provide evidence to invalidate the subject/object relationship in experience/consciousness in showing that a sense of self is unnecessary. There's lots of interesting experiences in meditation and otherwise. Their value is in whether or not they make a difference in one's behavior. Larry 40763 From: m. nease Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 2:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 5 Aggregates / Concepts / Ultimate Realities Hi TG, I would agree of course that the Buddha didn't want anyone to reify anything at all--still even leaving the abhidhammapi.taka out altogether, the Buddha made clear distinctions between pa.n.natti and e.g. the elements, khandas etc. As I see it the important distinction is simply that insight into the characteristics of naama and ruupa (in the abhihdhamma sense) eradicates defilements and leads toward the paths, while insight into pa.n.natti does neither (at least not directly--if I'm not mistaken pa.n.natti can function as upanisaya paccaya). So I don't think it matters whether we call them 'ultimate realities' or not, but it does absolutely matter whether we know the difference. It's awfully easy to go through life taking conventional insight (into concepts or pa.n.natti by any other name) for vipassanaa, a terrible trap. I still do it every day, after some thirty years or so of Dhamma (and dhamma) study, however feeble. I've flip-flopped on this a few times but for now, because of the importance of this distinction, I'm inclined to accept 'realities', though somewhat reluctantly (because of the continual 'reification/ontology' confusion). mike ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 12:24 PM Subject: [dsg] 5 Aggregates / Concepts / Ultimate Realities “Form is like a lump of foam, Feeling like a water bubble; Perception is like a mirage, Volitions like a plantain trunk (coreless), And consciousness like an illusion, (The Buddha . . . Connected Discourses of the Buddha, vol. 1, pg. 952 – 953) Hi All From my perspective, this is a perfectly good way to view concepts as well. It seems to me that the last thing the Buddha would have wanted to a mind to do was to reify these things as "ultimate realities." 40764 From: Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 9:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: sense-door process, rupa. Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/8/05 5:32:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Howard: "What* is a kind of suppression? I don't get you." > > Hi Howard, > > Suppression of the sense of self by concentration. > ------------------------------------- Howard: Oh. No, this didn't occur while meditating, and it lasted for a couple hours. There was no apparent heightened concentration, though there was an increased lucidity to perception. ------------------------------------ My only point is > > that the experience of no sense of self is different from insight > into no self. You called the experience an experience of no self; I > would call it an experience of no sense of self. > ------------------------------------- Howard: It was both. Ever since that event, I've *known* there is no self. (The sense of self, however, is very much present.) ----------------------------------- > > I believe jhana is traditionally described as suppression but I don't > have a quote close at hand. I do see how this experience would > provide evidence to invalidate the subject/object relationship in > experience/consciousness in showing that a sense of self is > unnecessary. > > There's lots of interesting experiences in meditation and otherwise. > Their value is in whether or not they make a difference in one's > behavior. > ------------------------------------- Howard: That experience altered my behavior. In particular, I seem to have largely lost my fear of death. ------------------------------------- > > Larry > =================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 40765 From: connieparker Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 4:19pm Subject: Re: Seeing & Hearing Hi, Mike (and All), The passage you quoted from the "Summary" reminded me of this one from another "Summary": In the Abhidhammatthavibhaavinii.tiikaa, chapter 8, there is a passage saying there are six naama pa~n~nattis, namely: 1) Vijjamana pa~n~nattis are conventional terms for realities that exist such as ruupa, nama, vedanaa, sa~n~naa etc. 2) Avijjamana pa~n~nattis are conventional terms without existing realities such as Thai, "Farang" etc. There are no Thai or Farang, only realities that are cittas, cetasikas and ruupas. Thai and Farang are conventional terms and not realities. Akusala citta are paramatthadhammas, realities that exist, not Thai or Farang. Therefore, akusala cittas exist, as do kusala cittas but Thai and Farang do not. The words Thai and Farang, therefore, are avijjamana pa~n~nattis. 3) Vijjamanenavijjamanaa pa~n~nattis are conventional terms for non-existent with existing things. For example, to say that a person is called chalabhi~n~na because of the meaning 'possessing the 6 abhi~n~nas'; abhi~n~nas really exist but a person does not: such is the conventional term for non-extant with extant things. 4) Avijjamanenavijjamana pa~n~nattis are conventional terms for existent with non-existent things. For example, the sound of a woman: sound exists but a woman does not. 5) Vijjamanenavijjamana pa~n~nattis are conventional terms for existent with existent things. For example, cakkhu vi~n~naa.na: cakkhu exists as cakkhuppasaada, and vi~n~naa.na exists as a consciousness. 6) Avijjamanenavijjamanaa pa~n~nattis are conventional terms for non-existent with non-existent thing such as the son of a king. (The son and the king are both conventional terms). [End excerpt] peace, connie 40766 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 4:33pm Subject: Re: Doubt and Confidence/Tep and Nina Dear Tep and Nina, Tep, thank you for your mention of samadhi nimitta which prompted Nina to mention some suttas in the Book of Tens and the Samyutta Nikaya. There are different forms of meditation - not all done while sitting with breath as the object. Nina - you mention writing something on Beginners and Progress. I would very much like to see you do this, and would find it beneficial. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Chris - > > Before starting to write this mail, I read your message twice. A question > came to my mind about what conditions (paccaya) we must keep > throughout each day such that "great interest, strong enthusiam, > confidence, contentment in the practice" can be maintained. > > Then I recalled a sutta I had read long ago. It says that the monk can > be steady in the progress toward Nibbana when he keeps a "samadhi > nimitta" in the morning, in the evening, and at night. I am not sure what it > may mean to most people who don't do meditation. > > > Warmest regards, > > > Tep > > ======== > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Forsyth" > wrote: > > > > Hello all, > > > > Strange, isn't it ... how enthusiam for the Dhamma wafts and > > wanes ... ? > > I've noticed a pattern over the last year or so - great interest, > > strong enthusiam, confidence, contentment in the practice .. and > > then, boredom, alienation, doubt, discontent. I'm at the bottom of > > that cycle at the moment - hope it is a cycle - not sure what to do - > > other than having patience, and keeping on keeping on .... > > > > metta and peace, > > Christine > > --- The trouble is that you think you have time--- 40767 From: David Cosentino Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 5:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: jhanas Thanks. This approach seems very similar to the self-inquiry of Ramana Maharshi. One trains the mind on itself until nirvikalpa samadhi is attained which is complete cessation. --- kelvin_lwin wrote: > > > Hi Dave, > > > someone could offer me some of their personal > experience or some > > scriptural reference. The traditional Theravadin > stance on the > > I certainly can't give scriptural references as > I'm sure other > people in DSG can. Hopefully someone will furnish > them for you. > However, I can offer some personal views and what I > was taught. ... 40768 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 4:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Doubt and Confidence/Howard and TG Hello Howard and TG, Howard, thank you for clarifying that it is attachment at work - sometimes an understanding we already have has been temporarily hidden and needs to be refreshed by dhamma friends. :-) Dry periods are tedious - but to rest patiently is all that is needed. TG, interesting how we welcome re-assurance that we're normal:-) It is helpful to know of the tedious or forgetful times in the lives of others, and that they have come through it O.K. - thanks for sharing that. