42600

From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@y...> 
Date: Tue Feb 22, 2005 1:43am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Predominant roots?

 	
Hi Kel,

This is in reply to your earlier post #42533

--- kelvin_lwin <kelvin_lwin@y...> wrote: 
> Took my time to track down the references you asked for. 
…
S: Thank you again for the trouble you’ve gone to.
…
> > S: awareness of the seeing, hearing, bodily experience and so on 
> and we're
> > lost in `the ocean of concepts'.
> Kel: right and the sati isn't strong enough to swim above the 
> current of dosa.
…
S: Well, it has to develop! Everyone sees dosa as the main problem, but
what about all the lobha when all the surrounding conditions are just
right? Which is more common?
…
> Kel: I see it not as handicap but giving a realistic assessment of 
> the success based on the present conditions. It's an obvious 
> statement from Jon that I chose not to respond before. There's no 
> question what needs to be done but the question we were discussing 
> was what is a better environment with a higher rate of success. I 
> think it matter how much dosa because it requires stronger sati to 
> counter. It's just a simple law the way I see it.
…
S: Is the aim to avoid dosa or to develop awareness and insight into
presently arising dhammas? If it is the former, I agree with your comments
about certain situations. If it’s the latter, then I think there is no
obstacle at all, except for the present wrong views, especially atta-view.

The way you put it makes it seem like a study of ‘situations’ rather than
of dhammas.
…
> Kel: Here I took your arguement and looked at it's 
> ramifications. You said all dhammas have to be known, akusala and 
> kusala equally thus also casting doubt on the jhana practice. 
…
S: Whatever is conditioned to arise at this moment. If there is lobha now,
there can be awareness of it. If there are jhana factors, there can be
awareness of them. Detachment means impartiality or equanimity with regard
to what is presently conditioned. Wisdom has to develop in order to
eventually reach that profound insight of knowledge of equanimity with
regard all conditioned dhammas, not just some selected ones.
…
>In a 
> particular situation when kusala is well known by the mind, by your 
> logic, akusala is better because it's less well understood. 
…
S: Whatever is conditioned now is the only possible object. If we wish to
only see kusala, then the presently arising akusala will never be known, I
think.
…
>People 
> also don't talk about miccha-sati and sometime awareness of dosa is 
> that and not kusala.
…
S: Good point and the same applies to much of what we take to be awareness
of various objects, I believe, especially when it’s an idea of awareness
of conventional objects/situations such as ‘walking’.
….
> Kel: And ultimately I'm sure you would agree when we see 
> disadvantage of kusala itself, akusala is really not important 
> anymore. 
…
S: Kusala, akusala – all anatta
… 
> > S: remembering refers to the remembering to be mindful or kusala at 
> the
> > presnt moment as a function of sati, I believe.
> Kel: Not quite from what I was taught. Thinking is a citta, it's 
> object can be past or future but the thinking mind can be object for 
> the following citta just like akusala. So I don't see why you 
> particularly single it out as bad. 
…
S: Good – as you say, the thinking citta, like akusala can be the object
of awareness. What I was saying was that satipatthana can only be aware
and know a presently arisen dhamma (here thinking or akusala are ‘present’
in this sense). Past memories or stories cannot be ‘known’ because they
are not paramattha dhammas. I didn’t say they are ‘bad’, I don’t think.
….
> Kel: I only steadfastly point to the fact it cannot be by 
> definition any time because it excludes the time akusala citta has 
> arisen. This is all.
…
S: The present characteristic of the akusala is the object of sati and
panna. I know this can be a difficult point – we had long discussions with
Howard about it. No disagreement that strictly speaking the akusala state
has fallen away. There are lots of textual references to being aware of
akusala states as you know.
…
> Kel: What's the problem with thinking? As I said it's another 
> object. What I described above is not thinking however. Thinking 
> in comparison is pretty gross statement, it's very easy to know it. 
> When the mind is calm by sati/samadhi and strings together upekkha, 
> it's hard to detect each citta but still knowable of course. I just 
> contend any grosser states are easier to detect because they're very 
> obvious in comparison to the predominant state.
…
S: Nothing wrong with thinking as such – only sati and panna can know when
it is thinking and when it is direct awareness of a reality. It’s easy to
know about states by thinking as you say, not so easy to develop
awareness. I think it’s impossible to ‘detect each citta’. Only a Buddha’s
wisdom could do this, I think.
…
>>S: No self or way to `hold onto 
> vedana' or
> > any other dhamma.
> Kel: This is your position. Foundations can also be thought of 
> as orientation or perspective. You can see the whole cycle by 
> picking a point and watching it rotate while remaining stationary. 
> The primary object being used is different to get to the underlying 
> paramattha dhammas. 
…
S: With respect, I believe these ideas of getting an orientation or seeing
‘the whole cycle by picking a point and watching…’ are motivated by a view
that this can be done by self or will. What about the desire that wishes
to do this?
… 
> >S: the Buddha talk about knowing the all through all doors instead of
> > saying, take your pick?
> Kel: So we shouldn't close our eyes then and go to a noisy place 
> instead of a secluded place. I guess this fits in with how you see 
> the see the practice though. Again we're talking about necessary 
> and sufficient conditions. All 6 are sufficient conditions but not 
> necessary from my view. Can a blind man be enlightened? Can a deaf 
> man be enlightened? Can a blind and deaf man be enlightened? 
> Assume they were born this way.
…
S: I believe it says in the texts that if he is blind and deaf from birth
(from patisandhi citta, not conventional birth), that he cannot become
enlightened. All the worlds have to be known.

This is why the Buddha always talks about knowing the 6 worlds as in the
sutta TG has quoted from. Perhaps we should discuss it or another one in
detail?

Kel, thank you again for the other great off-shoot of this thread. I think
that the points you’ve raised here are very important ones and I hope we
can pursue it. I’m aware that my comments must seem very irksome at times,
but I appreciate your feedback.

Metta,

Sarah
========
	
42601

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Mon Feb 21, 2005 9:48pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Personlessness Teachings Not Against Precepts: (Was: fifth prec...

 	
Hi, Ken (and Sarah) -

In a message dated 2/22/05 2:26:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
kenhowardau@y... writes:

> 
> Hi Sarah.
> 
> --------------
> >S: A very interesting area of discussion. You may like to check 
> #25363 and
> >#25544 for relevant quotes. 
> --------------
> 
> Thanks, I read them and coincidentally I heard the five precepts 
> being discussed on tape (Burma trip 17/10/03). To summarise; a 
> precept is kept in a moment of abstention from wrong action (that 
> is, in a moment when citta is accompanied by the cetasika, virati). 
> 
> Naturally, there can be abstention only when there is opportunity. 
> However, people (including many DSG members, I'm sure) say they have 
> been keeping the precepts for certain periods of time. That makes no 
> sense to me - am I keeping the precepts now? 
> 
> On the tape, there was the rhetorical question, "If there is no 
> opportunity, how can you call that keeping the precepts?"
> 
-----------------------------------------
Howard:
This is a matter of speech convention. The primary sense of "keeping 
the precepts" is certainly that of abstaining from wrong action when there is 
the possibility of doing otherwise. But there are other, related, but lesser 
senses. One could be said to be keeping the precepts at any moment that one is 
not violating them, i.e., not engaging in actions contrary to them. And one can 
be said to be keeping the precepts during a period of time in case one does 
not violate the precepts at any time during that period.
------------------------------------------


> 
> Another question asked on the tape was, "When there is abstention 
> from killing, is there, at that moment, any thought of precepts?" My 
> answer would be, "No" and so I wonder why the precepts are referred 
> to as training rules. 
> 
-----------------------------------------------
Howard:
If the keeping of precepts in the active or passive sense and in the 
momentary or extended sense is due to the intention to do so, an intention that 
is frequently reinforced by thinking about the precepts and seriously 
intending to observe them, the keeping of the precepts may then be considered a 
result of training, as opposed to accidental. The training amounts to planting of 
seeds which bear fruit at "times of opportunity". Such training largely 
consists of wise consideration of the precepts, their virtues and advantages, and the 
dangers involved in violating them.
--------------------------------------------

> 
> I'm not saying they are not training rules, and I find 'rule 
> accepting' a more appealing concept than 'vow taking.' I'm sure when 
> you explain why they are training rules I'll say, "Oh yes, I hadn't 
> thought of it that way." :-)
> 
> Ken H
> 
> 
=======================
With metta,
Howard


42602

From: dhammanando_bhikkhu <dhammanando@c...> 
Date: Tue Feb 22, 2005 4:28am
Subject: Re: Predominant roots?

 	
Dear Sarah,

Sarah:
< S: Thank you for these clear comments and quotes. I think when I've read
the passages before (probably in haste),I've taken the phrase 'up to the
vicinity of…..' to mean 'as far as the vicinity of ….at most', i.e only
the highest level before enlightenment is theoretically a possibility in a
previous life, but 'devotion to insight' doesn't mean this would be
standard by any means. I'd have thought the complete opposite, otherwise
what would there have been, bar a death at that time, nothing to prevent
the bodhisatta or disciple becoming enlightened?? >

In the case of a sabba~n~nuu-bodhisatta, it's my understanding that
once he has obtained a prediction of his future Buddhahood, from that
point on sammaasambodhi is not only inevitable but is also the only
sort of enlightenment that is available to him. So during those lives
when he is a disciple of a Buddha -- cultivating the conditions for
his attainment of the pa.tisambhidaa in the final life -- there is no
need for death to intervene to stop him advancing from sankhaarupekkha
to anuloma. Such an advance just cannot happen: his paramii is not yet
enough for sammaasambodhi, the world cannot sustain two
sammaasambuddhas at the same time, and his adhi.t.thaana to reach
sammaasambodhi is of such strength that no lesser attainment would
suffice.

On the other hand, if he has not yet received such a prediction, then
he might well advance to anuloma, so bringing his bodhisatta career to
a premature end. Indeed any number of things might be the cause
of a fledgling bodhisatta abandoning this path.

As for a disciple, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Do
you mean that all who reach sankhaarupekkha will become sotaapannas in
the same life unless they meet with sudden death?

Sarah:
< Can 'yaava' have this meaning of 'as far as' or 'up to' as a maximum limit
in this context, I wonder? >

Yaava by itself has the same ambiguity as English expressions like "up
to..." and "as far as..." That is to say, it could mean either "up to
and including" or "up to but not including" (or "as far as .... but no
further"). There are several ways a Pali author can disambiguate the
meaning of yaava if more precision is needed. In the present case it
is accomplished by the insertion of samiipa ('vicinity'). This tells
the reader that the action of the subject (reaching, attaining, going
to... etc) definitely falls short of touching the object (the jhaana,
~naa.na, the place, the time or whatever).

If a yogi is described as meditating "up to the second jhaana" (yaava
dutiyajjhaana.m), then there is a strong suggestion (though not quite
a certainty) that he has attained the second jhaana itself.

But if he is described as meditating "up to the vicinity of the second
jhaana" (yaava samiipa-dutiyajjhaana.m), then it means he has attained
either access concentration or the first jhaana (but strongly
suggesting the latter). Certainly he has not attained the second
jhaana itself.

The same applies to the expression yaava samiipaanuloma-
gotrabhuu~naa.na.m ("up to the vicinity of the knowledges of
conformity and change-of-lineage):

* He has certainly not reached anuloma itself.
* He must have reached one of the ~naa.nas before anuloma, but not too
far before (or it wouldn't be 'in the vicinity').
* There is a strong suggestion that he has reached
sankhaarupekkha~naa.na

The Vis. Tiikaa then steps in and confirms that it is in fact
sankhaarupekkha~naa.na that is being referred to.

Sarah:
<It does raise a number of obvious questions. For example, disciples such
as Sariputta - I've always considered that prior to hearing the Buddha's
word in their last lives, no stages of insight were attained. Do you have
any further comments or quotes? (Just if it's no trouble).>

Is there a text that states Saariputta had never attained any insight
before his final life? I know there is a vast quantity of material
about his doings in former lives, but I have read only a fraction of
it.

The Pa.tisambhidaamagga Atthakathaa (Pati.A 6-7) lists a number of
sekha and asekha disciples (Saariputta, Moggallaana, Mahaakassappa,
Mahaakaccaana, Mahaako.t.thita, the eighty great elders, Aananda, the
householders Citta and Upaali, the upaasaka Dhammika and the upaasikaa
Khujjuttaraa) whose attainments in the time of Gotama Buddha were
reached through five conditions, one of them being 'prior effort'
(pubbayoga) under previous Buddhas. The author then gives a definition
of 'prior effort' essentially the same as that in the Visuddhimagga:

"pubbayogo" naama pubbabuddhaana.m saasane yogaavacarataa
gatapaccaagatikabhaavena yaava anulomagotrabhusamiipa.m
pattavipassanaanuyogo

So, I don't think there's any doubt that at least in Aacariya
Dhammapaala's view Saariputta (and many others) had reached
sankhaarupekkha~naa.na while disciples of former Buddhas. I see that
the Mahamakut Thai translators of this passage are so sure of this
they have even taken the liberty of rendering "yaava
anulomagotrabhusamiipa.m" as "jon kratang theung sangkhaarupekkhaayaan
an pen thii klai anulomayaan lae khotraphuuyaan" ("until reaching
sankhaarupekkha~naa.na which is in the vicinity of anuloma~naa.na
and gotrabhuu~naa.na").

Sarah:
<Kel, thanks again for raising these points. You were right in your
original speculation that I would consider enlightenment inevitable for
one who had attained this stage of insight.>

I wonder, do you base this on his being a lesser stream-entrant
(cuu.la-sotaapanna) and so of assured (niyata) destiny, or is it upon
some other consideration?

Best wishes,

Dhammanando


42603

From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@x...> 
Date: Tue Feb 22, 2005 7:47am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism.XIV,140

 	
Dear Azita,
Saddha is different from sacca, but still, your post is very appropriate.
See below. 
op 22-02-2005 02:00 schreef gazita2002 op gazita2002@y...:
. Its proximate cause is something to have faith in, or its proximate
> cause is the things beginning with hearing the Good Dhamma (saddhamma) that
>> constitute the factors of stream-entry.63
>> ------------------------
>> Note 63. The four factors of stream entry (see S.v,347) are waiting
> on
>> good men, hearing the Good Dhamma, wise attention, and practice in
>> accordance with the Dhamma. Again they are: absolute confidence in
> the
>> Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha, and possession of noble virtue
>> (S.v,343).
> 
Tape: "Saccanana - one will follow the Sacca (truth) when one knows the
> reality which appears is the reality which Panna can understand
> completely, absolutely, when it develops.
> So we don't move away to having something other than the present.
> For ex. seeing right now can be the object of awareness and
> understanding, otherwise we keep going away from it, never be aware
> of it, keep away from it all the time.
> So then, there is no way to understand the absolute reality which is
> conditioned, or only by conditions can it arise and appear."
N: This is hearing the Good Dhamma. When you really see: not moving away
from what appears now is the Path to be developed, your confidence grows. By
understanding confidence grows. You can have the firm conviction: this is
the Path. 
There is seeing now, why do we not develop understanding of it now?
That is sacca ñaa.na, understanding of the truth. This can lead to kicca
ñaa.na, awareness and direct understanding. Kicca is function. And then
there can be kata ñaa.na, realization. kata is: done.
I hope you will quote more from the tape. It is helpful as a reminder.
Nina.
	
42604

From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@x...> 
Date: Tue Feb 22, 2005 7:47am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Jatis

 	
Hi Carl and Rob M,

op 21-02-2005 22:45 schreef Carl op c7carl@y...:

> Are the "five-sense-door adverting-consciousness"
> vipaka-citta or kiriya-citta? or am i just real confused? :-)
N: Only vipaakacittas, results of kamma.
Rob, we should add to kusala: kusala vipaakacitta, not just kusala.
Otherwise people think of the active kusala and akusala. But it is only the
passive side of life.
Nina.
	
42605

From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@x...> 
Date: Tue Feb 22, 2005 7:47am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 128 - Vitality/jivitindriya and Attention/manasikaara (l)

 	
Dear Azita,
op 22-02-2005 01:48 schreef gazita2002 op gazita2002@y...:


>> [Ch.7 Vitality(jivitindriya)and Attention(manasikaara)contd]
>> *****
>> When seeing-consciousness arises, each of the `universals' which
>> accompanies it performs its own function.

> Azita: are all these cetasikas 'known' by the time 'one' becomes
> sotapanna, or is it only a Buddha that knows them?
> By known, I mean experienced and understood for what they really
> are - anatta, anicca, dukkha.
N: No, not necessary. The pañña of different persons is different. Whatever
object appears can be object of awareness and understanding, so that
eventually it is seen as anatta, anicca, dukkha. It does not mean that all
cetasikas have to be known. We should not worry about that.
Nina.
	
42606

From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@x...> 
Date: Tue Feb 22, 2005 7:47am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Pilgrimage India 5 g

 	
Hi Hugo and Howard,
I hesitated to answer your Q. Hugo, because I did not know what motivated
it. 
I am glad Howard answered it, and look at the end of his answer:
<We all seem to almost desperately want a fixed anchor to hold onto,
but liberation comes by seeing that there is no anchor and in being willing
to 
let go of *everything* - a daunting task. Even when nature offers us the
possibility of this, the tendency is to run in fear back into our prison
cell.>
You see, a daunting task, it goes against our nature.
op 21-02-2005 20:46 schreef Hugo op eklektik@g...:
I agree with what Howard said, but I didn't see my questions answered.
> 
> I quote again:
> 
>> If there is no self, who pays respect to The Buddha?
... (snipped)
> 
> On this next question, note the use of quotes and that I say "it is
> more correct to SAY", I am not stating that there is indeed a self.
>> Isn't it more correct to say that "there is a self" but that self is
>> not permanent?
N: You pose a logical question and expect a logical answer, but it does not
work that way. I can quote suttas, like K.S. IV: what is impermanent is not
self, etc. But will it help?
I discussed the matter with Lodewijk (my husband). He thinks that what is
impermanent cannot be a self. We spoke about the five khandhas. The five
khandhas pay respect. There is the structure of these khandhas arising
together because of conditions, and since they arise because of a
concurrence of conditions they have to fall away. Rupa, feeling, sañña, the
other cetasikas (sankhaarakkhandha) and citta.
He once asked Kh. Sujin how he could have metta to Nina. Nina is five
khandhas. He also is five khandhas.
How do the five khandhas arise? Then we come to the D.O. he said.
There is individuality and character, but here we see that the past
conditions the present. When a person is angry he looks very different from
when he has metta. It is as if he is a completely different person. There
are different conditions for different moments.
A daunting task to abandon the idea of self. It can be done, by
satipatthana. 
You have to begin at this moment of seeing. Is seeing Hugo, Kh Sujin would
ask. Is hearing Hugo? They are only different cittas arising because of
sense objects that meet the appropriate sense bases, and they are produced
by kamma. It is a long process of development necessary to abandon the idea
of self.
I am away for about four days from tomorrow, but if you are not satisfied
with my answer, I can try another way.
Nina.
	
42607

From: robmoult <rob.moult@j...> 
Date: Tue Feb 22, 2005 7:56am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Jatis

 	
Hi Carl (and Nina)

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom 
<vangorko@x> wrote:
> > Are the "five-sense-door adverting-consciousness"
> > vipaka-citta or kiriya-citta? or am i just real confused? :-)
> N: Only vipaakacittas, results of kamma.
> Rob, we should add to kusala: kusala vipaakacitta, not just kusala.
> Otherwise people think of the active kusala and akusala. But it is 
only the
> passive side of life.

Thanks, Nina.

Carl, anticipating your next question...

When a javana citta is "akusala", it means that it has an 
unwholesome ethical quality; it has unwholesome roots.

However, akusala vipaka cittas are ethically neutral. They do not 
have unwholesome roots nor do they have wholesome roots. Akusala 
vipaka cittas earn the name "akusala" simply because they are the 
resultant of some past akusala action. Similarly, kusala vipaka 
cittas are also ethically neutral (no roots), but they are the 
resultant of some past kusala action.

Metta,
Rob M :-)


42608

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Tue Feb 22, 2005 4:24am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Pilgrimage India 5 g

 	
Hi, Hugo -

In a message dated 2/21/05 2:46:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
eklektik@g... writes:

> Hello Nina and Howard,
> 
> I agree with what Howard said, but I didn't see my questions answered.
> 
> I quote again:
> 
> >If there is no self, who pays respect to The Buddha?
> >If there are no selves, why do they want to preserve those holy places?
> >If there is no self, why did you visit those site to commemorate those
> >important events?
> >
> >If they want to preserve something isn't it going against what the
> >Buddha taught?
> >
> 
> On this next question, note the use of quotes and that I say "it is
> more correct to SAY", I am not stating that there is indeed a self.
> 
> >Isn't it more correct to say that "there is a self" but that self is
> >not permanent?
> 
> 
> Greetings,
> -- 
> Hugo
> 
> 
======================
Let me just say this: These are merely conventional speech. 
Conventionally, *people* pay respect to the Buddha, just as people eat, breathe, walk, 
and talk. They want to preserve these holy places because they are good 
reminders. As for why Nina visited there, she can answer for herself, but I would 
assume out of respect and because of the wholesome effect it would have on her 
mind. And as for preserving something going against what the Buddha taught, how 
about preserving the Dhamma? Obviously there can be no lasting preservation of 
anything, but some things are useful to preserve as much as possible. 
BTW, conventional speech isn't to be shunned - just properly 
understood. (Ultimately, all speech is conventional, but some is more figurative than 
other.)

With metta,
Howard


42609

From: Hugo <eklektik@g...> 
Date: Tue Feb 22, 2005 10:53am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Pilgrimage India 5 g

 	
Hello Nina,

> I am away for about four days from tomorrow, but if you are not satisfied
> with my answer, I can try another way.

Thanks, that's fine.

-- 
Hugo
	
42610

From: Hugo <eklektik@g...> 
Date: Tue Feb 22, 2005 10:56am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Pilgrimage India 5 g

 	
Hello Howard,

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:24:53 EST, upasaka@a... <upasaka@a...> wrote:
> Let me just say this: These are merely conventional speech.
> Conventionally, *people* pay respect to the Buddha, just as people eat, breathe, walk,
> and talk.

Yes, that's my understanding.

[...]

> BTW, conventional speech isn't to be shunned - just properly
> understood. (Ultimately, all speech is conventional, but some is more figurative than
> other.)

Yes, I agree with that.


Greetings,
-- 
Hugo
	
42611

From: <TGrand458@a...> 
Date: Tue Feb 22, 2005 8:53am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Perceiver and Conceiver of the World

 	
Hi Sarah


In a message dated 2/22/2005 1:05:35 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
sarahprocterabbott@y... writes:
S: Objection! Thinking (citta + accompanying cetasikas such as vitakka and
vicara) and remembering or marking (sanna + other cetasikas) are
definitely included! Now, the concepts or memories - the stories about the
"worlds" are mere fantasies or dreams imagined or conceptualised. Hence
the sutta is stressing the need to be aware and understand the worlds for
what they are. 
TG: Objection! The sutta is not stressing the need to be aware of and 
understand the worlds for what they are. The Sutta is saying that the "world" 
(six sense bases in this case) has to be ended for suffering to end.

TG


42612

From: Charles DaCosta <dacostas@P...> 
Date: Tue Feb 22, 2005 0:54pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation

 	
YES! Hugo,
If the Dharma is first and foremost, then your "will" will lead you to right view. It will even be dominated by it (To live and love something, you have to know it first -- the Right View).

Charles
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Hugo 
To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, 21 February, 2005 16:30
Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation



Hello Charles,
> I hope this applies here: "Love and live the Dharma first and foremost (in mind, body (action) and speech), then do as you will." This my not be the right view, but it is a good view.

If the Dhamma is first and foremost, then your "will" will lead you to
right view, I guess.
-- 
Hugo


42613

From: Jonothan Abbott <jsabbott@n...> 
Date: Tue Feb 22, 2005 2:12pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Eight Conditions for the Arising of Panna

 	
Hi, Tep

>Thank you much for pointing out that "this particular teaching need not 
>be seen as limited to monks alone". Yes, I fully agree with you. And I 
>also see that mundane insight should be taken as the very important 
>step along our way toward the direct knowing -- contrary to some who 
>just want to begin at the very top. 
>

Yes, this is an important point. We must begin where we are, but if 
that happens to be at a very a undeveloped level of insight then that is 
actually quite a difficult thing to know because conceit and wrong view 
lead us to believe otherwise. I think conceit also tends to play a 
large role in leading us to underestimate the difficulty of the task of 
developing insight (we think 'we can do it' or 'I must be able to see it').

You mention 'direct knowing', another name for insight. If we could only 
keep in mind that it is direct knowing (of dhammas) that is the task, 
and it is the lack of that that is at the root of all our 'problems', 
this would help keep us from a lot of wrong ideas, I believe.

>I am interested to know why you think "while condition #4 is a reference 
>to sila in general and the guarding of the sense-doors (i.e., 
>mindfulness) rather than the mere compliance with the rules of 
>conduct". I think indriya samvara is a lot less than Patimokha sila 
>simply by the reasoning that lay-Buddhists who are involved in the 
>worldly matters can never practice the Patimokha to the perfection.
> 
>

Well I was not meaning to suggest that one was less or more than the 
other, but to point to the fact that perfection in the Patimokha 
requires highly developed insight, and this is the Patimokha that the 
Buddha praised. He did not for example praise the homeless life lived 
outside the dispensation (regardless of how 'well' a person was able to 
live the ascetic's life).

For lay-follower and monk alike, the development of insight is 
paramount, and supports the keeping of the respective sila, and the sila 
in turn supports the further development of insight.

Thanks for sharing your views.

Jon
	
42614

From:   kelvin_lwin <kelvin_lwin@y...> 
Date: Tue Feb 22, 2005 2:27pm
Subject: Re: Predominant roots?

 	
Hi Sarah,

Your other thread to Ashin Dhammanando made me smile when you 
mentioned Sammasambuddhas are possibly a special case. I thought 
you would say that and I see Bhante has already replied to those 
points. It's definitely hard to convince you of things.

> > Kel: right and the sati isn't strong enough to swim above the 
> > current of dosa.
> S: Well, it has to develop! Everyone sees dosa as the main 
problem, but
> what about all the lobha when all the surrounding conditions are 
just
> right? Which is more common?
Kel: We were talking about dosa so I was just using it. Gross 
lobha is before dosa but subtle lobha is after dosa. So just 
depends on what you stage of development you're referring to. My 
basic point is subtle lobha will not be seen before the gross lobha 
and dosa are eliminated or temporarily subdued. 

> obstacle at all, except for the present wrong views, especially 
atta-view.
> The way you put it makes it seem like a study of `situations'
> rather than of dhammas.
Kel: It's an objective assessment of situations without any 
connection with atta. There's no denying the influence of situation 
on any non-arahats. Now if we no longer need to differentiate 
between situations then great. But for most people, there are more 
suitable environments for cultivating.

> S: Whatever is conditioned to arise at this moment. If there is 
lobha now,
> there can be awareness of it. If there are jhana factors, there 
can be
> awareness of them. Detachment means impartiality or equanimity 
with regard
> to what is presently conditioned. Wisdom has to develop in order to
> eventually reach that profound insight of knowledge of equanimity 
with
> regard all conditioned dhammas, not just some selected ones.
Kel: The argument here is whether direct experience of all dhamma 
is necessary for developing full equanimity. I said it's not about 
the object as the quality of equanimity. We were (or at least I 
was) not talking about the final result which you described. I said 
any dhamma will do as the object or device to develop equanimity. 
Once that is accomplished, it of course should be equanimous with 
regard to any and all dhammas by definition. Again the question is 
whether the object matters before that level of equanimity can be 
reached. My position is no.

> S: Whatever is conditioned now is the only possible object. If we 
wish to
> only see kusala, then the presently arising akusala will never be 
known
Kel: *sigh* I'm not saying there should be a wish to only see 
kusala. It's just a hypothetical situation I was presentating. 
This is part of the reason the threads get tiresome because it just 
stagnates. 

> > also don't talk about miccha-sati and sometime awareness of dosa 
is 
> > that and not kusala.
> …
> S: Good point and the same applies to much of what we take to be 
awareness
> of various objects, I believe, especially when it's an idea of 
awareness
> of conventional objects/situations such as `walking'.
Kel: There's no question with anything there's a possiblity of 
ditthi and being fooled by avijja. However, the big difference 
between your statements and mine is I don't say "it's bound to be 
driven by sense-of-self". It may or may not be, just depends on the 
person. 

> S: Past memories or stories cannot be `known' because they
> are not paramattha dhammas. 
Kel: Are they not mind-door objects? Is there not a citta at the 
time one is experiencing these memories or stories? Seems to be as 
much paramattha dhammas here to observe as much as any other time.

> S: It's easy to
> know about states by thinking as you say, not so easy to develop
> awareness. 
Kel: Again what I described has no thinking involved but I can't 
convince you of it so be it. 

> S: With respect, I believe these ideas of getting an orientation 
or seeing
> `the whole cycle by picking a point and watching…' are motivated 
by a view
> that this can be done by self or will. What about the desire that 
wishes
> to do this?
Kel: This is just your usual position restated. The desire is 
not important as much as the cultivation or training to do it. 
Vedana cetasika is universal and it's easy to maintain awarness of 
it continuously. This is what most vedanaupassana meditation 
techniques are based on. It is also what jhana practice is based on 
by finding the nimitta and being able to hold onto it. The skill of 
being able to focus on something is anatta, otherwise anyone can do 
it as they wish. Then using that skill to isolate some object, deep 
panna can arose because experience is pure without interference.

> > K: All 6 are sufficient conditions but not 
> > necessary from my view. Can a blind man be enlightened? Can a 
deaf 
> > man be enlightened? Can a blind and deaf man be enlightened? 
> > Assume they were born this way.
> S: I believe it says in the texts that if he is blind and deaf 
from birth
> (from patisandhi citta, not conventional birth), that he cannot 
become
> enlightened. All the worlds have to be known.
Kel: Blind and deaf is usually equated with dvihetuka. So 
they're said to only capable of achieving up to sankarupekkha (I 
don't have references :P) and cultivate panna. Clearly though we're 
talking about the maximum here. They're also incapable of achieving 
jhana, next best life they can hope for is tihetuka in sensuous 
sphere. This is why Ledi sayadaw said they can become an ariya in 
the very next life with prior effort accomplished in the current 
life for dvihetukas. That would bring up an interesting point about 
what requires a higher panna, jhana or sankarupekkha. Now, there's 
nothing preventing blind or deaf person from becoming an ariya 
provided they're tihetuka. So I don't see how all six worlds are 
necessary. As I said, I separate them into necessary and sufficient 
conditions. 

> This is why the Buddha always talks about knowing the 6 worlds as 
in the
> sutta TG has quoted from. Perhaps we should discuss it or another 
one in
> detail?
Kel: Probably unnecessary as I'm sure we will read the same 
things and interpret it completely differently :) I never refuted he 
talked about all 6 worlds hence the sufficiency. I only said 
they're not all necessary which I doubt there's specific references 
to prove one way or another. Though I could be wrong and some 
commentator did then I'll just claim Buddha didn't say it! *grin*

- kel


42615

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Tue Feb 22, 2005 4:23pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Jatis

 	
Carl : "Are the "five-sense-door adverting-consciousness" vipaka-citta
or kiriya-citta? or am i just real confused? :-)" 

Nina: "Only vipaakacittas, results of kamma. 
Rob, we should add to kusala: kusala vipaakacitta, not just kusala.
Otherwise people think of the active kusala and akusala. But it is only
the passive side of life."

Hi Carl,

I think Nina misread your question. Adverting consciousness, whether
5-door or mind-door is functional (kiriya). The 5-door sense
consciousnesses are vipaka (kamma result). 

Larry


42616

From: naresh gurwani <nar_gurwani@y...> 
Date: Tue Feb 22, 2005 7:35pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] new to the group

 	
Dear Hugo

If i have question abt jhana meditation , i am
refering to the links which you had provided me.

how can i contact the author ??

Awaiting your reply


Naresh 



--- Hugo <eklektik@g...> wrote:

> 
> Hello Naresh,
> 
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:21:36 -0800 (PST), naresh
> gurwani
> <nar_gurwani@y...> wrote:
> > I was watchingyour conversation, if u can help me
> out
> > how one can dedicate for meditating does this mean
> > watching in & out breath ??
> 
> First things first, I am not a meditation teacher,
> hey, I haven't even
> reached 1st. Jhana (if you are into Jhana
> meditation), and I haven't
> seen anything come together and pass away (if you
> are into Vipassana).
> 
> All I can do is point you to some documents, but I
> am far from being
> able to do anything more than that.
> 
> Perhaps other members of the list might be able to
> help you better.
> 
> Besides the instructions described in the Suttas,
> you can try:
> 
> http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/leaves/bl115.html
> http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/inmind.html
<....>
	
42617

From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@y...> 
Date: Tue Feb 22, 2005 10:13pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Personlessness Teachings Not Against Precepts: (Was: fifth precept question:

 	
Hi Ken H (& Howard),

I agree with what you say and I think Howard has also added helpful
points.

--- kenhowardau <kenhowardau@y...> wrote: 

> Thanks, I read them and coincidentally I heard the five precepts 
> being discussed on tape (Burma trip 17/10/03). To summarise; a 
> precept is kept in a moment of abstention from wrong action (that 
> is, in a moment when citta is accompanied by the cetasika, virati). 
…
S: Yes. This is the observing of a precept, the moment of restraint,
accompanied by one of the virati (abstention) cetasikas. For such
abstention or sila to be an eightfold path factor, in addition it must be
accompanied by right understanding etc.
….
> Naturally, there can be abstention only when there is opportunity. 
> However, people (including many DSG members, I'm sure) say they have 
> been keeping the precepts for certain periods of time. That makes no 
> sense to me - am I keeping the precepts now? 
…
S: You are right. There can be no observing of the precepts when there is
no opportunity from which to abstain. However, as Howard said, it can also
be a matter of speech convention.

In the quote from Dispeller, Classification of Training Precepts, in the
passage I referred you to (#25544), it says:

“Herein training precept is of two kinds, training precept in the
figurative sense (pariyaaya) and training precept in the literal sense
(nippariyaaya). Herein, abstention (virati) is the training precept in the
literal sense…..for it is the hostile volition at the time of
transgression that is called misconduct (dussiilya), therefore that
volition is stated by way of good conduct (susiilya) even at the time of
abstention….”