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Christine - > > In a message dated 1/4/05 3:11:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, > cforsyth1@b... writes: > > > Hello all, > > > > Strange, isn't it ... how enthusiam for the Dhamma wafts and > > wanes ... ? > > I've noticed a pattern over the last year or so - great interest, > > strong enthusiam, confidence, contentment in the practice .. and > > then, boredom, alienation, doubt, discontent. I'm at the bottom of > > that cycle at the moment - hope it is a cycle - not sure what to do - > > other than having patience, and keeping on keeping on .... > > > > metta and peace, > > Christine > ==================== > Yes, there is an up-down-up-down cycle. The reason, I think, is that > for all but arahants (or maybe also anagami) there is attachment to "progress". > When our practice, however we view "practice", seems to be "going well", we > rejoice and have confidence and enthusiasm, but when it seems to "go badly", we > exhibit, as you say, "boredom, alienation, doubt, and discontent." (Of course > an ariyan will not have the doubt.) This cycle is a special case, I think, of > samsara, our wandering on, buffeted by the waves of tanha and upadana - now > raised high on the crest of a wave, and then dashed low to the trough. > The solution? Just as you say: "having patience, and keeping on > keeping on." > > With metta, > Howard > 40769 From: David Cosentino Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 8:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] jhanas Nina- Thank you for your response. Can you elaborate on this: N: We have to distnguish mundane jhana and lokuttara jhana. Even for someone who has not developed jhana, lokuttara citta is accompanied by samadhi that has the strength of the concentration of the first jhana. This is because the object is nibbana. What do you mean by "for someone who has not developed jhana, lokuttara citta is accompanied by samadhi that has the strength of the concentration of the first jhana." And what do you mean by nibbana being an object? Thank you! --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Dave, > op 07-01-2005 17:21 schreef dharmabum253 op > dharmabum253@y...: > The traditional Theravadin stance on the > > jhanas is that absorption cannot be used for > insight practice due to > > the mind's being too still to glean any insight. > N: Yes, jhana can be proximate cause for insight. > When emerging from jhana > the yogavacara has to be mindful of nama and rupa > and develop all stages of > insight. Some people believe that samatha that is > not of the degree of jhana > can be the proximate cause for insight. As I > understand it, jhana has to be > attained and then it can be a foundation for > insight. This concerns people > who have accumulated skill for jhana. ... 40770 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 4:49pm Subject: Re: Doubt and Confidence/Joop and Herman Hello Joop and Herman, Joop, I'm sorry you 'have it too at this moment.' We're all really in the same boat struggling towards insight - even if there are different difficulties for each of us. Let us 'walk on'. Herman, thank you for these remarks. Your father sounds like one of my Zen friends. :-) Leight Brassington's made me smile - it's just what DOES worry most of humanity! And your remark ... not sure ... "real" doesn't mean "known". What is "real" may be beyond doubt once it is "known" - and may still be beyond discussion, unless everybody in the discussion "knows IT". metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jwromeijn" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Forsyth" > wrote: > > > > Hello all, > > > > Strange, isn't it ... how enthusiam for the Dhamma wafts and > > wanes ... ? > > I've noticed a pattern over the last year or so - great interest, > > strong enthusiam, confidence, contentment in the practice .. and > > then, boredom, alienation, doubt, discontent. I'm at the bottom of > > that cycle at the moment - hope it is a cycle - not sure what to > ... > > Dear Christine > > O yes, I recognize this and have it myself too on this moment. > To be honest: it's not for buddhism in general but for the scholastic > Abhidhamma details (which I called in a not yet finished discussion > with Sarah 'orthodoxy'). > I now think the study of it's details are not fruitfull for me now; I > think (intuition !) now doing (insight-) meditation and studying > sutta's and sutra's are more fruitfull. And perhaps in half a year > studying Abhidhamma helps me again: there are more paths to > enlightenment. > > Metta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" > > My father appends his posts with "No matter were you go, there you > are". > > The following is a vague memory of something Leigh Brassington may > have said "Don't worry about it, you'll never get out of this alive" > > And I say "What is real is beyond doubt, and beyond discussion. > Whatever you doubt can be safely discarded as being unreal" > > > Cheers, big ears > > > Herman > > Joop 40771 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 4:58pm Subject: Re: Doubt and Confidence/Phil and Azita Hello Phil, and Azita, Phil, thank you for this post. It is helpful to hear of others difficulties - and noteworthy that strong enthusiasm is also a difficulty. Not what many would realise until it disrupts ones life. :-) Seems that anything that 'unbalances' life by too much of anything is a problem. Yes - work is exhausting sometimes - I'll post later about Compassion in a workplace situation, and ask what Compassion really is. As you say - hang in there! :-) Azita, I found the quote very pertinent. Along with the desire for certainty, there is also the desire for kalyanmitta - not at Cooran, not in Bangkok, not in Cairns, not in America ... but right here, right now.:-) Thanks for popping your signature line in front of my eyes "patience, courage and good cheer" indeed. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Philip" wrote: > Hi Christine, and all > > > Strange, isn't it ... how enthusiam for the Dhamma wafts and > > wanes ... ? > > I haven't read everyone's response, so sorry for any redundancy. > > I'm interested in this issue because I am also aware of the way > interest rises and falls due to conditions. I have talked a few times > on and off list about how I was frustrated by having an all consuming > interest in Dhamma that made it impossible to concentrate on my other > interests. I was able to see that this was beyond my control and > instead of trying to supress it I should let it ride its course - and > now it seems it has, and a maintainable balance has come about. Still > keenly interested, but able to think about other things as well. But > aware that the all-consuming interest could re-arise at any time. I > can't control it. > > I would say that the insights and encouragements you've gained from > the Buddha's teaching have *definitely* conditioned the re-arising of > more of the same. Well, you know that already, I'm sure. So yes, > patience. Someone has already mentionned this, I'm sure, but as we > know the Buddha was assailed by Mara in various forms, from the > horrific to the sensually enticing. I'm sure Mara also appeared as a > doubt-inducing drag at times as well! > > I remember when you posted after returning from India about your > discouragement I wondered if it might be related to your work. You > work day in day out in close association with people who are > suffering very deeply from specific and identifiable causes (if I'm > not mistaken.) I wonder if this conditions frustration in you at > times, because as we know Dhamma's deep benefits accrue in the space > of lifetimes rather than in the short term, and it's in the short > term that the people you see day in day out need relief from their > suffering. Also, we know that according to the Buddha's teaching, > people are suffering in this lifetime due to kamma. It seems terrible > to say that someone was born to abusive parents due to kamma, but we > know that this is the case. So again there is a conflict between > conventional understanding of such issues, and Dhamma understanding, > which might be doubt inducing. > > In any case, hang in there, Christine. As I said above, the > Dhamma "on" periods will have conditioned more of the same. Patience > is one of the Buddha perfections, as we know. > > Metta, > Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "gazita2002" wrote: > > Dear Chris, > I think its fairly common for this to occur. > > here is a quote which I recite to me on occasions, > > "i'm blind, my eyes are destroyed. > i'v stumbled on a wilderness track. > even if I must crawl, i'll go on, > but not with an evil companion". > Thag.95 > > patience, courage and good cheer, > Azita. > 40772 From: Christine Forsyth Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 5:15pm Subject: Compassion .. Idiot Compassion .. Conspicuous Compassion Hello All, I've been thinking a lot about the "C" word in recent days ... Compassion. I'm reflecting on its different facets and wondering if everything I see occurring in response to certain situations is really compassion, or maybe something unwholesome masquerading as compassion. It seems to me that Compassion is a term that is pretty freely thrown around, and doesn't have a precisely agreed meaning. Some take it to mean loving all beings with warm and fuzzy feelings, allowing people to behave how they will and enduring and forgiving all. Others would describe this as 'Idiot Compassion'. In my work situtation, it is essential in the rather hot-house environment of crisis counselling in an acute hospital that close colleagues should relate