Earlier, it mentioned that all wholesome states are trainings (sikkhaa)
and in particular the precepts are considered as a foundation or basis
(pada)for the other trainings and are therefore bases of training
(sikkhaana.m padattaa). Of course, the training only occurs when the
wholesome states arise.
….
> On the tape, there was the rhetorical question, "If there is no 
> opportunity, how can you call that keeping the precepts?"
…
S: In the literal sense, there cannot be any keeping at such a time as you
stress.
…
> Another question asked on the tape was, "When there is abstention 
> from killing, is there, at that moment, any thought of precepts?" My 
> answer would be, "No" and so I wonder why the precepts are referred 
> to as training rules.
…
S: I think we have to differentiate between a)the observing of the
precepts as discussed and b)the undertaking of the precepts or training
rules. The undertaking is not a vow as I understand nor anything to do
with virati or the eightfold path factors.

It is an intention or resolution as Howard said to abstain if the occasion
arises, much like a momentary intention or resolution to speak gently or
to behave well. It may be with or without any idea of self at the time, of
course. The references in the texts obviously refer to wholesome
intentions or observances.
…. 
> I'm not saying they are not training rules, and I find 'rule 
> accepting' a more appealing concept than 'vow taking.' I'm sure when 
> you explain why they are training rules I'll say, "Oh yes, I hadn't 
> thought of it that way." :-)
…
S: As Howard wrote ‘the training amounts to planting of seeds which bear
fruit at “times of opportunity”. Such training largely consists of wise
consideration of the precepts, their virtues and advantages, and the
dangers involved in violating them”. In Abhidhamma Sangaha we read about
the arising of virati cetasika (abstention from wrong speech, bodily
action and livelihood) as a result of natural inclinations, undertaking of
the precepts or the development of wisdom.

As we know, only the development of wisdom and real understanding of the
danger of misconduct (dussiilya) will ensure there is abstention, no
matter the opportunity or provocation.

As Jon wrote in another thread:
“For lay-folower and monk alike, the development of insight is paramount,
and supports the keeping of the respective sila, and the sila in turn
supports the further development of insight.”

I think we all agree on this.

Let me sign off with a quote I liked a lot of yours which may be relevant
to the subject heading I've just noticed, Ken:

“Remember, the world is nothing more than fleeting, worthless,
void-of-self mental and physical phenomena (nama and rupa). How can we
tell nama and rupa to get off their backsides and follow a set of
instructions? It doesn’t make sense.

“The Dhamma only makes sense when it is seen as a description of all the
possible combinations of citta, cetasikas and rupas. And that is all we
need. When there is right understanding of the description, panna can
arise to directly know nama and rupa.”

This is how I see it. I might add, we can find everything has been pointed
out by the Buddha– good, bad, what leads to what state or has what results
and so on. There is nothing fatalistic or discouraging at all in this – so
much work for panna to do and so much development needed. No chance to be
lonely or feel hopeless or helpless when panna does indeed set to work
without any big or little Self interfering;-).

Good to chat to you.

Metta,

Sarah
*Howard, I also agreed with all your further comments on the fifth precept
in a post to me and Tonia #42478. I particularly liked the last one about
how such observance ‘should *not* be done as mere ritual or “magic art”.
You continued to give the example of eating or drinking something with
alcohol in it in error. (btw, I hope you saw some further comments I wrote
to you on those pesky desirable and undesirable rupas;-)).
==========================
	
42618

From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@y...> 
Date: Tue Feb 22, 2005 10:19pm
Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 130 - Vitality/jivitindriya and Attention/manasikaara (n)

 	
Dear Friends,

'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom

http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html
http://www.zolag.co.uk/

Questions, comments and different views welcome;-)
==========================================
[Ch.7 Vitality(jivitindriya)and Attention(manasikaara)contd]
*****
Questions

i Does manasikåra, attention, arise when we are sound
asleep?

ii Can manasikåra be lokuttara?

iii Do nåma-jívitindriya and rúpa-jívitindriya have different
functions?

iv Which types of citta are accompanied only by the seven ‘
universals’ and not by other cetasikas?

v Each of the ‘universals’ has its specific characteristic,
function, manifestation and proximate cause. Why can each
one of them still have different qualities at different
moments?

vi Through how many doors can the ‘universals’ experience an
object?

vii Can the ‘universals’ experience a concept?

viii When the citta is akusala citta, it is accompanied by akusala
cetasikas. Are the accompanying ‘universals’ akusala as
well?
*****
[Ch.7 Vitality(jivitindriya)and Attention(manasikaara)finished!]

Metta,

Sarah

*NOTE: This is the end of Part 1: The Universals.
The text will continue with Part 11: The Particulars (Paki.n.nakaa),
then, Part 111: Akusala Cetasikas and finally, Part 1V Beautiful Cetasikas
(Sobhana Cetasikas).
======
	
42619

From: kenhowardau <kenhowardau@y...> 
Date: Tue Feb 22, 2005 10:34pm
Subject: [dsg] Re: Personlessness Teachings Not Against Precepts: (Was: fifth prec...

 	
Hi Howard,

-------
KH: > "If there is no 
> opportunity, how can you call that keeping the precepts?"
> 

Howard: > This is a matter of speech convention. >
-------

Yes, and my question is, "How is the conventional notion of precept 
keeping relevant to the Dhamma?" 

----------------------
H: > The primary sense of "keeping the precepts" is certainly that 
of abstaining from wrong action when there is the possibility of 
doing otherwise. 
-----------------------

Yes, and, because the citta is kusala, there can be no wrong view at 
those precise moments. I don't think the same could always be said 
of conventional precept-keeping.

----------------------------------
H: > But there are other, related, but lesser senses. One could be 
said to be keeping the precepts at any moment that one is not 
violating them, i.e., not engaging in actions contrary to them. And 
one can be said to be keeping the precepts during a period of time 
in case one does not violate the precepts at any time during that 
period.
-----------------------------------

So one is said to be keeping the precepts in both kusala and akusala 
moments - even in moments of wrong view - provided only that there 
is no involvement with killing or stealing etc. 

----------------------------
<. . .>
KH: > I wonder why the precepts are referred 
> to as training rules. 
> 

Howard: > If the keeping of precepts in the active or passive sense 
and in the momentary or extended sense is due to the intention to do 
so, 
-----------------------------

Ah, there's your favourite word, "intention." :-)

--------------------------------------------
H: > an intention that is frequently reinforced by thinking about 
the precepts and seriously intending to observe them, the keeping of 
the precepts may then be considered a result of training, as opposed 
to accidental. 
---------------------------------------------

You could also say, "as opposed to being conditioned by 
understanding." That sets off alarm bells for me, remembering 'the 
Buddha taught satipatthana and every word of his teaching should be 
understood in terms of satipatthana.' 

Thanks for your explanation, Howard, but I still tend to think the 
Buddha spoke of precept keeping, like everything else, in 
conventional terms without implying that those conventional terms 
had any relevance in their own right. It is our responsibility to 
see, as best we can, how they fit into his doctrine of 
conditionality and anatta.

Ken H
	
42620

From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@y...> 
Date: Tue Feb 22, 2005 10:59pm
Subject: Dialogue with RobM-1

 	
Hi Rob M,

I have several of your posts in front of me which I’ve been meaning to
comment on or ask for clarifications. I hope you don’t mind if I use
‘short-hand’ here and put them all in one post as I do with Htoo.
(Btw,folk, Htoo told me he's away from the computer for a while,but he's
noted posts addressed to him).
*****
The comments are in no special order.

1. #42406, you write to Kel – intrinsic nature of objects:

“The javana cittas of an Arahant are still conditioned by
accumulations,but in the case of an Arahant, the nature of the javana will
follow the intrinsic nature of the object; this is an indirect
relationship that only holds true because the Arahant does not have the
accumulations to interfere (in other words, the Arahant directly knows).
…
S: What does this mean? Let’s say some akusala vipaka has just been
experienced, such as painful bodily experience. 
…..
2. #42414, you write to Kel- desirable-neutral objects:


“I would think that virtually all visible objects would fall into the
desirable-neutral category..” 
….
S: Do you have any reason for such a speculation? Btw, I thought your
posts #42222 and #42217 were very good on this topic. In the second one,
you repeated the idea above, but I really think there’s no way of knowing.
You go on to say:

“When an object is at room temperature, this is desirable neutral. When an
object is a bit warmer than room temperature (like the coffee…), then it
is intrinsically desirable.”

S: I think this is just speculation about what cannot be pin-pointed.
Vipaka and other cittas follow each other so rapidly. Who can say at any
instant of touching the coffee cup whether kusala or akusala vipaka is
arising at that moment? 
…. 
3. #42243 to Hugo- Abhidhamma etc:

S: A very good post on Abhidhamma and I liked the quote of Dr K Sri
Dhammananda’s you gave. In your own comments, you write:

“Studying Abhidhamma is the first step in getting a trained mind. The next
step, which builds on study, is practice; starting with virtue (sila),
then concentration (Samadhi) and finally wisdom (panna). With a trained
mind we will see things as they truly are; this is mindfulness (sati).
According to the Abhidhamma, the mind experiences millions of thoughts
each second. We can only be aware of a small portion of these thoughts. A
trained mind can be mindful of all thoughts.”
…
S: Hmm, in particular, why do you stress sila, then Samadhi, then panna?

By thoughts do you mean cittas? Can a trained mind be mindful of all
cittas? Why just thoughts or cittas?
….
4. #42279 to Carl- panca-dvara vajjana citta

You are talking about the five-sense-door adverting citta. You write that
“As part of this citta, when the mind starts to concentrate on the new
object, one-pointedness comes into play. The mind concentrates attention
on the source of the disturbance to the flow of bhavanga. Concentration of
attention turns the mind toward the new object. Attention makes the mind
different from the previous (bhavanga) mind by controlling the mind to
advert to the new object.”
…
S: There is one-pointedness or ekaggata cetasika with every citta surely?
What do you mean by attention here? What is concentration of attention?

(Btw, I hadn’t seen your good answer to Carl yesterday when I replied as
well on this topic).

I have a few more comments/qus, but this one’s got long, so I’ll continue
in another post….(Apologies for not responding in threads- you’re welcome
to re-thread or not as you like).

Metta,

Sarah
======
	
42621

From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@x...> 
Date: Tue Feb 22, 2005 11:39pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Jatis, correction.

 	
Hi Carl,
Larry is right, I misread your question.
op 23-02-2005 01:23 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...:


> I think Nina misread your question. Adverting consciousness, whether
> 5-door or mind-door is functional (kiriya). The 5-door sense
> consciousnesses are vipaka (kamma result).
	
42622

From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@y...> 
Date: Tue Feb 22, 2005 11:47pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Dialogue with RobM-2

 	
Hi Rob M, (& Agrios)

I’ll press on while I have your posts in front of me. Let me stress that
there has been a wealth of helpful information and good detail in all your
posts as far as I’m concerned. These are just fine-tuning aspects.for
consideration.

5. #42212 to Kel on present and past rupas:

You write: “Of course, you (and Howard) are correct; two processes cannot
take the same rupa as object. Quoting Dr Mon’s “Abhidhamma Ultimate
Science” (p.148), “Thus, after a panca-dvara vithi, a mano-dvara vithi
quickly follows it retaking the sense-object of the panca-dvara vithi as
past object…”

Later you add: “Clearly, from this explanation, we can see that the first
mano-dvara vithi takes the rupa as a past object, not as a present
object”.
…
S: This immediatialy following mind door process takes the same rupa as
object as I understand. Strictly speaking, of course, the rupa has fallen
away, but it is its same characteristic or nimitta that is experienced by
the mind-door process – like a perfect photocopy, for all intents and
purposes, the same rupa. This is referred to in the texts, I believe, as
‘present object’ rather than past object. Awareness can be aware of say,
visible object, in either the sense door or mind door process as *present
object*. 

You go on to question some comments from U Silananda’s notes about ‘five
clear vithi with present rupa objects’ etc. I believe his notes are
correct and the difficulty is because of the confusion above about past
and present objects. (I hinted at this in another post). There are all
sorts of ramifications and implications for other contexts too, I believe.
…
6. #42453 to Joop on D.O.

I’m very glad that you’ll be discussing and sharing more on this topic.
Thx to Chris, Joop and all for encouraging you! As you indicate, it’s
incredibly intricate.

I was also curious about why we read ‘conditioned by nama, rupa and
namarupa..’ and grateful to Agrios for clarifying. (Good work, Agrios
–btw, pls make it clear whom you are addressing in your posts).

Rob, do you think it’s confusing to read just the English for statements
like:
“At time of rebirth, the heart-base conditions the mind-base….”

It took me sometime to work out you must be referring to hadaya vatthu and
manayatana. Is that correct? Do you think you should elaborate?

You then continue to detail about how the 4 primary rupas condition the 5
sense-bases, how jivitindriya and ahara condition the sense-bases etc,
once again indicating the conditioning of rupas by rupas.

Later you also refer to how “Dhamma base conditions mind contact……through
object condition”. I don’t think anyone will follow unless you explain
what dhamma base (I assume dhammayatana is) etc.

Another sentence that makes little sense to me:
“Mind contact concomitant with mind door conditions vedana concomitant
with registration cittas through natural decisive support condition”.

Also unclear to me is the following in #42584 to All:

“Consciousness leads to nama-rupa which leads to sixfold sense bases which
leads to contact which leads to feeling through a number of present
conditions. In other words, the presence of consciousness can immediately
give rise to feeling from the senses.”

S: I think the problem is that you need to spell out how you understand
the various terms, otherwise we give our own interpretations which may or
may not be what you mean. I appreciate that you're trying to avoid Pali
and attempting to keep a very difficult subject relatively simple:-/

(Agrios, see asannasattas in ‘Useful Posts’- DO still applies!! When Htoo
comes back, he loves this topic – I’m also happy to try to add more if you
like. By the way, I think you maybe confusing RobK for RobM. I’m not sure
if RobM or anyone answered your qus #42525 on D.O. or not – pls let Rob or
me know if not, making it clear whom you're addressing, if possible. Also
see ‘Dependent Origination’ in U.P.).

Metta,

Sarah
======
	
42623

From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 0:23am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Perceiver and Conceiver of the World

 	
Hi TG & All,

--- TGrand458@a... wrote: 

> TG: Objection! The sutta is not stressing the need to be aware of and
> 
> understand the worlds for what they are. The Sutta is saying that the
> "world" 
> (six sense bases in this case) has to be ended for suffering to end.
> 
...
S: Yes, by realizing the 4 Noble Truths, including the Path which fully
understands the six sense bases as being the only 'world'. Now, I'm
looking at the sutta (SN 35:116 (3) Going to the End of the World, Bodhi
transl)

"The eye is that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a
conceiver of the world. The ear....The nose....The tongue....The
body....The mind....."

Also see SN 2:26 (6) Rohitassa (Bodhi transl):

"However, friend, I say that without having reached the end of the world
there is no making an end to suffering. It is, friend, in just this
fathom-high carcass endowed with perception and mind that I make known the
world, the origin of the world, the cessation of the world, and the way
leading to the cessation of the world."

Note adds: Spk (commentary)gloses loka with dukkhasacca and each of the
other terms by way of the other three noble truths. Thus the Buddha
shows: "I do not make known these four truths in external things like
grass and wood, but right here in this body composed of the four great
elements."

"The world's end can never be reached
By means of travelling [through the world],
Yet without reaching the world's end
There is no release from suffering.

"Therefore, truly, the world-knower, the wise one,
Gone to the world's end, fulfiller of the holy life,
having known the world's end, at peace,
Longs not for this world or another."

Metta,

Sarah
======
	
42624

From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:17am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha as object Dialogue with Htoo 2

 	
Dear RobK, Htoo, RobM, Kel, KenH & All,

RobK, thanks for the good examples you gave on lobha following the sight
of the Buddha to Htoo and myself (#42286).

I’m not sure that anyone has given the following quote which compliments
the one from Dispeller and which is relevant to this thread and also to
others such as between RobM & Kel, I believe. KenH, I think you raised one
point about the dogs before which is clear in context here.
==================================

From Summary of the Topics of Abhidhamma, ch 4, The Explanation of the Law
of Retention (tadarammana):

“(25) In all cases, when the object is undesirable the five sense
consciousnesses, receiving, investigating and retentions are unwholesome
resultants.


(26) When it is desirable, they are wholesome resultants.

Commentary:

“When it is desirable: when it is moderately desirable, the very desirable
object will be discussed separately.

Wholesome resultants consisting of the five sense-consciousnesses,
receiving, investigating, and retention, is how it should be construed. 
In the case of a moderately desirable [object] he states that
investigating and retention are accompanied by equanimity; but in the case
of a very desirable [object] they are only accompanied by happiness. The
resultants, which occur by the power of kamma, acquire a feeling
appropriate to the object not because of the existence of choice, but by
automatic production, like the reflection of a face in a mirror.

“However, for the wholesome and unwholesome [impulsions] occurring in the
mental continua of those who have not got rid of the distorted views there
are the options, in the case of a very desirable [object], of the modes of
the moderately desirable and undesirable, and in the case of the
undesirable [object], of the modes of the desirable and moderately
desirable.

“For it is thus that the unfaithful have impulsions accompanied by
equanimity with very desirable objects, such as the Buddha, and the
followers of other religions impulsions accompanied by unhappiness; and
[thus that] those of profound sensibilities have impulsions accompanied by
equanimity with an unpleasant object, and dogs, etc, take pleasure in the
sight of filth. The reason why eye-consciousnes, etc, occurring with a
very desirable object are accompanied by equanimity has already been
discussed above.*”

[S: * because of the weakness of the contact between the sense-base and
the object etc]

Happy to discuss any further points. 