to each other in a supportive, non- competitive, non-controlling way. There is so much stress in the succession of situations we are exposed to in any typical day, that all one's energy has to be focused on the patients and their emotional and physical needs, and in ensuring that all staff involved care for themselves and their colleagues in such a way that no-one burns out or develops secondary PTSD. But, as can happen in any group or close community, there has been one individual over the last few years who has consistently fractured the cohesion - e.g. by using passive-aggressive language, targeting and harassing individual staff members, splitting staff with 'behind the scenes' manipulation and half truths, causing new locums to resign, changing admin systems and not informing other staff and destroying texts and other handouts he thinks are not 'state of the art'. When the behaviour is addressed with the person - it conditions long wrangling debates where any shortcomings are denied, the victim is blamed as the 'real' aggressor, and it is passed off as a wilful misunderstanding of good intentions. In ongoing discussion with staff managers, many have wondered what the most skilfull way was to deal with such individuals, who otherwise are intelligent, talented, and creative therapists. Firstly, it was suggested that supervisors could be compassionate to the disruptive one. Compassion in this sense was not defined, but in action seems to mean being unendingly forgiving of everything the person does, and has done repetitively over many years. This is what I call Idiot Compassion - where a clear pattern can be seen of cohesion continually being destroyed, where many individuals are hurt, resign and are not brought to their full potential - and this one person alone is treated with 'compassion'. In my mind it seems to indicate that the managers are 'enabling' the continuing damaging behaviour - and their attitude unconsciously indicates to all that one person is much more valuable than others. From a Buddhist pov this is not loving all beings. Far from being helpless observers, the managers are equally destructive players in this Great Game. The first way (the IC Way) has been used for years - with the pattern continuing to repeat without any objectively measurable change. When I was speaking to friends, pointing out the repetitive pattern that we are all part of, one of them who knows I am a Buddhist, said 'what would you do in this situation?' I said I would give clear boundaries, close supervision of day to day activities for a long period, with firm consequences for unreasonable and disruptive behaviour. The friend then said 'what would the Buddha tell you to do in this situation?' Now ... I don't wish to put words in the Buddha's mouth ... so easy to find a few words here and there to support any position. But what would the Buddha do? What do the suttas say that would be a guide about how to behave where there is a repetitive pattern, and many are being hurt by one, who (some think) is also suffering? I want to say more on the topic of Conspicuous Compassion - but this post is already too long - so maybe later on. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 40773 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 6:01pm Subject: Re: Concepts and Questions Tep's Comment: I think you are talking about the same thing, although the individual points may sound different. It is my understanding that pannatti is the conventional truth (vohara-sacca), that is not paramattha (realities in the highest sense). Concepts are a part of pannatti; they are useful as a vehicle (a "raft") for crossing over the river of samsara, and what we have as the result of Dhamma learning (crossing over the samsara) is the penetration of the paramattha dhamma. Once the Dhamma is learnt, we don't need any concepts or pannatti and there are no thoughts (mental formations, sankhara) in the Arahat. Warm regards, Tep ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Tep, Howard, TG, Herman and All, Regarding truth, there are conventional truth or 'samuti sacca' and ultimate truth or 'paramattha sacca'. Samuti sacca or conventional truths are not always true. For example 'water boils at 100 degrees Centigrade'. Even though it is true most of the time, this statement is not always true. But unlike 'samuti sacca' or conventional truth, 'paramattha sacca' or ultimate truths are always true and they are ultimate realities. Pannatti are 2 kinds. They are sadda-pannatti and attha-pannatti. 1. sadda-pannatti This is based on voice sound. Sadda means 'sound'. Example is 'water' 1. water 2. mitsu 3. paani 4. udaka 5. sui 6. yay 7. aapa All these have their different sounding. But their meaning is just 'water'. As these 7 words are based on 'voice sound produced by different races of people, all these 7 words are 'sadda-pannatti'. But each has their own meaning bearing it is 'water'. When 'water' is understood, what understood is called attha-pannatti. Attha means 'meaning' 'glossary' 'essence'. But when we investigate 'where is water' 'what is water', we cannot find any water at all. This means that there is no 'water' in reality or as ultimate truth. 1. We see what we call water. But this is just seeing and seeing consciousness. 2. When we drink water we taste it. It is taste but not water. 3. When we touch water, we are not touching water but coldness-warmth or force of water when it is moving like tsunami or consistency of it which we can sense through striking it with our palms or when we swim under water while body is moving the hardness-softness or consistency is felt through the body. But there is no water at all. When Culapanthaka was taught by his older brother, there were many pannatti in them and Culapanthaka could not retain them. The Buddha just instructed him with a few words. This is communication and communicating words but not conceptualising dhamma to attain arahatta magga nana. That is why I said Culapanthaka attain unaided by pannatti. When he heard from The Buddha is pannatti, yes. This is right. But what I have been talking was dhamma attainment. Culapanthaka just rubbed and said what he was instructed. Even though he was rubbing and saying he was still weeping in despair. But when he saw changes in the rubbing cloth he was out of pannatti and with this recognition of change (anicca) he was rocketed up till arahatta magga nana. Actually he attained anicca sanna long long time ago many lives before his final Culapanthaka life. But because of akusala vipaka his power was down and domant. The Buddha knew this and helped him. When the rich man offered food to The Buddha and 998 arahats The Buddha stopped the host householder and told that there left a bhikkhu at the monastry. Mahapanthaka was so sure that there was no one as he drove out his younger brother. [He did not know that The Buddha did not allow Culapanthaka to leave the monastry and sasana.] The rich man sent one of his followers to the monastry. The servant went there and found that there were 1000 of bhikkhus in the monastry. He reported to The Buddha. Mahapanthaka was shocked to hear that. The Buddha instructed the servant to ask who was Culapanthaka. The man went there again and asked who Culapanthaka was. All 1000 bhikkhus answered 'I am Culapanthaka' 'I am Culapanthaka' I am also Culapanthaka' and the whole monastry was full of bhikkhus and noisy by Culapanthakas answers. He came back to The Buddha and reported that all 1000 bhikkhus were Culapanthakas. Then The Buddha instructed him when he heard the first voice then to take by hand that bhikkhu and ask him to come along with him to The Buddha. He went there again and did what The Buddha instructed. As soon as he did as The Buddha instructed all other Culapanthakas disappeared. All these Culapanthakas except the original one were just cittaja rupa created by jhana powers. Again these rupas are realities unlike pannatti. What I argued with Howard is the idea, the concept. Why did The Buddha instructed him to rub that cloth/rag? Concepts may be pannatti. By why The Buddha instructed in such a particular way is because of pannindriya cetasikas. Panna is not pannatti. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing 40774 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 6:06pm Subject: Re: Dhamma Thread (220) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kelvin_lwin" wrote: > > Thanks Htoo for these threads. They really help me in terms of > getting the equivalent pali terms from Burmese version. I can't > keep the two straight. > > - kel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Kel, Dhamma Thread posts can easily be traced at JourneyToNibbana Yahoo Group. As it is not as busy as others messages can easily be followed. With Metta, Htoo Naing 40775 From: Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 1:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 5 Aggregates / Concepts / Ultimate Realities In a message dated 1/8/2005 2:51:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, mlnease@z... writes: Hi TG, I would agree of course that the Buddha didn't want anyone to reify anything at all--still even leaving the abhidhammapi.taka out altogether, the Buddha made clear distinctions between pa.n.natti and e.g. the elements, khandas etc. As I see it the important distinction is simply that insight into the characteristics of naama and ruupa (in the abhihdhamma sense) eradicates defilements and leads toward the paths, while insight into pa.n.natti does neither (at least not directly--if I'm not mistaken pa.n.natti can function as upanisaya paccaya). So I don't think it matters whether we call them 'ultimate realities' or not, but it does absolutely matter whether we know the difference. It's awfully easy to go through life taking conventional insight (into concepts or pa.n.natti by any other name) for vipassanaa, a terrible trap. I still do it every day, after some thirty years or so of Dhamma (and dhamma) study, however feeble. I've flip-flopped on this a few times but for now, because of the importance of this distinction, I'm inclined to accept 'realities', though somewhat reluctantly (because of the continual 'reification/ontology' confusion). mike Hi Mike I basically agree with you with some subtle differences. The reasons I've been pushing this issue... 