Metta,

Sarah
=========
	
42625

From: robmoult <rob.moult@j...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:31am
Subject: Re: Dialogue with RobM-1

 	
Hi Sarah,

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott 
<sarahprocterabbott@y...> wrote:
> "The javana cittas of an Arahant are still conditioned by
> accumulations,but in the case of an Arahant, the nature of the 
javana will
> follow the intrinsic nature of the object; this is an indirect
> relationship that only holds true because the Arahant does not 
have the
> accumulations to interfere (in other words, the Arahant directly 
knows).
> …
> S: What does this mean? Let's say some akusala vipaka has just been
> experienced, such as painful bodily experience. 

=====

When an Arahant experiences akusala vipaka such as painful bodily 
experience, then which citta will play the role of javana? It must 
be kiriya. But there are eight of them, so which one? Because the 
Arahant has no perversion of perception, the javana will not be with 
pleasant feeling. Now we are down to four; prompted / unprompted and 
with or without wisdom. I am saying that the choice of one of the 
four will depend on accumulations.

Of course, the accumulations of an Arahant become much more obvious 
when we look at the macro level and note the different personalities 
of each of the Buddha's main disciples, all of whom were Arahants.

=====
> …..
> 2. #42414, you write to Kel- desirable-neutral objects:
> 
> 
> "I would think that virtually all visible objects would fall into 
the
> desirable-neutral category.." 
> ….
> S: Do you have any reason for such a speculation? Btw, I thought 
your
> posts #42222 and #42217 were very good on this topic. In the 
second one,
> you repeated the idea above, but I really think there's no way of 
knowing.

=====

I think that I mentioned my reasoning in another post. It seems 
clear to me that touching a very hot thing or a very cold thing is 
intrinsically undesirable using the criteria of "average men" such 
as accountants and government officials :-). I can also understand 
how intrinsic nature can apply to pressure, taste, smell and maybe 
even sound. 

Keeping in mind that visible object is what exists before any 
identification of form, any naming of contect, etc. is done, I 
cannot think of any cases where a visible object clearly falls into 
the intrinsically desirable or intrinsically undesirable category, 
again using the criteria of "average men" such as accountants and 
government officials :-).

=====

> You go on to say:
> 
> "When an object is at room temperature, this is desirable neutral. 
When an
> object is a bit warmer than room temperature (like the coffee…), 
then it
> is intrinsically desirable."
> 
> S: I think this is just speculation about what cannot be pin-
pointed.
> Vipaka and other cittas follow each other so rapidly. Who can say 
at any
> instant of touching the coffee cup whether kusala or akusala 
vipaka is
> arising at that moment? 
> …. 

=====

True, it is speculation. But not without some grounds. Not based on 
observation of akusla or kusala vipaka arising but rather based on 
the criteria of "average men" such as accountants and government 
officials :-).

Sorry, I can't write "accountants and government officials :-)" 
without an accompanying smiley - just one of my accumulations, I 
guess :-).

=====

> 3. #42243 to Hugo- Abhidhamma etc:
> 
> S: A very good post on Abhidhamma and I liked the quote of Dr K Sri
> Dhammananda's you gave. In your own comments, you write:
> 
> "Studying Abhidhamma is the first step in getting a trained mind. 
The next
> step, which builds on study, is practice; starting with virtue 
(sila),
> then concentration (Samadhi) and finally wisdom (panna). With a 
trained
> mind we will see things as they truly are; this is mindfulness 
(sati).
> According to the Abhidhamma, the mind experiences millions of 
thoughts
> each second. We can only be aware of a small portion of these 
thoughts. A
> trained mind can be mindful of all thoughts."
> …
> S: Hmm, in particular, why do you stress sila, then Samadhi, then 
panna?
> 
=====

In CMA, Bhikkhu Bodhi defines patipatti as sila, samadhi and panna.

The symbolic meaning of a stupa involves the base (sila), body 
(samadhi) and the pinnacle (panna).

=====

> By thoughts do you mean cittas? Can a trained mind be mindful of 
all
> cittas? Why just thoughts or cittas?

====

I am using conventional language...

=====

> ….
> 4. #42279 to Carl- panca-dvara vajjana citta
> 
> You are talking about the five-sense-door adverting citta. You 
write that
> "As part of this citta, when the mind starts to concentrate on the 
new
> object, one-pointedness comes into play. The mind concentrates 
attention
> on the source of the disturbance to the flow of bhavanga. 
Concentration of
> attention turns the mind toward the new object. Attention makes 
the mind
> different from the previous (bhavanga) mind by controlling the 
mind to
> advert to the new object."
> …
> S: There is one-pointedness or ekaggata cetasika with every citta 
surely?
> What do you mean by attention here? What is concentration of 
attention?
> 
=====

All cittas have ekaggata and manisikara; however in this particular 
citta, these two cetasikas play a prominent role in achieving the 
fuction of the citta (adverting).

Metta,
Rob M :-)
	
42626

From: robmoult <rob.moult@j...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:46am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Dialogue with RobM-2

 	
Hi Sarah,

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott 
<sarahprocterabbott@y...> wrote:
> You write: "Of course, you (and Howard) are correct; two processes 
cannot
> take the same rupa as object. Quoting Dr Mon's "Abhidhamma Ultimate
> Science" (p.148), "Thus, after a panca-dvara vithi, a mano-dvara 
vithi
> quickly follows it retaking the sense-object of the panca-dvara 
vithi as
> past object…"
> 
> Later you add: "Clearly, from this explanation, we can see that 
the first
> mano-dvara vithi takes the rupa as a past object, not as a present
> object".
> …
> S: This immediatialy following mind door process takes the same 
rupa as
> object as I understand. Strictly speaking, of course, the rupa has 
fallen
> away, but it is its same characteristic or nimitta that is 
experienced by
> the mind-door process – like a perfect photocopy, for all intents 
and
> purposes, the same rupa. This is referred to in the texts, I 
believe, as
> `present object' rather than past object. Awareness can be aware 
of say,
> visible object, in either the sense door or mind door process as 
*present
> object*. 

=====

I could not find a reference for this object being called "present", 
so I put "past"; if the object is considered "present" (even though 
it does not exist any more, then this explains U Silananda's notes 
on mental process taking present rupa as object. Any idea where to 
look for more information on this?

=====
> 
> You go on to question some comments from U Silananda's notes 
about `five
> clear vithi with present rupa objects' etc. I believe his notes are
> correct and the difficulty is because of the confusion above about 
past
> and present objects. (I hinted at this in another post). There are 
all
> sorts of ramifications and implications for other contexts too, I 
believe.
> …
> 6. #42453 to Joop on D.O.
> 
> I'm very glad that you'll be discussing and sharing more on this 
topic.
> Thx to Chris, Joop and all for encouraging you! As you indicate, 
it's
> incredibly intricate.
> 
> I was also curious about why we read `conditioned by nama, rupa and
> namarupa..' and grateful to Agrios for clarifying. (Good work, 
Agrios
> –btw, pls make it clear whom you are addressing in your posts).
> 
> Rob, do you think it's confusing to read just the English for 
statements
> like:
> "At time of rebirth, the heart-base conditions the mind-base…."
> 
> It took me sometime to work out you must be referring to hadaya 
vatthu and
> manayatana. Is that correct? Do you think you should elaborate?

=====

These are my work-in-progress notes as I develop my understanding of 
DO. It is my "shorthand" taken mainly from U Silananda's notes.

=====

> 
> You then continue to detail about how the 4 primary rupas 
condition the 5
> sense-bases, how jivitindriya and ahara condition the sense-bases 
etc,
> once again indicating the conditioning of rupas by rupas.
> 
> Later you also refer to how "Dhamma base conditions mind contact……
through
> object condition". I don't think anyone will follow unless you 
explain
> what dhamma base (I assume dhammayatana is) etc.
> 
> Another sentence that makes little sense to me:
> "Mind contact concomitant with mind door conditions vedana 
concomitant
> with registration cittas through natural decisive support 
condition".

=====

Again, my shorthand is not clear enough.

=====
> 
> Also unclear to me is the following in #42584 to All:
> 
> "Consciousness leads to nama-rupa which leads to sixfold sense 
bases which
> leads to contact which leads to feeling through a number of present
> conditions. In other words, the presence of consciousness can 
immediately
> give rise to feeling from the senses."
> 
> S: I think the problem is that you need to spell out how you 
understand
> the various terms, otherwise we give our own interpretations which 
may or
> may not be what you mean. I appreciate that you're trying to avoid 
Pali
> and attempting to keep a very difficult subject relatively simple:-
/

=====

The key thrust of this post is the importance of "past" conditions. 
I consider "present" conditions such as mutuality, conascence, 
disappearance, etc. to be "boring". I consider the "past" 
conditions, asynchronous kamma and natural decisive support, to 
be "exciting".

Metta,
Rob M :-)
	
42627

From: Jonothan Abbott <jsabbott@n...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 4:15am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Proliferations of Perceptions and Memories

 	
Hi, Howard

upasaka@a... wrote:

>... Remembering has greater appeal to me than memories. That 
>being said, however, I still find the need for there to be a "data basis" for 
>remembering. The operation of remembering requires, it would seem to me, some 
>sort of mindstream traces passed along that serve as basis for the remembering 
>process. When I remember, as I did last night in a dream, the sweet songs, in 
>her own voice, that my grandmother sang to me in Yiddish 55 to 60 years ago, 
>the remembering can not be a magical something-from-nothing process. So, 
>assuming that I am correct, what does the "data basis" consist of if not 
>passed-along "memories"?
> 
>

As I understand it, the previous moments of consciousness (at the time 
your grandmother was singing to you), which were accompanied by sanna 
which 'marked' the object, are not 'lost' but remain accumulated. By a 
complicated process, the objects of these moments of consciousness can 
be recollected.

Sorry, but I cannot be more specific than that.

Jon
	
42628

From: Jonothan Abbott <jsabbott@n...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 5:08am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II)

 	
Hi, Howard

upasaka@a... wrote:

> I'm not clear on your position. Are you saying that from time to time 
>a rupa arises, and, at that same moment consciousness arises which contacts 
>that rupa, and likewise, at some moment consciousness arises, and at the same 
>moment a rupa arises that is contacted by that rupa? That is, there are two 
>separate but interdependent arisings, one rupic and one namic, but neither ever 
>occuring without the other occurring? 
>

My understanding of the texts is that namas and rupas each arise because 
of sets of conditions, but that these sets of conditions may be very 
different.

For example, the conditioning factors for the arising of namas (for 
example, the present moment of seeing consciousness) will always include 
past actions (intention) or accumulations, in one form or another. But 
the conditions for the arising of a 'non-bodily' rupa (for example, 
present visible object taken as computer) do not include any such 
factors. (Of course, the experiencing of that rupa, a nama function, is 
another matter.)

In the case of namas, they being dhammas that experience an object, 
there cannot be an arising without there being an object experienced, 
and that object may be another nama, a rupa or a concept. However, it 
is not inherent in the nature of rupas that they be the object of a 
nama; and thus we cannot preclude the possibility that the actual moment 
of arising of the rupa that is the presently experienced sense-door 
object preceded (by however minuscule a margin) the actual moment of 
arising of the nama by which it is experienced (I speak only of the rupa 
that is object of the present sense-door consciousness).

>If that is your position, I find it not so 
>bad, and, in fact, not very far from my own understanding. (The only nagging 
>element in my mind on this is a slight question of "where" the rupas arise. 
>But I realize that there may well be presuppositions involved in that question 
>which vitiate the legitimacy of the question to begin with.)
> 
>

I'm afraid I don't see how the question of "where" comes in here. Are 
you saying it arises in the model suggested by me but not in the model 
suggested by you? Perhaps you could expand on this point.

>>You have explained that the experienced sense-door dhamma is not the 
>>same as whatever it is that impinges on the sense-door itself, but is 
>>somehow derived from that impingement. Are you then not positing a 
>>sense-door impingement by something else, and if so what? Your model 
>>seems to call for there to be something 'out there' that impinges on the 
>>sense-door.
>> 
>>
>Howard:
> No, exactly the opposite. I do not believe in inexperienced rupas. The 
>only rupas I know of are elements of experience. 
> 
>

Yes, I know that is what you say, but I think you are overlooking the 
implication of the model you have described. You say that the 
experienced sense-door dhamma ('felt hardness') is not the direct 
experience of the impingement on the sense-door (in this case, on the 
body-sense) from which it is somehow derived. Now, if the impingement 
is not itself directly experienced, then it is inferred or assumed. And 
what, according to your model, is it that impinges on the sense-door 
(and from which the 'felt hardness' is derived)? Whatever that is, it 
is not directly expereinced either.

Jon


42629

From: agriosinski <agriosinski@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 6:16am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Dialogue with RobM-2

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott 
<sarahprocterabbott@y...> wrote:
[...]
> –btw, pls make it clear whom you are addressing in your posts).

Hi Sarah,

I was addressing just problem. Mainly - speculative views on Dhamma,
as presented in various sources, usually not in suttas.

Now, after reading Ninas explenations on subiect of namarupa
and her advices of putting attention toward citta, I realized
that there is a line between Dhamma and sensual clinging to 
speculations about reality. 

Seems like namarupa is just rupa experienced in our sensual world.
There is no escape from sensuality in this world, but there is
way of not being hijacked by this sensuality. 

I am very thankfull to RobM for his texts on D.O and conditions.

metta,
Agrios
	
42630

From: Hugo <eklektik@g...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 6:25am
Subject: Re: [dsg] new to the group

 	
Hello Naresh,

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 19:35:44 -0800 (PST), naresh gurwani
<nar_gurwani@y...> wrote:
> If i have question abt jhana meditation , i am
> refering to the links which you had provided me.
> 
> how can i contact the author ??

Some authors are dead already, so it will be just a little difficult.

You might try to contact the translator or some other meditation teacher.

Try:
http://dhammasala.org/contactlist.htm
http://mettaforest.org/VisitInfo.htm (look at the last paragraphs)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SanghaOnline (various bhikkhus)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/buddha-direct/ (very active bhikkhu)

I guess in this mailing list there is at least one monk or people with
experience that may/can help you, so go ahead and ask here too.

Good Luck! :-)
-- 
Hugo


42631

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 2:35am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Dialogue with RobM-2

 	
Hi, Sarah (and Rob & Agrios) -

In a message dated 2/23/05 2:49:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
sarahprocterabbott@y... writes:

> Strictly speaking, of course, the rupa has fallen
> away, but it is its same characteristic or nimitta that is experienced by
> the mind-door process – like a perfect photocopy, for all intents and
> purposes, the same rupa. 
> 
> 
===================
This is exactly as I see it: a perfect photocopy, replica, or clone.

With metta,
Howard


42632

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 2:40am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Dialogue with RobM-2

 	
Hi, Rob -

In a message dated 2/23/05 4:50:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
rob.moult@j... writes:

> The key thrust of this post is the importance of "past" conditions. 
> I consider "present" conditions such as mutuality, conascence, 
> disappearance, etc. to be "boring". I consider the "past" 
> conditions, asynchronous kamma and natural decisive support, to 
> be "exciting".
> 
======================
It's amusing. I think so much must be a matter of conceptual 
preference! I find synchronous relations to be far more interesting! ;-))

With metta,
Howard


42633

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 2:50am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Proliferations of Perceptions and Memories

 	
Hi, Jon -

In a message dated 2/23/05 7:23:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
jsabbott@n... writes:

> As I understand it, the previous moments of consciousness (at the time 
> your grandmother was singing to you), which were accompanied by sanna 
> which 'marked' the object, are not 'lost' but remain accumulated.
> 
-------------------------------------
Howard:
Sure. I agree. These markings or marked experiential traces that are 
accumulated (or passed along) are what *could* be called memories, or memory 
traces, or memory wisps, or some such thing. I don't know their exact nature but 
only think that such must exist, a point on which we seem to agree.
-----------------------------------
By a > 
> complicated process, the objects of these moments of consciousness can 
> be recollected.
> 
-----------------------------------
Howard:
Yes, some sort of more-or-less accurate reconstruction process - a 
sankharic fabricating that operates on the products of sa~n~na. 
-----------------------------------

> 
> Sorry, but I cannot be more specific than that.
> 
-----------------------------------
Howard:
Perhaps there is more detail somewhere in a book of the Abhidhamma or 
the commentaries.
=======================
With metta,
Howard


42634

From: Hugo <eklektik@g...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:07am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha said: That's how you should train yourselves

 	
Dear Sarah:

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:04:23 +0000 (GMT), sarah abbott
<sarahprocterabbott@y...> wrote:
> In case you should wonder, I am very sure that no one is ignoring your
> posts here, but few of us can keep up with you;-) {Tep, I probably reach
> about 5% average same day replies, so I think your average 80% is pretty
> remarkable!!).

I know, and I can only say the same, I think I am done for a while,
but I didn't want to let threads open so nobody feels I am ignoring
them, it is just that I had enough to "chew on", and I will get very
busy soon.