1) I believe that discerning things as realities vs non-realities, though important, is way overrated. 2) Calling things non-realities or realites, tends to see the non-realities as empty (which is fine) and realities as substantial (which is not fine). 3) In the thousands of pages of Suttas, can't recall a single instance of the Buddha saying we need to regard or distinguish the 5 aggregates as realities. I believe insight requires the following type of outlook regarding the "so-called realities," no more, and no less... “Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it toward the deathless element thus: ‘This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbana.’ Standing upon that, he attains destruction of the taints.â€? (The Buddha . . . Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, pg. 540, The Greater Discourse to Malunkyaputta, Mahamalunkyaputta Sutta, #64) TG 40776 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 6:13pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Doubt and Confidence Hi Htoo, Nina and Tep, Htoo, since you asked for comments, this seems to me maybe to fall under sa.nkhaarakha.nda--of course for the arahat, not uppaadanakha.nda. mike ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Mike, Thank you very much for your kind input. It makes sense that you said 'this seems to me maybe to fall under sankhaara.kkhandhaa or arahat.' Yes, it may well be. Example is viriya cetasika. It is a part of sankhara.kkhandha. When we smile we need viriya. When we speak viriya. When we meditate we need viriya. Speaking fast is pushed by viriya. I think habit reside in sankhara.kkhandha. Because cetana is already pure in arahattas. Thanks for your thought. With Metta, Htoo Naing 40777 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 6:33pm Subject: Re: Compassion .. Idiot Compassion .. Conspicuous Compassion I want to say more on the topic of Conspicuous Compassion - but this post is already too long - so maybe later on. metta and peace, Christine ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Christine, Of course it is. So I snipped away all except your last sentence :-). I do hope you do not mind. When I have read your message I grasped an idea to discuss the matter you raised. Compassion is a mixed term. But it at least works for 'karuna'. Karuna is a cetasika. It is one of 2 appamanna cetasikas namely 'karuna' and 'mudita'. They are practised by those who want to stay like brahma and these bhavanas are called bramhavihara or brahmacariya. Even though objects for all 4 kinds of meditation of brahmaviharas are the same that is satta-pannatta or beings, in actual term they are not the same and even different. The object of karuna is 'satta in needs of something'. Examples are tsunami victims. We all are also victims and that is why The Buddha has the greatest compassion on us. We are victims of our samsara, which is full of tear and suffering and pain. So the object of karuna has to be 'poor beings' and they have to be in some way poor. They may be poor of food, poor of shelter, poor of health, poor of education, poor of knowledge, poor of enlightenment and endless poor things. On the other hand, mudita takes different object. That object is 'satta in fulfiled state'. This may be anything of any achievement. Example even though The Buddha had great compassion, when he saw Sariputta Thera attain arahatta magga and greatest wisdom after Him, The Buddha might have mudita on Sariputta instead of karuna. Because Sariputta was no more poor but he became rich with panna. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: The managers' behaviour may be other dhamma. 40778 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 6:51pm Subject: Dhamma Thread (221) Dear Dhamma Friends, So far 6 visaya-pavatti or 'arising of object' have been discussed. But in manodvara vithi vara in the previous post I mentioned that there are 3 kinds of vithi citta, 10 cittuppada (10 arising of citta) and 67 total cittas. This is just in total. When javanas are kamavacara manodvara javana vara javana cittas are just 29 kama javana cittas. They are 1. 12 akusala cittas 2. 1 hasituppada citta 3. 8 mahakusala cittas 4. 8 mahakiriya cittas ---------- 29 cittas This is true when foregoing vithi varas were kama vithi varas. In that case 1.manodvaravajjana, 2.29 kama javana cittas, 3.11 tadarammana cittas altogether 41 cittas can take 10 positions for citta as 3 kinds of vithi citta. BBBBMJJJJJJJTTBBBBBB 1. M-manodvaravajjana[avajjana vithi] 2 to 8. JJJJJJJ-29 kama javana cittas [javana vithi] 9&10. TT-11 tadarammana cittas[tadarammana] When arammana or object is visual object, vithi cittas that arise becomes cakkhudvara vithi vara. When sound sotadvara vithi vara, when smell ghanadvara vithi vara, when taste jivhadvara vithi vara, and when touch kayadvara vithi vara. These terms depend on dvara or door. When based on consciousness they are called 1.cakkhuvinnana vithi vara, sotavinnana vithi vara, ghanavinnana vithi vara, jivhavinnana vithi vara, and kayavinnana vithi vara. All these are kama vithi vara. When they are taken up by manodvara vithi citta there have to arise kama javana vara. At manodvara there are other manodvara vithi varas apart from kama javana vara. They are appana javana varas like jhana javana vara, magga javana vara, phala javana vara, jhana samapatti vithi vara, phala samapatti vithi vara, abhinna javana vara, and nirodha samapatti vara. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: 1.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. 40779 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 7:22pm Subject: Dhamma Thread (222) Dear Dhamma Friends, Before moving on appana javana vara, I would like to touch again kama javana vara for tadarammana cittas. Tadarammana cittas or retention consciousness or retaining consciousness are performed by 3 santirana cittas and 8 mahavipaka cittas. While all 8 mahavipaka cittas are kusala-vipaka cittas not all santirana cittas or investigating consciousness are kusala-vipaka cittas. 1 is akusala-vipaka citta and 2 are kusala-vipaka cittas. Again one is upekkha santirana kusala-vipaka citta and another is somanassa santirana kusala-vipaka citta. So 10 cittas are kusala-vipaka cittas and 1 citta is akusala-vipaka citta. 2 upekkha santirana cittas can serve as patisandhi citta, bhavanga citta and cuti citta apart from santirana function and tadarammana function. When the object is anittha-arammana or disagreeable object all vipaka cittas that arise because of this anittha-arammana or disagreeable object are akusala vipaka cittas. Example is here. When we see disasters or hear them panca-vinnana citta will be akusala vipaka panca-vinnana citta and then it is followed by akusala vipaka sampaticchana and akusala vipaka santirana. This is followed by kiriya citta, votthapana citta or determining consciousness. The following javana cittas will depend on our accumulation. If mindful that is if there is sati cetasika which is sobhana cetasika then sobhana cittas will arise as javana cittas. If not mindful akusala javana cittas will arise such as domanassa citta. Again after that if there are 2 more moments for object to persist tadarammana cittas will arise and as the object is anittha-arammana then all tadarammana cittas will be akusala vipaka citta that is the only tadarammana citta 'upekkha sahagatam ahetuka akusala vipaka santirana citta'. Here all vipaka cittas arise 'RIGHTLY'. But javana cittas may vary and they will depend on satta concern. Example is smelling or seeing of rotten flesh is definitely anittha-arammana or disagreeable object. But in that object javana cittas may be 1. lobha javana cittas[e.g: vultures as it is their food] 2. dosa javana cittas [e.g: ordinary people as they dislike therotten] 3. moha javana citta[rare but there may be uddhacca cittas] 4. mahakusala javana cittas[ if mindful] 5. mahakiriya javana cittas[ if arahats] Here tadarammana citta after mahakiriya of arahattas will be akusala vipaka santirana as the object is anittha-arammana. When vultures develop lobha javana cittas their tadarammana cittas will not be somanassa tadarammana even though lobha cittas may be somanassa javana cittas. Because the object is anittha-arammana. Vipaka cittas arise 'RIGHTLY' when javana cittas arise variably. This is well-known to Myanmar Dhamma friends as 'Vipaka's right, javana may not be right' [wipek ahman- zaw apyan]. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: 1.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. 40780 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 7:23pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing & Hearing -Thanks Mike, I was looking for this. It is also in one of the commentaries, do you have the exact reference. robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Robert, Howard, Sarah and All, > > This reminded me of this from the 'Summary': > > (42) "Therein, when by means of a concept people bring about knowledge of > something that exists in an ultimate sense, such as materiality and feeling, > this is a concept of something existent. But when by means of a concept > people bring about knowledge of something that does not exist in an ultimate > sense, such as the earth or mountains, this is a concept of 40781 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 7:30pm Subject: Re: Compassion .. Idiot Compassion .. Conspicuous Compassion --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > > > Now ... I don't wish to put words in the Buddha's mouth ... so easy > to find a few words here and there to support any position. But > what would the Buddha do? What do the suttas say that would be a > guide about how to behave where there is a repetitive pattern, and > many are being hurt by one, who (some think) is also suffering? > > I ======= Dear Christine, Once the Buddha was addressing the monks during the Patimokkha and he observed that one of the monks was full of evil wishes. He stopped the recitation and asked the monk to leave. But the monk stayed where he was, until Moggallana forcefully took hold of his arm and removed him from the assembly. All done with compassion. RobertK 40782 From: htootintnaing Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 7:37pm Subject: Dhamma Thread (223) Dear Dhamma Friends, When the object is ati-ittha-arammana or highly agreeable object like golden image of real size Live Buddha vipaka cittas will all be ahetuka kusala vipaka cittas. After panca-dvara-avajjana citta or 5-door-adverting consciousness there follows panca-vinnana citta of kusala vipaka. Then followed by kusala vipaka sampaticchana citta or receiving consciousness and then kusala vipaka santirana citta or investigating consciousness. After that kiriya citta, votthapana citta or determining consciousness which is manodvara-avajjana-citta or mind-door-adverting consciousness will arise. As it is ati-ittha-arammana or highly agreeable object, next arising javana cittas will all be sobhana cittas like mahakusala cittas or mahakiriya cittas. These javana cittas are followed by kusala vipaka tadarammana cittas. This is unlike anittha-arammana, 'vipaka cittas arise 'RIGHTLY' and javana cittas also arise 'RIGHTLY'. That is 'vipaka's right, javana's also right'[wipek ahman- zaw lai hman]. There might be some exceptional cases. For example those 'who hate The Buddha' would hate Buddha images and would destroy them like Talibans. Soon after the great image was bombed they were bombed by superpower as all could see in the past. Again what arise intially will be 'vipaka is right, javana is also right. What arise later at manodvara as javana cittas will be according to their accumulation and hatred lead them to do all bad things. But whatever it is initially there will be 'right vipaka' and 'right javana'. May you all be free from suffering. With Unlimited Metta, Htoo Naing PS: 1.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. 40783 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 7:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 5 Aggregates / Concepts / Ultimate Realities --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > > > 2) Calling things non-realities or realites, tends to see the non- realities > as empty (which is fine) and realities as substantial (which is not fine). > > ========== Dear TG, This problem might be becuase of not understanding the pali well. In the foreword to Realities and Concepts (Sujin Boriharnwanaket) it says: "The Pali terms promote clarity.., they are used becuase the English words are too approximate and have varying connotations. Reality, for instance, is the usual Engish translation of dhamma. It can also be translated as thing or phenomenon. Yet these English terms may imply something substantial whereas dhammas are fundamentally evanescent" RobertK 40784 From: connieparker Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 8:21pm Subject: right effort Dear Amara and Friends, As you say, we can't control our thoughts and even though it may seem like certain ones might bother us "all the time", the cittas are ever-changing. We cannot be thinking at the moments there are panca-dvara-vithis, for instance. It does seem like we're thinking all the time, though and it's all too easy to get caught up in that without realizing it. I guess most of the time, when it is good or nuetral thoughts, we don't really mind and that is a large part of the reason we are all still here, looking for more 'good things' to enjoy. Sometimes, we don't really think about dukkha until it is dukkha-dukkha and we are unhappy for one reason or another. And I think then, the impulse is usually to just want to get rid of the 'bad thing' as fast as we can so we can enjoy again, which must be a wrong effort even if it does seem to make us happy for awhile. Still, when you read some descriptions of 'right effort', it does sound like we can control and direct our thoughts as we wish. The following is a paraphrasing of a part of a lecture on "The Eightfold Path" by Bhikkhu Bodhi where he is discussing the 4 aspects of right effort / sammaa viriya: 1. making an effort to prevent the unwholesome unarisen from arising - mainly by controlling or watching over our senses and 'registering and noting without reacting by way of greed and aversion'. 2. abandon arisen unwholesome states/defilements - eliminating them by a variety of methods such as replacing them by the opposite thought or reflecting on noble qualities; developing a keen sense of danger in unwholesomeness which prevents the accomplishment of good; diverting the mind to another object such as breathing; observing the thoughts to see how they arise and gradually stilling them, tracing the sequence back; and as a last ditch effort, combatting the thought to dispell it from the mind. [I think this last is the so-called 'clenched teeth method']. 3. develop the undeveloped wholesomeness/virtuous states of mind or bring forth and cultivate the beautiful potential stored in the the mind. 4. avoid falling into complacency and make the effort to sustain, maintain and increase arisen wholesome states, bringing them to full growth and completion; make the mind bright, pure, radiant. I think if we read those to say we can just sit down and make it happen, it can be pretty discouraging when it doesn't turn out that way. I think it might be better to consider that those are the functions of viriya itself, and not something "I can do" or should be able to do. Even when we make the conventional effort, the result would depend on the viriya (and other conditions), not the self we are used to thinking of as "doing". Until viriya has developed to the point where it is one of the bala or powers, it is only natural that there would be some discouragement, I think. "Effort" is another example of where the English translation doesn't quite work. To just say 'effort' doesn't really say anything about viriya's function as "the effort and perseverance in taking note, examining, knowing the characteristics of naamadhamma and ruupadhamma appearing. (Sammohavinodani, the commentary of Vibha"ngapakara.na Iddhipaadavibha"nganiddesa)" [SPD] and we can lose the sense of it being part of the five-fold satipatthana. It is essential in assisting sati to know the present arammana so that panna, which is the understanding or 'truth that sets you free', can develop. So I guess the question becomes, how does viriya come to have any strength and right focus? Or, how is it exercised? And the answer to that would also be in the SPD: "The study and consideration of the impermanence of realities is viriyaarambha kathaa (words that condition viriya to study the dhamma). This is to enable sati to be mindful of the characteristics of realities that appear and to study and examine until one knows that they are not self but simply naamadhammas and ruupadhammas of different characteristics that are appearing through the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body sense or mind." peace, connie 40785 From: connieparker Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 9:40pm Subject: Re: right effort Sorry All, 'wrong effort' when I picked the address for that one! peace, connie 40786 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 9:54pm Subject: Re: right effort Hi All, > something "I can do" or should be able to do. Even when > we make the conventional effort, the result would depend on the viriya > (and other conditions), not the self we are used to thinking of as > "doing". Until viriya has developed to the point