> ….
> > BTW, what do you mean with 'satipatthana'?
> ….
> S: Good questions. I do believe that as panna (rt. understanding)
> develops, there is a growing clarity about when there is direct awareness
> and what the objects of awareness are. This is the way that doubts about
> the path become less and are seen for what they are – more conditioned
> dhammas.
> 
> By satipatthana, I mean the direct awareness and understanding of dhammas
> (realities) which are presently appearing, such as seeing, visible object,
> hearing, sound, thinking, feeling and so on. When there is an idea of
> being aware of things, events, actions…..people and situations, its' a
> conceptual kind of awareness we refer to conventionally, but not
> satipatthana. Only the latter can lead to the eradication of any idea of
> self being aware.
> 
> Please ask anything further – these are good questions. Also, see
> 'Satipatthana' in Useful Posts in the files section.

Will I ever see anything different?

Your replies are always the same, keep pointing to something, it seems
to me that if you were trying to help a little kid learn to share you
will just keep telling him "sharing is good, sharing is good" withouth
ever talking to him in any different way, without "lowering" yourself
to his level of understanding, without showing him that same truth by
using other means that are available to him.

So, please understand that I am not saying you are right or wrong (how
could I know anyway), I am just saying that you (and others) just
repeating the same again and again doesn't help people like me who
"know the theory" but can't "practice it" (note the quotes).

I understand, pointing to the truth and repeating it is important to
keep us focused, but we have also to know our capabilities and
posibilities, and start from there.

I think that's one of the great qualities of The Buddha, he was able
to teach to all levels of understanding, and I think that's why he
used a lot of similes and conventional words.

I am thankful for your (and others) time and attention to my
questions, I have learned a lot in the process.

> If by 'written' you mean 'conditioned', then it's correct. If by 'written'
> you mean 'pre-determined', then it's wrong.

Ok.


> ….
> > Does ;-) means 'I agree', 'I disagree', 'I abstain' ?
> …
> S: Sometimes it just means I'm in a rush and can't pick up every point,
> but I'm having fun reading your comments none the less and there's nothing
> that stands out for me to madly object to!

But still, you didn't answer my question.


> S: The Buddha knew what was helpful and not helpful, what was right and
> what was wrong. But even the Buddha couldn't make anyone become
> enlightened or do anything. He taught that whatever arises, does so by
> conditions and that when we talk about going forth into homelessness and
> so on, these are mere conventional designations representing various
> dhammas which are not in anyone's control.

Yes, they are mere conventional designation, but should we go forth
into homelessness or not?

> > Title: Tipitaka
> > Table of Contents
> > 1) What did the Buddha taught.......... 1
> >
> > Chapter 1: What did the Buddha taught
> > The Buddha gave a lot of discourses, but never mind, all you have to
> > know is that everything is conditioned and you can't do nothing about
> > it (BTW, you think of "you" as if you exist but there is actually
> > no-self, but don't try to understand it because you won't, unless the
> > conditions for it arise and besides, there is no "you" who
> > understand).
> …
> S: Good Stuff!!;-);-)
> 
> Of course, for Sariputta (Upatissa) the Tipitaka (which he heard from the
> Elder Assaji) was even shorter:


Yes, which confirms that everybody "needs" something different, so
what's your point?, it just confirms the point I made.


> >
> > P.S. Don't even try to "make those conditions arise", you won't be
> > able to do it.
> …
> S: Quite right. Did the understanding about conditioned dhammas lead
> Sariputta to live a life of total non-action? Of course not. He became the
> Buddha's foremost disciple and never ceased listening, teaching and
> explaining the Tipitaka in full for those with a lot more dust in their
> eyes.

Huh?

You are talking about Sariputta AFTER he became enlightened, when I
said "make those conditions arise" is BEFORE.


> Simile of the Saw (Kakacupama Sutta) – yes, great. Training and
> understanding what is useful, but by conditions and lurking tendencies, we
> can still blurt out anytime with evil words….just sooo anatta.

I agree (and I have always agreed on that).

Ok, so now you say that training is good. Before you said it is
useless and that's the main reason this thread started and kept going.

So, if now you agree that training is good then we agree in everything
and we can close this thread.

Greetings,
-- 
Hugo
	
42635

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 3:08am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II)

 	
Hi, Jon -

In a message dated 2/23/05 8:18:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
jsabbott@n... writes:

> 
> Yes, I know that is what you say, but I think you are overlooking the 
> implication of the model you have described. You say that the 
> experienced sense-door dhamma ('felt hardness') is not the direct 
> experience of the impingement on the sense-door (in this case, on the 
> body-sense) from which it is somehow derived. Now, if the impingement 
> is not itself directly experienced, then it is inferred or assumed. And 
> what, according to your model, is it that impinges on the sense-door 
> (and from which the 'felt hardness' is derived)? Whatever that is, it 
> is not directly expereinced either.
> 
=====================
Here you make a very good point, Jon. You presume a realm of rupas and 
a realm of namas which get together at times. In your understanding, there is 
never a nama without an arammana, often rupic, with which I agree, but there 
are plenty of times at which there are rupas without any namas aware of them - 
unexperienced rupas. It is this later position that I say is unknowable, and 
I pay no attention to such unverifiable things. When I speak of a rupa, I mean 
a physical experience - a specific instance of content of consciousness. 
Rupas in my sense, by their very nature, never occur except as content of 
experience. Accordingly, my sense of "contact" is not that of separate, self-existent 
entities coming together. Instead it is the co-occurrence or co-arising of 
three conceptually-separated events: sense-door opening/activation, experiential 
content, awareness.

With metta,
Howard


42636

From: Tep Sastri <tepyawa@m...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:53am
Subject: [dsg] Re: Eight Conditions for the Arising of Panna

 	
Hi, Jon -

Your main point is :

> 
> For lay-follower and monk alike, the development of insight is 
> paramount, and supports the keeping of the respective sila,
> and the sila in turn supports the further development of insight.
>

I think it is perfection of Sila that come first (it is the qualification of 
Sotapanna) then the perfection of insight.understanding (Panna) that 
comes last (it is the qualification of the Arahat).

"For the stream-enterer is called 'perfected in the kind of virtue'; and 
likewise the once-returner. But the non-returner is called 'perfected in 
concentration'. And the Arahat is called 'perfected in understanding' 
(see A.i, 233). VM I, 14.


Warm regards,


Tep


========


--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott 
<jsabbott@n...> wrote:
> Hi, Tep
> 
> >Thank you much for pointing out that "this particular teaching need 
not 
> >be seen as limited to monks alone". Yes, I fully agree with you. 
(snipped)
> 
> Well I was not meaning to suggest that one was less or more than the 
> other, but to point to the fact that perfection in the Patimokha 
> requires highly developed insight, and this is the Patimokha that the 
> Buddha praised. He did not for example praise the homeless life 
lived 
> outside the dispensation (regardless of how 'well' a person was able 
to 
> live the ascetic's life).
> 
> For lay-follower and monk alike, the development of insight is 
> paramount, and supports the keeping of the respective sila, and the 
sila 
> in turn supports the further development of insight.
> 
> Thanks for sharing your views.
> 
> Jon
	
42637

From: buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 9:06am
Subject: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun

 	
Hi Sarah:

Sarah: Have I missed your points?

James: Yes. We are like two ships that passed in the night. ;-) 
First, in order for us to both be talking about the same thing I 
need to know about your opinions/beliefs regarding A. Mun (because, 
really, that is who this thread is about): Do you believe that A. 
Mun became an arahant? Why yes or no? Did you read the entire 
biography about A. Mun in order to form your opinion or did you form 
it some other way? What is the way you formed your opinion? Do you 
believe that the citta is annihilated at parinibbana?

I need to know this because we seem to be talking about two 
different things. A. Mun didn't say that the Buddha appeared before 
him, flesh and blood like Jesus from the grave, he said that it was 
a matter of citta communication.

Metta,
James
Ps. My condolences to your mother for the loss of her cat. It must 
be very difficult for her. Hopefully, with your dhamma advice, she 
will learn to accept the loss.
	
42638

From: Waters Illusion <artupayam@h...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 10:48am
Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Thread (249) / old kamma used up:Joop

 	
Indonesia is predominantly muslim, only about 2% (i think) are 
buddhist. However, Indonesia used to be a buddhist country...but 
when they traded with the middle easterners, Islam prevailed. The 
buddhism there is mostly Theravada.

I think you can live practically anywhere just as long as you do not 
impose your beliefs on other people. Here in Texas I get along fine 
with people and friends...of course when it comes to religion I just 
usually remain silent and speak only when they ask me questions 
about buddhism. But Houston is very diverse...there are actually 
lots of temples here like Vietnamese Temples, Sri Lankan, Thai, 
Mahayana, Ni Chi Ren, Dzogchen, Tantric, Tibetan...etc. I usually 
go to a Mahayana Temple for meditation and discussion, because 
that's the only place that have discussions in english. =)

I wrote an essay about my experience being a buddhist...it's 
supposedly to be published in Dec. 2005. It's called Bluejean 
Buddha Vol.2: Voices of Young Buddhists. If you want, I can send it 
to you...I'm not sure if it's ok to send attachments on this yahoo 
group? Sarah is that ok?

~Maya
	
42639

From: Hugo <eklektik@g...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 10:49am
Subject: Attaining release through discernment (pañña-vimutti)

 	
I am re-reading the little book: "Keeping the Breath in Mind" by Phra
Ajaan Lee Dhammadharo, and I found the following excerpt that I submit
just for your information:

<excerpt>
Some people believe that they don't have to practice centering the
mind, that they can attain release through discernment (pañña-vimutti)
by working at discernment alone. This simply isn't true. Both release
through discernment and release through stillness of mind
(ceto-vimutti) are based on centering the mind. They differ only in
degree. Like walking: Ordinarily, a person doesn't walk on one leg
alone. Whichever leg is heavier is simply a matter of personal habits
and traits.

Release through discernment begins by pondering various events and
aspects of the world until the mind slowly comes to rest and, once
it's still, gives rise intuitively to liberating insight
(vipassana-ñana): clear and true understanding in terms of the four
Noble Truths (ariya sacca). In release through stillness of mind,
though, there's not much pondering involved. The mind is simply forced
to be quiet until it attains the stage of fixed penetration. That's
where intuitive insight will arise, enabling it to see things for what
they are. This is release through stillness of mind: Concentration
comes first, discernment later.

A person with a wide-ranging knowledge of the texts -- well-versed in
their letter and meaning, capable of clearly and correctly explaining
various points of doctrine -- but with no inner center for the mind,
is like a pilot flying about in an airplane with a clear view of the
clouds and stars but no sense of where the landing strip is. He's
headed for trouble. If he flies higher, he'll run out of air. All he
can do is keep flying around until he runs out of fuel and comes
crashing down in the savage wilds.

Some people, even though they are highly educated, are no better than
savages in their behavior. This is because they've gotten carried
away, up in the clouds. Some people -- taken with what they feel to be
the high level of their own learning, ideas, and opinions -- won't
practice centering the mind because they feel it beneath them. They
think they deserve to go straight to release through discernment
instead. Actually, they're heading straight to disaster, like the
airplane pilot who has lost sight of the landing strip.

To practice centering the mind is to build a landing strip for
yourself. Then, when discernment comes, you'll be able to attain
release safely.

This is why we have to develop all three parts of the path -- virtue,
concentration, and discernment -- if we want to be complete in our
practice of the religion. Otherwise, how can we say that we know the
four Noble Truths? -- because the path, to qualify as the Noble Path,
has to be composed of virtue, concentration, and discernment. If we
don't develop it within ourselves, we can't know it. And if we don't
know, how can we let go?
</excerpt>

Complete book:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/inmind.html

-- 
Hugo
	
42640

From: Hugo <eklektik@g...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 10:53am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Eight Conditions for the Arising of Panna

 	
Hello Tep,

Just FYI:

Tep:
> I think it is perfection of Sila that come first (it is the qualification of
> Sotapanna) then the perfection of insight.understanding (Panna) that
> comes last (it is the qualification of the Arahat).
> 
> "For the stream-enterer is called 'perfected in the kind of virtue'; and
> likewise the once-returner. But the non-returner is called 'perfected in
> concentration'. And the Arahat is called 'perfected in understanding'
> (see A.i, 233). VM I, 14.

Ajahn Lee wrote:

"Virtue, the first part of the Path, and discernment, the last, aren't
especially difficult. But keeping the mind centered, which is the
middle part, takes some effort because it's a matter of forcing the
mind into shape. Admittedly, centering the mind, like placing bridge
pilings in the middle of a river, is something difficult to do. But
once the mind is firmly in place, it can be very useful in developing
virtue and discernment. Virtue is like placing pilings on the near
shore of the river; discernment, like placing them on the far shore.
But if the middle pilings -- a centered mind -- aren't firmly in
place, how will you ever be able to bridge the flood of suffering?"

Source:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/inmind.html

-- 
Hugo
	
42641

From: htootintnaing <htootintnaing@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:10am
Subject: [dsg] Re: Dialogue with Htoo 2

 	
Sarah wrote in message 42226:

Dear Htoo,

S: If you use this one example –usually, I'm sure. Still, for
many,
conditions for attachment too when they saw the Buddha. For a few,
conditions for aversion. Still, these akusala cittas may not be with 
the immediately following javana cittas (in that sense door and mind 
door vithi). Who knows?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo:

We are talking on ittharammana or 'agreeable object'. And the example 
is 'seeing the golden image of The Buddha'. This is for re-
introduction for others.

Well, you are right. I had already quoted the original Pali regarding 
this 'agreeable object' or 'ittharammana'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah continued:

In the texts when we read examples like this, they
're`generally 
speaking' conventional examples. It'll depend on kamma what
is seen 
(or not seen) at any given moment, including when looking at the 
Buddha.
…
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo:

True. But after that there follows many instants of events or cittas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S: IF it's bhavana, it's kusala…
…..
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: Sorry for not specifying. There are many who would see 'white 
circles'. But each will have different cittas depending on their 
vipaka and their tendency or accumulation. But when I said this, it 
is bhavana matter. So it is kusala.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S: I take it you're speaking conventionally without any idea of
self 
when you talk about this practitioner and what he avoids. I think 
there are a lot of Ifs here – if it is a pure mind, if there is
panna 
etc. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: I know what you pointed out of 'seeing just white circle' 
cannot be kusala. Actually I omitted these ifs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah continued:

You haven't said how the reflection on the object is a condition
for 
calm or kusala or for panna to arise. Later you suggest that because 
you focus on tihetuka citta (with 3 wholesome roots)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: No. I was not focusing on 'citta'. I was explaining with 
cittas. That is I explained with the help of different cittas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah continued:

and the object is a white kasina, then it is kusala and without 
lobha as in the poor golfer's case. Here it is:
….
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: It is hard. Let us see 'golfer Tiger Wood's mind when he was 
patting'.

Just before he striked there arose a mind to strike. That mind was a 
mixture if we explore into abhidhamma terms. So let us concentrate on 
javana cittas.

Again there are different javanas. Different golfers would have 
different javanas. Tiger may have lobha javanas. Or he may also have 
mahakusala javanas.

Why? It is not bhavana, it is not siila, and it is not daana. This 
just means that Tiger was not doing 'punnakiriya' or wholesome 
actions of kamma-patha things. But it may well be mahakusala javanas 
when he was patting.

One recent commentary explained that when it is not moha, dosa, and 
lobha, then it must be mahakusala javanas anyway.

Ordinary people like us may have 

1. akusala javana of 12 cittas.
2. kusala javana of 8 cittas.

We do not have hasituppada citta.

Miccha-samadhi is another thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
….
S: You haven't told me anything to suggest that it isn't
miccha-
samadhi when you `focus on tihetuka citta' or `white
kasina' either. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: I was explaining by using 'different cittas'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah:

In fact, I think Tiger's variety is less likely to be with the
wrong 
view of it being anything wise or noble or related to jhana.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: I know. But ditthi is only cleared in sotapanna.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
….
S: So, I think it's better not to bring in the scientists as I
don't
believe there is any correlation between the conventional kind of
intelligence associated with science and that associated with the
development of wisdom. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: OK. Let us put science away for a while. This issue arises 
because of tikkha and mandha.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah:

Think of the example you always give of Culapandika who couldn't 
remember a few lines, but who not only became an arahant, but
one with full patisambhidas as I recall. Devadatta, on the other hand,
must have been very clever and cunning conventionally speaking, with 
the greatest access to the Buddha, but not able to even listen to the
teachings.

Metta,

Sarah

p.s I liked your post on Devadatta and the Vinaya #41637. Also 
#41780 is a very good summary of your series to date with lots of 
helpful detail. If anyone has got lost, it's a useful one to
review.
======
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo:

This depends on individual accumulation or tendency. I am still busy.

With Metta,

Htoo Naing
	
42642

From: <TGrand458@a...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 6:24am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II)

 	
In a message dated 2/23/2005 8:14:22 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
upasaka@a... writes:
but there 
are plenty of times at which there are rupas without any namas aware of them 
- 
unexperienced rupas. It is this later position that I say is unknowable, and 
I pay no attention to such unverifiable things. When I speak of a rupa, I 
mean 
a physical experience - a specific instance of content of consciousness. 
Rupas in my sense, by their very nature, never occur except as content of 
experience. Accordingly, my sense of "contact" is not that of separate, 
self-existent 
entities coming together. Instead it is the co-occurrence or co-arising of 
three conceptually-separated events: sense-door opening/activation, 
experiential 
content, awareness.

With metta,
Howard

Hi Howard, (Jon)

Of course this is fine if you want to take this position Howard. But in 
reading the suttas, its quite obvious the Buddha is not talking about rupas in the 
fashion that you are limiting them to. The Buddha even talks about "physical 
states" of the past and future as part of his teachings. And teaches others 
to think in those terms as well. The Buddha clearly talks about rupas as if 
they are states that arise, change, and cease without necessarily being 
associated with consciousness.