where it is one of the > bala or powers, it is only natural that there would be some > discouragement, I think. > > "Effort" is another example of where the English translation doesn't quite > work. To just say 'effort' doesn't really say anything about viriya's > function as "the effort and perseverance in taking note, examining, > knowing the characteristics of naamadhamma and ruupadhamma appearing. > (Sammohavinodani, the commentary of Vibha"ngapakara.na > Iddhipaadavibha"nganiddesa)" [SPD] and we can lose the sense of it http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/manual6e.htm is a good exposition on the role of viriya and what it means to be indriya. It makes a difference between bodily viriya and mental factor viriya. http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/manual6f.htm is on the meaning of balas. - kel 40787 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Jan 8, 2005 10:30pm Subject: Re: right effort --Nice post though, Connie robert - In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connieparker wrote: > > Sorry All, 'wrong effort' when I picked the address for that one! > peace, > connie 40788 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 9, 2005 0:38am Subject: Re: Is there seeing now? (Re: [dsg] Re: kusala and akusala. Hi, James Hope you haven't forgotten our thread ;-)) Sorry for the delay in replying. buddhatrue wrote: >You have been a practicing Buddhist for >how many years? And you still think you have weak awareness and >insight? Come on!! > Thanks for the promotion to beyond the 'beginner' ranks ;-)) However, I'm sticking with my present diagnosis of weak and undeveloped insight. I suppose it all depends on what you mean by 'insight'. To my understanding it's something that arises of its own accord, without any 'practising' for it. > As the Buddha taught: > >"And how is a monk one with a sense of himself? There is the case >where a monk knows himself: 'This is how far I have come in >conviction, virtue, learning, liberality, discernment, quick- >wittedness.' ... This is one with a sense of Dhamma, a sense of meaning, & a >sense of himself." > > A good passage. But I think 'knowing how far one has come' means neither overestimating nor underestimating that measure. (BTW, do you have a reference for this passage? thanks.) >... Perhaps you could go through each of the path factors and >explain how they each arise at path entry? ... I believe that all >eight path factors must be in play at the same moment of >enlightenment, or one couldn't realize the Four Noble Truths. >However, I think that this is different than what you are >suggesting. Could you be so kind as to explain further? > > Actually, your comment that that 'all eight path factors must be in play at the same moment of enlightenment' is not so different at all from how I understand things to be the explained in the texts. The development of insight is really the occurrence of moments that are a precursor to the moment of enlightenment, in the sense that they are moments when those same factors (or most of them) are present but in a less developed form. Of the 8 path factors there are 5 that occur at all moments of insight, namely the 5 that do not include the 3 'restraint' factors of right speech, right action and right livelihood. Those particular factors arise only when there is a call for the restraint in question, i.e., when there is the potential for akusala in that particular regard, which means that only 1 arises at any time. Thus at moments of mundane insight there will be 5, or sometimes 6, of the 8 path factors arising. At the moment of enlightenment, however, all 8 path factors arise together and perform the function of eradicating the underlying tendencies (anusaya) of their opposites to the appropriate degree. That's as I understand it. Jon 40789 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Jan 9, 2005 0:45am Subject: Re: What the mind does Hi Kel, Thanks for your reply. We still misunderstand each other, but that is a common problem amongst Buddhists. :-) ------------- KH: > > The Dhamma simply teaches us to know the presently arisen reality > regardless of whether it is wonderful or deplorable or just plain > ordinary. > > Kel: That's the goal, but blindly trying to get there isn't going to work. --------------- I don't see it as the goal in the sense of the long term: right understanding is required at this present moment. And, as I said, `trying to get there' (blindly or otherwise) is definitely not a part of the Middle Way. There is no control over dhammas: right understanding will arise only when the conditions for its arising are present. Those conditions are put in place over the course of many lifetimes. The Dhamma has to be heard, correctly explained, wisely considered and applied to the present reality. And this has to happen time and time again before deep insights can occur. ------------ K: > We clear our minds by practicing sila. We sharpen our minds by practicing samadi. ------------- Yes, all kusala cittas are accompanied by a degree of calm and clarity. However, insight can arise in the midst of chaos, so I don't agree that we have to clear our minds in the way you are suggesting. I prefer to think that kusala habits allow us to develop the Four Factors for Enlightenment. Kusala habits lead us to seek out the Dhamma and to associate with good friends. ------------- K: > Only then when you practice insight, you might actually be aware of the reality that has arisen. ------------- Actually, when you practice insight you *are* aware of the reality that has arisen. I think you are suggesting that insight practice is something that leads to insight. In fact, insight *is" the practice, and it leads to enlightenment. --------------- K: > If your sati/samadhi is not strong, even if you have equanimity, it'll still be observing at superficial levels because your mind is still obstructed by moha. --------------- Even here, we seem to disagree. When sati and samadhi are present moha is absent. Or did you mean something else? Ken H 40790 From: seisen_au Date: Sun Jan 9, 2005 0:53am Subject: Re: What the mind does, sutta Hi Nina, Thank you for your efforts in helping me understand this sutta. It is much clearer now. The other translation was by Sister Upalavanna from the Metta sight. The sutta is from Anguttara Nikaya, Ekakanipata, Ekadhammapali, Tatiyavaggo, Sutta #13 (or Sutta #320 Book of Ones). I also found the same sutta quoted by Nagasena in the Questions of King Milinda translated by T. W. Rhys Davids. The Blessed One, O king, is free from desire as respects all conditions of future life, and has condemned them all. For it has been said, O king, by the Blessed One: "Just, O Bhikkhus, as a very small quantity of excrement is of evil smell, so do I find no beauty in the very smallest degree of future life, not even in such for the time of the snapping of the fingers." (Milindapa~nhapaa.li, 4 Me.ndakapa~nho, Iddhibaladassanapa~nho) Thank you Steve --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Hi Steve and Kelvin, > Where is this sutta taken from and who translated it? I would like to know > this. It does not fit the Pali. > > I did not follow all of your thread, but here is my attempt. See below. > > op 06-01-2005 14:58 schreef seisen_au op seisen_@h...: > > former translation: 320. Bhikkhus, just as a little bit of excreta smells > and should be > > got rid of, I do not specify thinking even for the fraction of a > > second. 40791 From: jwromeijn Date: Sun Jan 9, 2005 1:35am Subject: Re: Apologies and Kathavatthu Dear all, As far as I have understood the discussion theme of the thread "Apologies", it is the question if the 62 wrong views of the Brahmajala Sutta is the complete list of all possible wrong views. Whatever the commentators say about it, I think this is not the case: the list of wrong views, errors, mistakes and other faults is in principle indefinite. An easy example: the statement "Birma is a democracy" is a wrong view, all dsg-participants will agree on that. But I have a other question: how about the Kathavatthu ? That is a book of the Abhidhamma, the only one with a wellknown author: Moggaliputta Tissa, and his work is a production associated with the Council of Patna held under 'Asoka's' patronage about B.C. 246 'Kathavatthu' is mostly tranalated with title Points of 'Controversy'; I have not read it but I understand the content is a list of wrong views (most times called "heterodox statements") My question is: if the list of the Brahmajala Sutta is exhausting, then there was no nedd for the Kathavatthu, Moggaliputta Tissa could simply have said to the council and the heterodox monks: read the Brahmajala Sutta of the Buddha. I also have a personal interest in this topic: more and more the last months I feel like the heterodox people monks on that council, feeling not at ease with the dogmatic dominant culture, which later evolved to mahayana. In fact I want to know: to which of the heterodox views do I belong ? Metta Joop 40792 From: kelvin_lwin Date: Sun Jan 9, 2005 2:21am Subject: Re: What the mind does Ken, Kel: I think our difference comes down to how we view practice. You see it as just merely living in the moment. I see it as something we have to cultivate and strive toward with a balanced- mind to be even able to see the present moment much less live in it. I think the mind needs training to have continuous sati which leads to samadhi then it's properly conditioned for panna. > `trying to get there' (blindly or otherwise) is definitely not > a part of the Middle Way. There is no control over dhammas: right > understanding will arise only when the conditions for its arising > are present. Kel: Here's another difference. You automatically take striving or adverting to a goal as lobha. This is not so. One has no control over the results and expecting a certain result thus reaction to failure is dukkha. Indriyas are rulers over others/opposites because they precisely have the power to set the right conditions. If one doesn't cultivate them actively and correctly then they'll be too weak or take longer. This is especially true for people who are using viriya as their vehicle. They only assume 3 postures and contiously work 24/7. > Those conditions are put in place over the course of many lifetimes. > The Dhamma has to be heard, correctly explained, wisely considered > and applied to the present reality. And this has to happen time and > time again before deep insights can occur. Kel: Ledi Sayadaw once wrote that the fact we're born into a Buddha's sasana and exposed to dhamma means our kamma are ripened. We only have to seize the moment and work hard. Your view is a bit too close to Pubbekata-hetu view, which was refuted with the following: Monks, indeed, in the minds of those who confidently and solely rely on the volitional actions done by beings in their past existences and hold this view, there cannot arise such mental factors as chanda (desire-to-do) and vayama (effort), as to differentiate between what actions should be done and what actions should be refrained from. "Monks, indeed, in the minds of those who cannot truly and firmly differentiate between what actions should be"done and what actions should be avoided, and live without the application of mindfulness and self-restraint, there cannot arise righteous beliefs that are conducive to the cessation of defilements. > ------------ > K: > We clear our minds by practicing sila. We sharpen > our minds by practicing samadi. > ------------- > > Yes, all kusala cittas are accompanied by a degree of calm and > clarity. However, insight can arise in the midst of chaos, so I > don't agree that we have to clear our minds in the way you are > suggesting. I prefer to think that kusala habits allow us to develop > the Four Factors for Enlightenment. Kusala habits lead us to seek > out the Dhamma and to associate with good friends. Kel: Kusala cittas are as you say but they're not enough. They are there as foundations so one gets an opportunity to garner insight. For enlightenment one needs samadhi that is at least same quality as the first jhana, access concentration. Without kusala habits, one definitely has no hope since that means one's sila isn't strong enough anyway. It is a necessary condition but not a sufficient one. Insight can definitely arise in the midst of chaos but only if the mind is clear to observe it with equanimity. 'Though my body has pain, I will leave my mind unhurt.' Only if one can separate themselves from the experience as I or my pain. The stronger the pain/experience is, the stronger samadhi you need to turn away from it. (Vedanavikkhambhana-the method of turning away from feeling (vedanam vikkhambhetva), the method of neglecting or not caring for vedana (vedanam abboharikam katva). It may be contemplated on any object which has been regularly and skilfully practised by a meditator, not caring for feeling arising at the present moment. Tam vedanam abbhoharikam katva mulakammatthanam sammasanto arahattam eva ganhati- Samyutta-Nikaya-Atthakatha 2.272. Vedana vikkhambhana, Digha-Nikaya-Atthakatha 2.163; Saratthatika 1.28 > ------------- > K: > Only then when you practice > insight, you might actually be aware of the reality that has > arisen. > ------------- > > Actually, when you practice insight you *are* aware of the reality > that has arisen. Kel: Maybe, if the mind is capable of it at that moment. Generally I find sati lags behind the present moment. One only realizes after the thought or mental action has already occured. Samma sati is basically the one that happens at exactly the same moment and/or destroys any future akusala cittas. > I think you are suggesting that insight practice is something that > leads to insight. In fact, insight *is" the practice, and it leads > to enlightenment. Kel: insight practice is what leads to wisdom, yes. But it also needs all factors to be aligned before it can lead to enlightenment. > --------------- > K: > If your sati/samadhi is not strong, even if you have > equanimity, it'll still be observing at superficial levels because > your mind is still obstructed by moha. > --------------- > > Even here, we seem to disagree. When sati and samadhi are present > moha is absent. Or did you mean something else? Kel: I mean strong in a sense of non-continuous or interruptable. If you prefer to think of it in sequence of vithis then it would look something like this. One kusala vithi with sati/samadi is followed several moha akusala vithis. Yet it appears as if sati/samadhi is continous because the mind simply didn't know moha akusala vithis occured (function of moha). Once akusala gain more traction, something really bad will arise. Only then the meditator goes oh that's bad, where did that come from? The fact that one missed the relation and link to cause a strong akusala to arise means sati was definitely not present for numerous vithis. So depending on how continous sat/samadhi are in successive vithis, the deeper one can penetrate and cultivate insight. Basically the sati an average meditator has during normal daily life is really sparse and only detects/destroys the really obvious askuala cittas. - kel 40793 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 9, 2005 2:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Doubt and Confidence, to Chris. Dear Christine, I wrote already about beginners and progress to Tep. I send again. If you like to know more, I try again. Nina. op 06-01-2005 01:28 schreef Tep Sastri op tepyawa@m... > > T: Please do write about your experience in the Dhamma and how you > have steadily made progress over the years, including how the > progress is measured. N: Long ago a Thai friend said to Kh Sujin that from the time she studied Dhamma she discovered many faults and vices within herself. This made her discouraged. True, people may think themselves good Buddhists, keeping the precepts mostly, practising dana, not really hurting others. But there is more in the Dhamma. Do they really know themselves, is there any understanding? Lodewijk said that it is not difficult to consider oneself a beginner. One begins to have more understanding of all akusala accumulations, of the latent tendencies which condition one to always make the same mistakes. I find that through study of Abhidhamma and verifying in life what one learnt one finds out about one's hidden motives. Speech and deeds that seemed good and noble before are in reality mixed with moments of conceit. As to insight: it is not difficult to know one is a beginner. This has nothing to do with despisal of oneself and conceit of thinking oneself less, or false modesty. It is just the plain truth. I have confidence in the Path that I follow, eventually I will get to the goal. But I am not thinking of so much progress today or tomorrow. I just know that insight is difficult, but this does not discourage me at all. Lodewijk said: progress of whom? Are we thinking of ? Then we are again self-involved. He finds the question of progress irrelevant. I think that it is best to consider the citta that is thinking of progress. What type of citta is thinking of progress? T: My understanding is that steady Dhamma progress (e.g. two steps up, > only one step down; or, several steps up and only a few steps down) > only comes after we have clearly seen the drawbacks of the five > aggregates. N: We can see the disadvantages of the five khandhas only after knowing precisely what they are, that is, through the development of insight stage by stage. Knowing one nama and one rupa at a time as it appears. Sati and pañña are sobhana (beautiful) dhammas, accompanying sobhana citta. Here the Abhidhamma can prevent us from going into pitfalls. They are just dhammas and do not belong to anyone. T asked: Could you elaborate a little bit on that (what Howard and TG wrote.)? N: I did not keep their posts, but they were explaining to Chris that ups and downs are quite normal. Nina. 40794 From: nina Date: Sun Jan 9, 2005 2:34am Subject: Visuddhimagga XIV, 129 and Tiika Visuddhimagga XIV, 129 and Tiika THE PERCEPTION AGGREGATE] Intro: Thus far, the Visuddhimagga has explained ruupakkhandha, viññaa.nakkhandha (consciousness), and vedanaakkhandha (feeling). Now the Visuddhimagga explains saññaakkhandha, the khandha of perception. Saññaa can be translated as remembrance, recognition or perception. The Pali term sañjaanati means: to recognize, perceive or know. The term perception is misleading, but we have to remember that saññaa knows in a specific way, it does not know in the same way as citta. As we see in § 130, saññaa Œmarks¹ the object so that it can be recognized later on, or it remembers. As we read in the Tiika to Vis. XIV, 81 with reference to citta <...As to the expression, it has the characteristic of cognizing", this means that it has as its characteristic that kind of knowing called apprehension of an object in a mode in which the objective field is apprehended differently from the mode of perceiving.