This is not the exception or anything that needs subtle investigation. This 
is the general way things are presented in the Suttas. Clearly the Buddha had 
no problem with speaking about rupas as conditions independent of any 
association with consciousness. In fact, I can't think of any Suttas where the 
Buddha tries to make the point that you are ... that rupas are only relevant when 
in association with consciousness...or that they are only assumptions when not 
associated with consciousness.

The Buddha seemed quite intent that the mind should "see" the totality of 
conditions...that whatever arises and ceases, as impermanent...not just those 
that we experience.

I suspect you are probably kidding yourself if you truly think, that you 
think, that rupas are mere assumptions outside of experience. With that type of 
rigidity, I think anything you could experience would have to fall under the 
heading of assumption. For example, how could you experience impermanence since 
only the absolute present is available for consciousness to be aware of. You 
would not be able to experience the flow and change of states...since the 
past, that you no longer experience, is merely an assumption. Or, is it OK to 
assume 'the past,' that is not being experienced; but not to assume 'rupas,' 
that are not being experienced?

I guess you can have it only one way. Either everything is an assumption, 
except the absolute present which can be known but cannot be understood because 
understanding brings together inferential knowledge. Or everything can 
potentially be known because principles of conditionality, that are partly 
intellectual understanding (inference), are applicable to unexperienced phenomena with 
reasonable enough certainty to base important decisions (life and death 
decisions) on such knowledge. 

What you call assumption, I call inferential knowledge. An assumption is far 
more unreliable. Even though I am not directly experiencing it, I have 
inferential knowledge that things in Paris, France are also impermanent, and 
no-self. I consider that knowledge completely reliable. However, for you its an 
assumption? It must be since you can't make any conclusive statement outside of 
actual experience. For you, Paris, France is an assumption.

I would consider an assumption something far less reliable...for example, I 
would consider 'a guess' as to what someone else's understanding of the 
Buddha's teaching to be -- an assumption.

Got to keep the 'common sense' thing in perspective.

TG


42643

From: htootintnaing <htootintnaing@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:30am
Subject: Re: NEW dialogue with Htoo

 	
Dear Htoo,

#40844 DT (226)
You write: `Magga vithi vara is output of vipassana bhavana. It 
derivesfrom kamavacara mahakusala cittas. Sometime at early stages 
upacara samadhi or appana Samadhi help nivarana dhamma clear off the 
mind.'


I think you are ..snip..

In other words, it is a stage of purification (visuddhi) and cannot 
be attained by the mere development of upacara and appana Samadhi 
without the very high degree of insight of the anagami (regardless of 
whether he has attained jhanas prior to this realization or not). 
Comments most welcome.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: I wrote on the basis of the fact written in 
abhidhammatthasangaha by venerable anuruddha. If you want I may show 
you the Pali and its translation. You may be right. Because you are 
more knowledgeable and you have access to many resources.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah:

You went on to say about cittavisuddhi above;: `Because the
cittas at 
that time is totally free of nivarana dhammas which definitely hinder 
magga nana not to arise'. Again, I'd turn it all around and
say that 
there is citta visuddhi or calm from all sensuous attachment at this 
level of purification as a result of the highly developed insight and 
eradication (not just temporary suppression) of all attachment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: I know what you are referring. Mere jhanas are not citta-
visuddhi even though it is the exact cittas that are happening. 
Because the tendency are not the same. Citta-visuddhi is about the 
Path leading to magga nana while mere jhanas are all not leading to 
any magga nana.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah:

In the same post, when referring to the arising and passing away of
dhammas, you write:

`Shockingly they are disappearing all the time and they are not
long
lasting and they are frightening. Such frightening things are not to
attach and they are to be disregarded and blameworthy….'

It may just be language use, but I think it's important to stress
that
such a high level of insight is certainly not accompanied by 
any `shock'or `fear'. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: Exactly. This is usage matters. When I said 'shocking' this is 
not dosa. But such 'shocking' is part of very highly developed mind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah:

Understanding the danger or fearfulness of dhammas should be a
condition for calm and equanimity. It is a (deep) aspect of seeing 
them for what they are, like seeing the `foul',
`impermanence',
`unsatisfactoriness' etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: True.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah:

Talking of which (dangers and so on), briefly (because this is getting
long), I love your posts on the various realms. In some, such as 
#41342,

I'm not sure, however, if all the details you give can be found
in the
texts, such as about the hell stations, the hell-dogs, the razor 
trees,whips and hell-handlers & their methods. I'd be glad for
any 
sources. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: Example is in Rob M's ebook. But I took the ideas from 
Sanvegavatthudiipanii by kyee-the-lay-htat-sayadaw long time ago and 
not at hand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah:

I do have the Peta verses and commentary and of course many horrific 
details are given and it's quite a while since I've looked at
them, 
but some of this seemed new to me. Interested to be corrected by 
anyone here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo:

I omitted some 'niriya' called 'Lokantaritta niriya'. It is icy cold 
areas and it is between lokas. Hmmm hard to believe but there they 
are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah:

In the same post, you write about kamma –patha which can bring 
results in the way of rebirth consciousness and during life (pavatti).

You then write:

`Pavatti means `arising in dvara' or it is events that
arise during 
the life time except patisandhi kala or rebirth time. These effects 
are 

1.seeing etc.

This is the point we are discussing in another thread. If it is 
killing etc, the kamma can produce results by way of rebirth AND 
during life. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: Right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah:

If it is not killing etc, the kamma cannot produce an unhappy birth, 
but it can produce results during life if it is strong enough as I 
understand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: You are right. Ordinary akusala will not appear near dying :-). 
But the javana that arises near dying are all kamma patha things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah:

Just feeling mildly annoyed with someone or an insect would not 
qualify, but dreaming about killing someone or that poor insect just 
might! 

Metta,

Sarah

p.s I saw your note to me about conditions. I'm sure they're very 
good,but I just seem busy trying to keep up with what is posted here. 
Maybe if any parts or extracts are relevant to any discussions going 
one (eg lots being discussed about arammana paccaya at present), you 
can just choose relevant parts to join in threads. 
=======
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: I agree. Small things will not qualify for rebirth even when 
there is no garuka, asanna, acinna kamma.

I will regarding p.s.

With Metta,

Htoo Naing
	
42644

From: htootintnaing <htootintnaing@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:38am
Subject: [dsg] Re: Meditation - Pali terms

 	
Sara wrote in message 42230:

Dear Htoo,

I just looked without success for the posts where we were discussing
kamma. Never mind, I found this one of yours which I meant to reply 
to as well.

> --- htootintnaing <htootintnaing@y...> wrote: 
> have heard from someone 'repeatedly saying the importance of 
> > meditating'. I also think out in the same way as you mentioned 
as ...

S: So it's always good to look at the meanings of terms such as 
pariyatti,patipatti, pativedha, vipassana etc.
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: It is good idea to check frequently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
...
S: Well, mostly I don't think any of us really understand much about 
these terms - at least I don't, or just by book knowledge as friends 
would kindly remind me;-). So that's why we're here, to keep 
discussing and comparing notes, so that we understand better.

For this, I greatly appreciate your series too, Htoo, as you know.
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: The reason why I am here is the same. You know that once I 
wrote wrong things like pannatti is dhammayatana which is not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S: I'm glad Chris, Rob and other friends are happy to help. Certainly 
your DT series is usually very polished. I never mind the mistakes 
anyone makes- as you suggest, it's the essence that counts, though of 
course, errors or cultural norms can lead to misunderstandings 
occasionally. 
... 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: My posts may have some Myanmar taste. I admit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > I said these because there are many who believe that it is 
sensible 
> > to adapt and change some parts of teaching to accommodate own 
> > culture. I do not believe so. 
...
S: I agree with you.
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: We are talking on vinaya.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> In Myanmar Sayadaws teach in three 
> > methods regarding theory. One is in pure Pali and the second is 
in 
> > alternative Pali and Myanmar and the third is pure Myanmar.
> > 
> > They do not change Pali. But they may change pure Myanmar as 
> > languages are always moving and changing. Examples are 'bad 
words' 
> > become 'good words' and 'decent words' become 'bad words'.
....

S: This happens in all languages.

metta,

Sarah

p.s It helps so much to understand that it is the cittas themselves 
that count (whether with or without good intentions) which only panna 
can know.

Understanding more about dhammas does mean one is less concerned about
what others say or about praise and blame, I think. 

Of course, we're all bound to be affected to some degree, but we know 
that this is just lobha and dosa again;-). We see what good medicine 
abhidhamma
is.
======
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: Good to be here.

With Metta,

Htoo Naing
	
42645

From: htootintnaing <htootintnaing@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:40am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread (267)

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles DaCosta" 
<dacostas@P...> wrote:

Hi,

I had to point out something some what unrelated:

Is the body, or Form, a sequence of Mind states, or is Form just 
form? 

CharlesD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Charles D,

Form is just form and mind states are mind states. If they are 
separately seen then it is quite near to see realities.

With Metta,

Htoo Naing
	
42646

From: htootintnaing <htootintnaing@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:43am
Subject: Re: Buddha as object Dialogue with Htoo 2

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" <rjkjp1@y...> wrote:
> 
> --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" 
> <htootintnaing@y...> wrote:
> > 
> Sarah: My question before and still is, surely in normal 
conditions, 
> > agreeable objects are usually experienced with lobha (akusala 
> javana 
> > cittas) and not by kusala javana cittas???
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> ---
> > Htoo:
> > 
> > Dear Sarah, agreeable seems like attachment-loaded. Ittha-
arammana 
> of 
> > The Buddha images cause arising of kusala javana cittas. 
> =======
> Dear Sarah and Htoo,
> When we are talking about material object and when it is taken as a 
> highly regarded object: i.e. as arammana-purejatadhipatti (object 
> predominance condition).
> Then the conditioned consciousness is in fact always rooted in 
> lobha. It will not be kusala.
> Venerable U Narada MulaPatthana Sayadaw of Burma explains:
> In the Dh. Commentary, vol.III p.53 it is stated
> [ talks about when Buddha returned to earth down the jewelled 
> staircase 
---------------------
Dear Robert K,

I will come back later. You may be right. But I was just posting the 
facts in abhidhammatthasangaha which is just a concise text of all 
tipitaka.

With Metta,

Htoo Naing
	
42647

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 7:03am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II)

 	
Hi, TG (and Jon) -

In a message dated 2/23/05 2:34:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
TGrand458@a... writes:

> Hi Howard, (Jon)
> 
> Of course this is fine if you want to take this position Howard. But in 
> reading the suttas, its quite obvious the Buddha is not talking about rupas 
> in the 
> fashion that you are limiting them to. The Buddha even talks about 
> "physical 
> states" of the past and future as part of his teachings.
> 
-------------------------------
Howard:
I also talk of "physical states" of the past and future.
-------------------------------
And teaches others > 
> to think in those terms as well. The Buddha clearly talks about rupas as if 
> 
> they are states that arise, change, and cease without necessarily being 
> associated with consciousness.
------------------------------
Howard:
The Buddha also talks about persons and selves. The Buddha used 
figurative language all the time. But there are also teachings that have led many to 
see a phenomenalism in his Dhamma. 
-------------------------------

> 
> This is not the exception or anything that needs subtle investigation. This 
> 
> is the general way things are presented in the Suttas. Clearly the Buddha 
> had 
> no problem with speaking about rupas as conditions independent of any 
> association with consciousness. In fact, I can't think of any Suttas where 
> the 
> Buddha tries to make the point that you are ... that rupas are only relevant 
> when 
> in association with consciousness...or that they are only assumptions when 
> not 
> associated with consciousness.

--------------------------------------
Howard:
I think the Sabba Sutta is a clear presentation of phenomenalism. Of 
course, it could be otherwise interpreted. I recognize that. I think the Bahiya 
Sutta is another than can be understood as presenting a phenomenalist 
perspective. I see it as presenting the object as *mere* object. (Please see 
Kalupahana in this regard.)
--------------------------------------

> 
> The Buddha seemed quite intent that the mind should "see" the totality of 
> conditions...that whatever arises and ceases, as impermanent...not just 
> those 
> that we experience.
> 
> I suspect you are probably kidding yourself if you truly think, that you 
> think, that rupas are mere assumptions outside of experience. With that 
> type of 
> rigidity, I think anything you could experience would have to fall under the 
> 
> heading of assumption.
> 
--------------------------------------
Howard:
I say that experiential hardness (a hardness sensation) is a known 
reality. I say that a hardness event that is unexperienced or that is external 
basis for experiential hardness, is a presumption, an unverifiable (and 
unfalsifiable) assumption. I then pragmatically apply Occam's Razor, but I don't 
insist that it *must* be applied.
------------------------------------- 

For example, how could you experience impermanence since > 
> only the absolute present is available for consciousness to be aware of. 
> 
------------------------------------
Howard:
I am aware of cessations. I also recall that something was occurring, 
and that it is currently not occurring. 
------------------------------------
You > 
> would not be able to experience the flow and change of states...since the 
> past, that you no longer experience, is merely an assumption. Or, is it OK 
> to 
> assume 'the past,' that is not being experienced; but not to assume 'rupas,' 
> 
> that are not being experienced?
> 
-----------------------------------
Howard:
I don't follow you. Cessations of experiences are observed. Also, I 
don't deny memory.
----------------------------------



> 
> I guess you can have it only one way. Either everything is an assumption, 
> except the absolute present which can be known but cannot be understood 
> because 
> understanding brings together inferential knowledge. Or everything can 
> potentially be known because principles of conditionality, that are partly 
> intellectual understanding (inference), are applicable to unexperienced 
> phenomena with 
> reasonable enough certainty to base important decisions (life and death 
> decisions) on such knowledge. 
> 
> What you call assumption, I call inferential knowledge. An assumption is 
> far 
> more unreliable. Even though I am not directly experiencing it, I have 
> inferential knowledge that things in Paris, France are also impermanent, and 
> 
> no-self. I consider that knowledge completely reliable. However, for you 
> its an 
> assumption? It must be since you can't make any conclusive statement 
> outside of 
> actual experience. For you, Paris, France is an assumption.
> 
-------------------------------------
Howard:
I would more likely call it a concept! ;-))
-------------------------------------

> 
> I would consider an assumption something far less reliable...for example, I 
> would consider 'a guess' as to what someone else's understanding of the 
> Buddha's teaching to be -- an assumption.
> 
> Got to keep the 'common sense' thing in perspective.
> 
> 
========================
Look, TG, I could be wrong. Okay? You could be right. So what? ;-) 

With metta,
Howard


42648

From: Christine Forsyth <cforsyth1@b...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 0:27pm
Subject: Could this be dukkha?

 	
Hello all,

We have a vulgar expression here for one who is seeing the whole
world as unpleasant, and dragging others into the whirlpool of
depression and irritation - "misery-guts". Beware! - that's me,
at the moment. Maybe I shouldn't get out of bed today .. too late,
I already have. Do you know how long a night is when you have a
head cold and no matter which side you lie on your breathing is
blocked, the temperature is 72 F at 3.00 a.m. and the aircon died
weeks ago, and the fan fell over during the night and killed itself,
and the dog has eaten the neighbours sitting hen (several days ago,
by the smell of his breath), and the bush rats are thundering around
in the ceiling, and mosquitos have bitten me all over all night and
the sheets are soaked in sweat? I have to go to work with a head
cold and one hours sleep - and our Head of State is doubling our
military presence in Iraq, and the Interest rates are going up as
well, after he won an election a few months ago by promising neither
would happen under his management. Thought a nice cup of tea would
improve things .. just discovered I've run out of milk. Could this
be dukkha? Why me??!!?

Have a nice day.

Chris
	
42649

From: Bhikkhu Samahita <bhikkhu_ekamuni@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 6:12am
Subject: Today is Magha Puja

 	
Friends:

Patient forbearance is the supreme praxis.
Nibbana is the supreme state.
He who harms is no bhikkhu.
He who abuses is no recluse.
So all Buddhas say.

Not doing any evil,
Doing only what's advantagoues,
Purification of the mind:
So all Buddhas teach.

Neither disparaging nor injuring,
Controlled by the code,
Moderated in eating,
Dwelling in seclusion,
Commited to higher mentality.
So do all Buddhas instruct.

May many benefit from this days praxis.

Check
http://www.dhammatimes.com/
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/everyone.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/uposatha.html#magha
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/misc/chanting/reflections.html#ovada

: - ]



=====
Friendship is the Greatest! 

Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka
	
42650

From: <TGrand458@a...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 10:01am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II)

 	
Hi Howard (and Jon)

In a message dated 2/23/2005 12:15:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
upasaka@a... writes:
Hi, TG (and Jon) -

In a message dated 2/23/05 2:34:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
TGrand458@a... writes:

> Hi Howard, (Jon)
> 
> Of course this is fine if you want to take this position Howard. But in 
> reading the suttas, its quite obvious the Buddha is not talking about rupas 
> in the 
> fashion that you are limiting them to. The Buddha even talks about 
> "physical 
> states" of the past and future as part of his teachings.
> 
-------------------------------
Howard:
I also talk of "physical states" of the past and future
-------------------------------
And teaches others > 
> to think in those terms as well. The Buddha clearly talks about rupas as 
if 
> 
> they are states that arise, change, and cease without necessarily being 
> associated with consciousness.
------------------------------
Howard:
The Buddha also talks about persons and selves. The Buddha used 
figurative language all the time. But there are also teachings that have led 
many to 
see a phenomenalism in his Dhamma. 
-------------------------------

TG: That's right. But when the Buddha speaks about persons, he is not 
"depositing a self." He is speaking with common sense and by person he means a 
system composed various conditions. 

I don't have a problem with the idea that aspects of the Buddha's teaching 
are phenomenological. But no more so than they are scientific, psychological, 
or religious. Focussing too heavily in any one of these directions will not 
lead to a full understanding of the Buddha's teaching, but will rather lead to a 
lack of understanding regarding the other aspects IMO. They all need to be 
incorporated pretty evenly. The Buddha's teaching is perhaps actually none of 
these things, and yet it has aspects of all four that are amalgamated into a 
single whole.


> 
> This is not the exception or anything that needs subtle investigation. 
This 
> 
> is the general way things are presented in the Suttas. Clearly the Buddha 
> had 
> no problem with speaking about rupas as conditions independent of any 
> association with consciousness. In fact, I can't think of any Suttas where 
> the 
> Buddha tries to make the point that you are ... that rupas are only 
relevant 
> when 
> in association with consciousness...or that they are only assumptions when 
> not 
> associated with consciousness.

--------------------------------------
Howard:
I think the Sabba Sutta is a clear presentation of phenomenalism. Of 
course, it could be otherwise interpreted. I recognize that. I think the 
Bahiya 
Sutta is another than can be understood as presenting a phenomenalist 
perspective. I see it as presenting the object as *mere* object. (Please see 
Kalupahana in this regard.)
--------------------------------------
TG: Glad you could find 2 Suttas that seem phenomenological. ;-) I guess 
that means there's like ... 5,000 that aren't. ;-)

I've seen enough from Kalupahana to know that anyone following his reasoning 
is in big trouble!!!



> 
> The Buddha seemed quite intent that the mind should "see" the totality of 
> conditions...that whatever arises and ceases, as impermanent...not just 
> those 
> that we experience.
> 
> I suspect you are probably kidding yourself if you truly think, that you 
> think, that rupas are mere assumptions outside of experience. With that 
> type of 
> rigidity, I think anything you could experience would have to fall under 
the 
> 
> heading of assumption.
> 
--------------------------------------
Howard:
I say that experiential hardness (a hardness sensation) is a known 
reality. I say that a hardness event that is unexperienced or that is 
external 
basis for experiential hardness, is a presumption, an unverifiable (and 
unfalsifiable) assumption. I then pragmatically apply Occam's Razor, but I 
don't 
insist that it *must* be applied.
------------------------------------- 
TG: I believe the Buddha considers the Four Great Elements as "actualities 
of nature" that may also arise as "structures of experience." I think the 
Buddha believes that the Four Great Elements structure conditions whether we are 
aware of it or not. I don't see him issuing any "probablies" about it.



For example, how could you experience impermanence since > 
> only the absolute present is available for consciousness to be aware of. 
> 
------------------------------------
Howard:
I am aware of cessations. I also recall that something was occurring, 
and that it is currently not occurring. 
------------------------------------
TG: Analyzed from your perspective, you are not aware of cessations ... 
unless you want to violate DO principles. "This not being, that is not." 

What you are aware of is new states that have arisen. The "cessations" are 
something you are "assuming" (by your own criteria.) As you are not 
experiencing what has ceased, how could you be aware of it? 

The mind has to reflectively analyze to be aware of impermanence. When new 
states arise, the mind knows reflectively that things have changed. Even an 
Arahat, whose feelings and perceptions have ceased, only knows this upon 
reflection after emerging from cessation.


You > 
> would not be able to experience the flow and change of states...since the 
> past, that you no longer experience, is merely an assumption. Or, is it OK 
> to 
> assume 'the past,' that is not being experienced; but not to assume 
'rupas,' 
> 
> that are not being experienced?
> 
-----------------------------------
Howard:
I don't follow you. Cessations of experiences are observed. Also, I 
don't deny memory.
----------------------------------

TG: As above. But don't you see the conflict of what you're saying... 
"cessations of experiences are observed?" I much rather believe the Four Great 
Elements exist outside of experience than be saying that "no experience is 
experienced." That's a very bizarre notion from my point of view.




> 
> I guess you can have it only one way. Either everything is an assumption, 
> except the absolute present which can be known but cannot be understood 
> because 
> understanding brings together inferential knowledge. Or everything can 
> potentially be known because principles of conditionality, that are partly 
> intellectual understanding (inference), are applicable to unexperienced 
> phenomena with 
> reasonable enough certainty to base important decisions (life and death 
> decisions) on such knowledge. 
> 
> What you call assumption, I call inferential knowledge. An assumption is 
> far 
> more unreliable. Even though I am not directly experiencing it, I have 
> inferential knowledge that things in Paris, France are also impermanent, 
and 
> 
> no-self. I consider that knowledge completely reliable. However, for you 
> its an 
> assumption? It must be since you can't make any conclusive statement 
> outside of 
> actual experience. For you, Paris, France is an assumption.
> 
-------------------------------------
Howard:
I would more likely call it a concept! ;-))
-------------------------------------

TG: That's a change of topic. But, if you ever fly there, hope the 
"concept" has some runways for you to land on. ;-)


> 
> I would consider an assumption something far less reliable...for example, I 
> would consider 'a guess' as to what someone else's understanding of the 
> Buddha's teaching to be -- an assumption.
> 
> Got to keep the 'common sense' thing in perspective.
> 
> 
========================
Look, TG, I could be wrong. Okay? You could be right. So what? ;-) 
TG: So what? So what are we posting and exchanging ideas for? Why do we 
belong to these groups? Maybe to hone and refine our ideas so that we have a 
better aim at the target.



With metta,
Howard
TG



42651

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:36am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II)

 	
Hi, TG -

In a message dated 2/23/05 6:06:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
TGrand458@a... writes:

> TG: Glad you could find 2 Suttas that seem phenomenological. ;-) I guess 
> 
> that means there's like ... 5,000 that aren't. ;-)
> 
> 
=====================
Many of the suttas just don't particularly make that point. The Sabba 
Sutta, to *me*, is a crystal-clear presentation of a phenomenalist-pragmatist 
position.

With metta,
Howard


42652

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:51am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II)

 	
Hi, TG -

In a message dated 2/23/05 6:06:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
TGrand458@a... writes:

> Howard:
> I am aware of cessations. I also recall that something was occurring, 
> and that it is currently not occurring. 
> ------------------------------------
> TG: Analyzed from your perspective, you are not aware of cessations ... 
> unless you want to violate DO principles. "This not being, that is not." 
> 
-----------------------------------
Howard:
I don't follow you. I am aware of ceasings.
------------------------------------

> 
> What you are aware of is new states that have arisen. 
> 
------------------------------------
Howard:
The Buddha actually instructed his followers to attend to beginnings 
and endings as part of vipassana bhavana.
-----------------------------------
The "cessations" are > 
> something you are "assuming" (by your own criteria.) As you are not 
> experiencing what has ceased, how could you be aware of it? 
--------------------------------------
Howard:
I am aware of cessations. 
--------------------------------------

> 
> The mind has to reflectively analyze to be aware of impermanence.
> 
-------------------------------------
Howard:
That's a different matter - after-the-fact conceptualization.
-------------------------------------

When new > 
> states arise, the mind knows reflectively that things have changed. Even an 
> 
> Arahat, whose feelings and perceptions have ceased, only knows this upon 
> reflection after emerging from cessation.
> 
> 
> You >
> >would not be able to experience the flow and change of states...since the 
> >past, that you no longer experience, is merely an assumption. Or, is it OK 
> 
> >to 
> >assume 'the past,' that is not being experienced; but not to assume 
> 'rupas,' 
> >
> >that are not being experienced?
> >
> -----------------------------------
> Howard:
> I don't follow you. Cessations of experiences are observed. Also, I 
> don't deny memory.
> ----------------------------------
> 
> TG: As above. But don't you see the conflict of what you're saying... 
> "cessations of experiences are observed?" 
> 
---------------------------------------
Howard:
No, I see no conflict. I would be conflicted if I thought I did not 
observe what I do observe.
----------------------------------------
I much rather believe the Four Great > 
> Elements exist outside of experience than be saying that "no experience is 
> experienced."
> 
---------------------------------------
Howard:
First of all, I didn't say that absences are observed. I said 
cessations are. And I am aware of cessations. (I'll leave absences in abeyance.)
--------------------------------------
That's a very bizarre notion from my point of view.> 
> 
> 
--------------------------------------
Howard:
Okay. :-) Years ago a Buddhist-list friend who called himself "Tom 
Bombadil" liked to call me "How-weird"!! You remind me of him at times. (I liked 
him!)
------------------------------------

> 
> 
> >
> >I guess you can have it only one way. Either everything is an assumption, 
> >except the absolute present which can be known but cannot be understood 
> >because 
> >understanding brings together inferential knowledge. Or everything can 
> >potentially be known because principles of conditionality, that are partly 
> >intellectual understanding (inference), are applicable to unexperienced 
> >phenomena with 
> >reasonable enough certainty to base important decisions (life and death 
> >decisions) on such knowledge. 
> >
> >What you call assumption, I call inferential knowledge. An assumption is 
> >far 
> >more unreliable. Even though I am not directly experiencing it, I have 
> >inferential knowledge that things in Paris, France are also impermanent, 
> and 
> >
> >no-self. I consider that knowledge completely reliable. However, for you 
> >its an 
> >assumption? It must be since you can't make any conclusive statement 
> >outside of 
> >actual experience. For you, Paris, France is an assumption.
> >
> -------------------------------------
> Howard:
> I would more likely call it a concept! ;-))
> -------------------------------------
> 
> TG: That's a change of topic. But, if you ever fly there, hope the 
> "concept" has some runways for you to land on. ;-)
> 
> 
> >
> >I would consider an assumption something far less reliable...for example, I 
> 
> >would consider 'a guess' as to what someone else's understanding of the 
> >Buddha's teaching to be -- an assumption.
> >
> >Got to keep the 'common sense' thing in perspective.
> >
> >
> ========================
> Look, TG, I could be wrong. Okay? You could be right. So what? ;-) 
> TG: So what? So what are we posting and exchanging ideas for? Why do we 
> belong to these groups? Maybe to hone and refine our ideas so that we have 
> a 
> better aim at the target.
> 
---------------------------------
Howard:
That's not my point. My point is that these are just beliefs, just 
views. They can be discussed, and it is certainly useful to do so, but there is 
no need for either of us to be "right". That's all.
--------------------------------


> 
> 
> 
> With metta,
> Howard
> TG
> 
====================
With metta,
Howard



42653

From: Tep Sastri <tepyawa@m...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 5:33pm
Subject: Re: Attaining release through discernment (pañña-vimutti)

 	
Hi Hugo and Jon -

I like the last paragraph of Hugo's excerpt from Phra Ajaan Lee 
Dhammadharo's article (Phra Ajaan Lee was Thanissaro Bhikkhu's 
dhamma teacher's dhamma teacher). It shows that virtue is the first 
point on the path and that you cannot start at the last point 
(discernment) and stay there, hoping that the other two (virtue and 
concentration) will be taken cared of because your "right 
understanding" will pull them along, and whole path will be perfected. 
The point is : how could the right understanding be developed without 
the other two as its support? Can anyone find a sutta or two that 
contradict to Phra Ajaan Lee's point?

"This is why we have to develop all three parts of the path -- virtue,
concentration, and discernment -- if we want to be complete in our
practice of the religion. Otherwise, how can we say that we know the
four Noble Truths? -- because the path, to qualify as the Noble Path,
has to be composed of virtue, concentration, and discernment. If we
don't develop it within ourselves, we can't know it. And if we don't
know, how can we let go?" [endquote]

Warm regards,


Tep

May your persistence be aroused and not lax; your mindfulness 
established and not confused; your body calm and not aroused;
your mind centered and unified.

=====
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo <eklektik@g...> 
wrote:
> I am re-reading the little book: "Keeping the Breath in Mind" by Phra
> Ajaan Lee Dhammadharo, and I found the following excerpt that I 
submit
> just for your information:
> 
> <excerpt>
> Some people believe that they don't have to practice centering the
> mind, that they can attain release through discernment (pañña-vimutti)
> by working at discernment alone. This simply isn't true. Both release
> through discernment and release through stillness of mind
> (ceto-vimutti) are based on centering the mind. They differ only in
> degree. Like walking: Ordinarily, a person doesn't walk on one leg
> alone. Whichever leg is heavier is simply a matter of personal habits
> and traits.
> 
> Release through discernment begins by pondering various events 
and
> aspects of the world until the mind slowly comes to rest and, once
> it's still, gives rise intuitively to liberating insight
> (vipassana-ñana): clear and true understanding in terms of the four
> Noble Truths (ariya sacca). In release through stillness of mind,
> though, there's not much pondering involved. The mind is simply 
forced
> to be quiet until it attains the stage of fixed penetration. That's
> where intuitive insight will arise, enabling it to see things for what
> they are. This is release through stillness of mind: Concentration
> comes first, discernment later.
> 
> A person with a wide-ranging knowledge of the texts -- well-versed in
> their letter and meaning, capable of clearly and correctly explaining
> various points of doctrine -- but with no inner center for the mind,
> is like a pilot flying about in an airplane with a clear view of the
> clouds and stars but no sense of where the landing strip is. He's
> headed for trouble. If he flies higher, he'll run out of air. All he
> can do is keep flying around until he runs out of fuel and comes
> crashing down in the savage wilds.
> 
> Some people, even though they are highly educated, are no better 
than
> savages in their behavior. This is because they've gotten carried
> away, up in the clouds. Some people -- taken with what they feel to be
> the high level of their own learning, ideas, and opinions -- won't
> practice centering the mind because they feel it beneath them. They
> think they deserve to go straight to release through discernment
> instead. Actually, they're heading straight to disaster, like the
> airplane pilot who has lost sight of the landing strip.
> 
> To practice centering the mind is to build a landing strip for
> yourself. Then, when discernment comes, you'll be able to attain
> release safely.
> 
> This is why we have to develop all three parts of the path -- virtue,
> concentration, and discernment -- if we want to be complete in our
> practice of the religion. Otherwise, how can we say that we know the
> four Noble Truths? -- because the path, to qualify as the Noble Path,
> has to be composed of virtue, concentration, and discernment. If we
> don't develop it within ourselves, we can't know it. And if we don't
> know, how can we let go?
> </excerpt>
> 
> Complete book:
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/inmind.html
> 
> -- 
> Hugo


42655

From: Tep Sastri <tepyawa@m...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 6:21pm
Subject: [dsg] Re: Eight Conditions for the Arising of Panna

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo <eklektik@g...>
wrote:
> Hello Tep,
>
> Just FYI:
>
> Tep:
> > I think it is perfection of Sila that come first (it is the qualification of
> > Sotapanna) then the perfection of insight.understanding (Panna) that
> > comes last (it is the qualification of the Arahat).
> >
> > "For the stream-enterer is called 'perfected in the kind of virtue'; and
> > likewise the once-returner. But the non-returner is called
>> 'perfected in concentration'. And the Arahat is called
> > 'perfected in understanding' (see A.i, 233). VM I, 14.
>
> Ajahn Lee wrote:
>
> "Virtue, the first part of the Path, and discernment, the last, aren't
> especially difficult. But keeping the mind centered, which is the
> middle part, takes some effort because it's a matter of forcing the
> mind into shape. Admittedly, centering the mind, like placing bridge
> pilings in the middle of a river, is something difficult to do. But
> once the mind is firmly in place, it can be very useful in developing
> virtue and discernment. Virtue is like placing pilings on the near
> shore of the river; discernment, like placing them on the far shore.
> But if the middle pilings -- a centered mind -- aren't firmly in
> place, how will you ever be able to bridge the flood of suffering?"
>
> Source:
> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/lee/inmind.html
>
> --
> Hugo

------------------------------------


Hi Hugo -

So Phra Ajaan Lee's emphasis was on the "middle part" of the Sila-
Samadhi-Panna path: "Admittedly, centering the mind, like placing
bridge pilings in the middle of a river, is something difficult to do. But
once the mind is firmly in place, it can be very useful in developing
virtue and discernment".

Did he mean the training in concentration should be fully developed
first (completing the pilings in the middle of the river), even when virtue
and discernment are still very weak(no pilings have been placed on
the near shore or the far shore)? Does it imply that lokuttara samadhi is
possible without strong support of both sila and panna? If you
answered 'yes' twice, then isn't that the same as saying we could
become non-returners without first becomeing stream-enterers and 
once-returner?

Kindest regards,


Tep


=====
P.S. Please ignore the old message # 42654. It contains a serious typo.
Thanks.
	
42656

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 2:41pm
Subject: Commnets on the Sabba Sutta/TG & Jon

 	
Hi, all -


Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.23



Sabba Sutta



The All

Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
For free distribution only. 
"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will 
speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. 