> N: Consciousness is the principal, the leader, in cognizing the object, and the cognizing of consciousness is different from Œperceiving¹ by saññaa which Œmarks¹ or recognizes the object. In Vis XIV, 3, perception has been compared to a child that sees a coin without discretion, and citta has been compared to a villager who knows more about the characteristics of the coin. Whereas pañña is like a money changer who knows everything, all details, of the coin. Saññaa cetasika accompanies each citta and thus, it is different as it Œmarks¹ and remembers different objects, it can be of different jaatis or classes (kusala, akusala, vipaaka or kiriya) and of different planes of citta, namely of the sensuous plane, of the plane of ruupa-jhaanacitta, of aruupa-jhaanacitta or of lokuttara citta. The object saññaa marks and remembers may be citta, cetasika, ruupa and nibbaana, and also concepts, paññatti. Whatever object citta cognizes, saññaa marks and remembers it. ***** Text Vis. XIV, 129: Now it was said above, 'Whatever has the characteristic of perceiving should be understood, all taken together, as the perception aggregate' (par.81). N: The Tiika states that what was said of the feeling khandha must be applied to saññaa khandha. The cetasika saññaa is a separate khandha just as the cetasika feeling. As to the words Œall taken together¹ (sabba.m ta.m ekato katvaa), we read in the Tiika to Vis. 81: N: The khandhas are classified as past, present, future, and in several other ways. The Tiika to Vis. 81: < "Characteristic of perceiving" means that its characteristic is the perceiving of an object classed as blue, etc., and the knowing, the apprehending of it by arousing the perception of it as blue, yellow, long, short, and so on. > Text Vis: And here too, what is said to have the characteristic of perceiving is perception itself, according as it is said, 'It perceives, friend, that is why it is called perception' (m.i,293). N: Just as in the case of the khandha of consciousness and of feeling, the Vis. refers to M.N. I, 43, which is a dialogue between Maha-Ko.t.thita and Saariputta. Saariputtaa explains: Œit perceives, it perceives, friend, that is why it is called perception.¹ Here what is said by the Tiika about feeling can also be applied to saññaa. The Tiika (to Vis. XIV, 81) states with regard to feeling: The explanation of the action should be understood as follows: there is no doer apart from the dhamma with its own characteristic (Sabhaavadhammato a~n~no kattaa natthiiti dassanattha.m kattuniddeso). We are inclined to take saññaa for self, but there is no doer apart from the dhamma which is saññaa with the characteristic of marking and remembering. Text Vis: But though it is singlefold according to its individual essence as the characteristic of perceiving, it is nevertheless threefold as to kind, that is to say, profitable, unprofitable, and indeterminate. Herein, that associated with profitable consciousness is 'profitable', that associated with unprofitable consciousness is 'unprofitable', and that associated with indeterminate consciousness is 'indeterminate'. Since there is no consciousness dissociated from perception, perception therefore has the same number of divisions as consciousness [that is to say, eighty-nine]. N: The Tiika emphasizes that there is no citta that is dissociated from saññaa. Saññaa marks the object that is cognized by citta so that it can be recognized. Since it accompanies all eightynine cittas, it is different in each case. As the Vis. states: it can be kusala, akusala or indeterminate, including vipaaka and kiriya. When samatha is developed, saññaa marks and remembers the meditation subject of samatha. When one listens to the Dhamma saññaa assists the kusala citta that arises at that moment. Firm remembrance of the Dhamma that is heard is the proximate cause of sati of satipa.t.thaana which is mindful of naama and ruupa. ***** Nina. 40795 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 9, 2005 2:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Compassion .. Idiot Compassion .. Conspicuous Compassion Dear Christine and rob K, op 09-01-2005 04:30 schreef rjkjp1 op rjkjp1@y...: Once the Buddha was addressing the monks during the Patimokkha and > he observed that one of the monks was full of evil wishes. He > stopped the recitation and asked the monk to leave. But the monk > stayed where he was, until Moggallana forcefully took hold of his > arm and removed him from the assembly. All done with compassion. N: Yes, we have to consider what the Buddha said when monks were harming each other. He would also speak sternly. Read the Vinaya. He would say: you foolish monk... Nina. 40796 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 9, 2005 2:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] 5 Aggregates / Concepts / Ultimate Realities Hi Mike, op 08-01-2005 23:50 schreef m. nease op mlnease@z...: > (at least not directly--if I'm not mistaken pa.n.natti can function > as upanisaya paccaya). N: Natural strong dependence condition, such as climate or friends. Thus not as objects of insight. M: So I don't think it matters whether we call them 'ultimate realities' or > not, but it does absolutely matter whether we know the difference. It's > awfully easy to go through life taking conventional insight (into concepts > or pa.n.natti by any other name) for vipassanaa, a terrible trap. I still > do it every day, after some thirty years or so of Dhamma (and dhamma) study, > however feeble. I've flip-flopped on this a few times but for now, because > of the importance of this distinction, I'm inclined to accept 'realities', > though somewhat reluctantly (because of the continual 'reification/ontology' > confusion). N: It may be useful for others if you tell us about your flipflopping before. Of course we accept realities reluctantly, so long as insight has not been developed. Only then there is no more doubt about them. Nina. 40797 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 9, 2005 2:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] jhanas Hi Dave, op 08-01-2005 17:11 schreef David Cosentino op dharmabum253@y...: > > What do you mean by "for > someone > who has not developed jhana, lokuttara citta is > accompanied by samadhi > that > has the strength of the concentration of the first > jhana." N: Not everyone can attain jhana. People can develop vipassana and attain enlightenment without having developed jhana; they are called dry insight workers, sukkha vipassaka. See Human Types, puggala paññatti, of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. When they attain enlightenment, the lokuttara citta is accompanied by samadhi which has become strong. As insight develops, also concentration and calm develop by conditions. You do not have to try to be concentrated. D: And what do you mean by nibbana being an object? N: Nibbana is the object of lokuttara citta. Lokuttara citta is accompanied by lokuttara paññaa and also, by conditions, by samadhi which is lokuttara and of a high degree. It has the degree of the first jhana, but the object is not a meditation subject of samatha; instead, the object is nibbana. Nina. 40798 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 9, 2005 2:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread (222) Daer Htoo, thank you, that is very clear. Nina. op 09-01-2005 04:22 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: >> Tadarammana cittas or retention consciousness or retaining > consciousness are performed by 3 santirana cittas and 8 mahavipaka > cittas. While all 8 mahavipaka cittas are kusala-vipaka cittas not > all santirana cittas or investigating consciousness are kusala-vipaka > cittas. 40799 From: Matthew Miller Date: Sun Jan 9, 2005 4:59am Subject: Re: pasada rupas Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Balance has to do with medical science. A different field. Helpful > for curing diseases, but not serving detachment from nama and rupa. Thanks for your reply, Nina. However, I'm still not very convinced. Balance is a sense, like hearing, seeing, tasting and so on. Depending on how you approach these senses, they ALL belong to medical science, or they ALL belong to vipassana (e.g. we can observe their arising, see how they are all anicca, anatta and, through clinging, dukkha). For example, imagine someone who is being mindful. While standing up mindfully, she suddenly feels dizziness. She notes "dizziness, dizziness" but rather than panicking and clinging to the dizziness (perhaps with a medical story like "I'm having a stroke!"), she watches how it passes, noting "balance, balance" as her sense of balance returns. Perhaps at the same time she notes that her vision blacks out. She notes this as well, and notes as the seeing returns ("seeing, seeing"). How is balance here different from hearing, seeing and tasting or any other pasada rupa? Matthew