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, 
nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & 
ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this 
All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the 
grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be 
put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." 
=========================
My comments follow:

Note that not included in "the all" are aany of those conventional 
objects that seem to populate our world such tables, streets, schools, children, 
cars, theatres, and mushrooms. Consider the two categories of visual forms and 
flavors. Like all conditioned dhammas, these rupas arise briefly and then 
cease. Question: Where do they arise and cease? Where are visual forms? In the 
"world out there"? The "world out there" is not part of "the all"? Where are 
flavors? In foodssuch as beer and beef and tostitos? They are not part of "the 
all" either. Visual forms/sights and flavors/tastes exist *only* as experiences. 
They cannot subsist in "things", because there are no "things" within "the 
all". There is only what the Buddha laid out.
Some folks - I think that Jon may be one - believe that visual forms 
are in a realm of visual forms, and flavors are in a realm of flavors. I call 
these realms, taken together, the Realm of Lost Rupas. TG, do you buy into the 
Realm of Lost Rupas? And if not, then do you believe there literally exists a 
realm (the external world) of foods and flowers and trees which have 
characteristics of flavors and odors and visual forms? Then why did not the Buddha 
include foods and flowers and trees within the all? 
What the Buddha does in this sutta, as I see it, is lay out all 
possible experiences: forms via sense of sight, sounds via sense of hearing, flavors 
via sense of taste, tactile sensations via bodysense, and mind objects via 
mindsense. And he says that these experiences and their experiencing constitute 
all that can be said to exist, because any other "all" is "beyond range" - 
that is to say, "in principle unknowable".

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)   



42657

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:51pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Commnets on the Sabba Sutta/TG & Jon

 	
Hi Howard,

Apparently 'spellcheck' isn't part of the all either ;-)

One question, do you experience the eye?

Larry
	

42658

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 4:03pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Commnets on the Sabba Sutta/TG & Jon

 	
Hi, Larry -

In a message dated 2/23/05 11:53:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... 
writes:

> Hi Howard,
> 
> Apparently 'spellcheck' isn't part of the all either ;-)
-------------------------------------
Howard:
I'll have you know that COMMNET is an internet provider!! ;-))
--------------------------------------


> 
> One question, do you experience the eye?
> 
---------------------------------------
Howard:
Yes. Please refer to the conversation about locational rupas I had 
with Robert K. He actually made it clear to me how the eye can be understood to 
be a paramattha dhamma, and not pa~n~natti.
---------------------------------------

> 
> 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)  



42659

From: <TGrand458@a...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 5:32pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Commnets on the Sabba Sutta/TG & Jon

 	
Hi Howard

In a message dated 2/23/2005 7:50:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
upasaka@a... writes:
The All

Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
For free distribution only. 
"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will 
speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. 

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, 
nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & 
ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating 
this 
All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the 
grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would 
be 
put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." 
=========================
My comments follow:

Note that not included in "the all" are aany of those conventional 
objects that seem to populate our world such tables, streets, schools, 
children, 
cars, theatres, and mushrooms. Consider the two categories of visual forms 
and 
flavors. Like all conditioned dhammas, these rupas arise briefly and then 
cease. Question: Where do they arise and cease? Where are visual forms? In 
the 
"world out there"? The "world out there" is not part of "the all"? Where are 
flavors? In foodssuch as beer and beef and tostitos? They are not part of 
"the 
all" either. Visual forms/sights and flavors/tastes exist *only* as 
experiences. 
They cannot subsist in "things", because there are no "things" within "the 
all". There is only what the Buddha laid out.
Some folks - I think that Jon may be one - believe that visual forms 
are in a realm of visual forms, and flavors are in a realm of flavors. I call 
these realms, taken together, the Realm of Lost Rupas. TG, do you buy into 
the 
Realm of Lost Rupas? And if not, then do you believe there literally exists a 
realm (the external world) of foods and flowers and trees which have 
characteristics of flavors and odors and visual forms? Then why did not the 
Buddha 
include foods and flowers and trees within the all? 
What the Buddha does in this sutta, as I see it, is lay out all 
possible experiences: forms via sense of sight, sounds via sense of hearing, 
flavors 
via sense of taste, tactile sensations via bodysense, and mind objects via 
mindsense. And he says that these experiences and their experiencing 
constitute 
all that can be said to exist, because any other "all" is "beyond range" - 
that is to say, "in principle unknowable".

With metta,
Howard

TG: Since I interpret it totally differently, your questions to me don't 
apply. I believe The All includes all the things that you believe it doesn't 
include. Disregarding the notion of concepts...and taking the things you mention 
-- tables, streets, schools, children, 
cars, theatres, and mushrooms & foods and flowers and trees. These things 
are certainly part of The All. They are part of The All as Tactile-objects, 
Olfactory-objects, Gustatory-objects, Mind-objects, etc. These are also all 
things composed of the Four Great Elements. The All includes everything "within 
the realm of experience."

Since I believe you have mis-interpreted what The All is, I believe your 
conclusions and method are flawed.

The types of things you are excluding from The All, are things the Buddha 
talks about often with no reservation. Seems to me the Buddha would at least 
understand his own teaching!

The Sutta you use to rely on as a base your phenomenological approach to me 
presents zero percent evidence of your conclusions. Compare it to the Suttas 
where the Buddha says that consciousness arises in dependence on eye and form. 
He does not say that eye and form arise in dependence of consciousness. Eye 
and forms can "exist separately" outside of the relationship with 
consciousness. After all, the eye does not simply disappear when one pays attention to 
sounds. And neither do external objects. They exist "outside of experience" 
and I believe the Sutta below proves that you are mis-interpreting The All Sutta.

Note that eye and forms, etc., form a basis for consciousness and are not 
merely relevant when conjoined with consciousness.

“Monks, consciousness comes to be in dependence on a dyad. And how, 
monks, does consciousness come to be in dependence on a dyad? In dependence on 
eye and forms there arises eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, 
changing, becoming otherwise; forms are impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. 
Thus this dyad is moving and tottering, impermanent, changing, becoming 
otherwise.
“Eye-consciousness is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. The 
cause and condition for the arising of eye-consciousness is also impermanent, 
changing, becoming otherwise. When, monks, eye-consciousness has arisen in 
dependence on a condition that is impermanent, how could it be permanent?
“The meeting, the encounter, the occurrence of these three things is 
called eye-contact. Eye-contact too is impermanent, changing, becoming 
otherwise. The cause and condition for the arising of eye-contact is also impermanent, 
changing, becoming otherwise. When, monks, eye-contact has arisen in 
dependence on a condition that is impermanent, how could it be permanent?
“Contacted, monks, one feels, contacted one intends, contacted one 
perceives. Thus these things too are moving and tottering, impermanent, changing, 
becoming otherwise.
[The Buddha proceeds to analyze the ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, 
tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness in the same 
manner and finishes with...]
“It is in such a way, monks, that consciousness comes to be in 
dependence on a dyad.�
(The Buddha . . . Connected Discourses of the Buddha, vol. 2, pg. 1172)

TG


42660

From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 10:33pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha said: That's how you should train yourselves

 	
Dear Hugo,

--- Hugo <eklektik@g...> wrote: 
<…>
> Will I ever see anything different?
…
S: If it’s any comfort at all, let me assure you that many others here
have gone through the frustrations (and more) that you’re going through as
you listen to the ‘stuck record’, to give a very old-fashioned simile. 
….
> Your replies are always the same, keep pointing to something, it seems
> to me that if you were trying to help a little kid learn to share you
> will just keep telling him "sharing is good, sharing is good" withouth
> ever talking to him in any different way, without "lowering" yourself
> to his level of understanding, without showing him that same truth by
> using other means that are available to him.
….
S: As Sukin said, once you get it, we’ll be able to leave the task of
explanation to you with your rich repertoire of language!

Meanhwile, let me use some simple language which seemed to help another
friend when we met.

Can I assume that you accept that there really is only the present moment
and only the present dhammas (realities) can be known? If yes, then if
there is frustration or confusion right now, is this by choice or
training? Of course not. Can there be awareness of this state right now?
Yes. 

That’s all there is to it. Different namas and rupas arise and fall by
their own conditions, not by choice or will. Awareness can be aware at
this present moment, but not at any other. It can only be aware of
whichever nama or rupa ‘presents’ itself or ‘appears’ right now. It will
never be the dhamma of choice. But that frustration of whatever it is at
this moment, can be known.

It sounds simple, but it’s not because the idea of self is so tenacious
and always wants to intervene when there is any thought of practice,
method or results.
….
> 
> So, please understand that I am not saying you are right or wrong (how
> could I know anyway), I am just saying that you (and others) just
> repeating the same again and again doesn't help people like me who
> "know the theory" but can't "practice it" (note the quotes).
….
S: I think we all need to listen to and consider the theory (pariyatti) a
lot, lot more in order for the practice (patipatti) to develop without any
idea of you or me or anyone else doing anything special. Even the ariyan
disciples (enlightened ones) needed to go on and on hearing the theory.
….
> I understand, pointing to the truth and repeating it is important to
> keep us focused, but we have also to know our capabilities and
> posibilities, and start from there.
…
S: Again it comes back to this moment. Maybe there’s ignorance or
confusion now, but next moment, a little understanding. Who knows about
future capabilities or possibilities and what’s the use of speculating
about them?
…
> I think that's one of the great qualities of The Buddha, he was able
> to teach to all levels of understanding, and I think that's why he
> used a lot of similes and conventional words.
…
S: Yes, of course no one can help like the Buddha and still, many, many
didn’t ‘get it’ when he spoke. In the end, the problem is not with the
messengers but with the accumulated ignorance and wrong views which
interfere again and again when there isn’t firm understanding (the sacca
nana which Azita was referring to). Someone else was referring to a lack
of interest these few months and again I’d suggest this happens when the
understanding is not yet firm.
….
> I am thankful for your (and others) time and attention to my
> questions, I have learned a lot in the process.
…
S: We also learn from your feedback and input too, Hugo. Did you ever play
‘20 questions’ whereby guessing the famous person depends on asking the
right questions. Well, I think you ask the right questions and sometimes
the game is most frustrating when one is very warm but not quite ‘getting
it’. Just hang in, even if you take a break.
….
> But still, you didn't answer my question.
…
S: Sorry, I’ve lost track of it. Pls ask it again and I’ll try to do
better than give a smiley;-).
…
> Yes, they are mere conventional designation, but should we go forth
> into homelessness or not?
…
S: No rule that is right for all. In the end, whether we go forth or not,
whether we’re in the forest or the city, there are only ever the present
namas and rupas to be known. The 'problems' or defilements will not be
eradicated by going forth.
….
> > Of course, for Sariputta (Upatissa) the Tipitaka (which he heard from
> the
> > Elder Assaji) was even shorter:
> 
> 
> Yes, which confirms that everybody "needs" something different, so
> what's your point?, it just confirms the point I made.
…
S: My point was that your humourous little summary of what I might write
on the Tipitaka was pretty good and showed you have indeed been listening!
…
> > Simile of the Saw (Kakacupama Sutta) – yes, great. Training and
> > understanding what is useful, but by conditions and lurking
> tendencies, we
> > can still blurt out anytime with evil words….just sooo anatta.
…
<…> 
> So, if now you agree that training is good then we agree in everything
> and we can close this thread.
….
S: I don’t believe I’ve ever said ‘training is useless’ (snipped by
mistake), but I think we may have a different understanding of training as
in ‘training is good’. I am interested in training as the development of
satipatthana – no self involved of any kind.

I expect this will sound like ‘more of the same’- at least it’s
consistent, wouldn’t you say?

In any case, let me take this chance to thank you for your contributions
here to date - I enjoy all your threads and find a lot of value in them.

Metta,

Sarah
=========
	
42661

From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 10:50pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Thread (249) / old kamma used up:Joop

 	
Hi Maya,

I enjoy your comments:

--- Waters Illusion <artupayam@h...> wrote: 
<..>
> I think you can live practically anywhere just as long as you do not 
> impose your beliefs on other people. Here in Texas I get along fine 
> with people and friends...of course when it comes to religion I just 
> usually remain silent and speak only when they ask me questions 
> about buddhism. 
...
S: You have a good approach.
...

> I wrote an essay about my experience being a buddhist...it's 
> supposedly to be published in Dec. 2005. It's called Bluejean 
> Buddha Vol.2: Voices of Young Buddhists. If you want, I can send it 
> to you...I'm not sure if it's ok to send attachments on this yahoo 
> group? Sarah is that ok?
...
S: Attachments are automatically rejected by yahoo. What I suggest is that
you post the article in *short* installments - maybe one every few days.
You might like to wait until Joop returns from his 10 day internet break
as he was the one that asked.

I'll look forward to it....

Metta,

Sarah
p.s I laughed at your name discussion with Joop;-)
==========
	
42662

From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:12pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun

 	
Hi James,

--- buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> wrote: 

> Sarah: Have I missed your points?
> 
> James: Yes. We are like two ships that passed in the night. ;-) 
…
S: <sigh> At least Tep thought I hadn’t missed the points, but you’re
always my toughest critic, James;-).
....
> First, in order for us to both be talking about the same thing I 
> need to know about your opinions/beliefs regarding A. Mun (because, 
> really, that is who this thread is about): Do you believe that A. 
> Mun became an arahant? Why yes or no? Did you read the entire 
> biography about A. Mun in order to form your opinion or did you form 
> it some other way? What is the way you formed your opinion? 
….
S: I have no opinions/beliefs regarding A.Mun and friends who know me will
tell you that I never speculate or have any interest in discussions about
people’s attainments. I don’t think it’s helpful. No, I haven’t read the
biography – just snippets posted here.

I could add that I have no reason to doubt comments made by the Buddha and
in the commentaries about the decline of the sasana, however. (See
‘sasana’ in U.P.)
…..
>Do you 
> believe that the citta is annihilated at parinibbana?
…
S: I believe the texts, including the sutta I quoted, clearly indicate
that all khandhas cease, never to arise again at paranibbana. Of course,
cittas make up the vinnana khandha. Just as when no more fuel is added to
the fire, the flames cease for good, so for the khandhas when no more fuel
is added.
…
> 
> I need to know this because we seem to be talking about two 
> different things. A. Mun didn't say that the Buddha appeared before 
> him, flesh and blood like Jesus from the grave, he said that it was 
> a matter of citta communication.
….
S: There cannot be any citta communication with cittas which have been
completely extinguished. I imagine this is what Nyantiloka was stressing
in his correspondence. 

Of course, as you and Phil made clear, we all hear different things and
often have mixed-up ideas of what someone has said. I have no idea at all
how reliable the quotes given in the biography are or whether they are in
context, so I wouldn’t necessarily jump to any conclusions from this one
source.

Metta,

Sarah
> Ps. My condolences to your mother for the loss of her cat. It must 
> be very difficult for her. Hopefully, with your dhamma advice, she 
> will learn to accept the loss. 
…
S: Thank you, James. That’s very kind and I’ll pass it on to her.
Meanwhile, she’s being very brave and continuing her hospice work and
other activities as usual so that her neighbour and friends aren’t too
concerned about her..
===========================
	
42663

From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:36pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Dialogue with RobM-2

 	
Hi Rob M,

--- robmoult <rob.moult@j...> wrote: 
> =====
> 
> I could not find a reference for this object being called "present", 
> so I put "past"; if the object is considered "present" (even though 
> it does not exist any more, then this explains U Silananda's notes 
> on mental process taking present rupa as object. Any idea where to 
> look for more information on this?
> 
> =====
S: Yes, U Silananda's notes are correct as I understand.

If you look up 'present (object)' in Dispeller or S.T.A, you should find
some references. I'll let you know if I come across anything especially
helpful. (The same rule applies to patisandhi cittas taking present
objects, jhana and mind-reading, reviewing consciousness after magga and
phala cittas with nibbana as object etc).Also, did I suggest before that
you look at messages under N'vattabbarammana (sp?) or 'Not so classifiable
objects' in U.P.? It's been very helpful to me.
....
<...>
> The key thrust of this post is the importance of "past" conditions. 
> I consider "present" conditions such as mutuality, conascence, 
> disappearance, etc. to be "boring". I consider the "past" 
> conditions, asynchronous kamma and natural decisive support, to 
> be "exciting".
...
S: Fair enough - they are certainly two very important conditions.
Somewhere it says all the conditions can be reduced to four or two
(??forget the details), but I know these are included.

Metta,

Sarah
==========
	
42664

From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@y...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 11:43pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dialogue with Htoo 2

 	
Hi Htoo,

Good to see you back. I missed you!

--- htootintnaing <htootintnaing@y...> wrote: 

> Htoo:
> 
> We are talking on ittharammana or 'agreeable object'. And the example 
> is 'seeing the golden image of The Buddha'. This is for re-
> introduction for others.
> 
> Well, you are right. I had already quoted the original Pali regarding 
> this 'agreeable object' or 'ittharammana'.
....
S: thanks for your replies - I'll get back to them in a few days.
Meanwhile, you may have missed this other post I sent just recently and
which is also relevant, I think.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/42624

Metta,

Sarah
=========
	
42665

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Wed Feb 23, 2005 7:13pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Commnets on the Sabba Sutta/TG & Jon

 	
Hi, TG -

In a message dated 2/24/05 1:33:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
TGrand458@a... writes:

> TG: Since I interpret it totally differently, your questions to me don't 
> apply. I believe The All includes all the things that you believe it 
> doesn't 
> include. Disregarding the notion of concepts...and taking the things you 
> mention 
> -- tables, streets, schools, children, 
> cars, theatres, and mushrooms &foods and flowers and trees. These things 
> are certainly part of The All. They are part of The All as Tactile-objects, 
> 
> Olfactory-objects, Gustatory-objects, Mind-objects, etc. These are also all 
> 
> things composed of the Four Great Elements. The All includes everything 
> "within 
> the realm of experience."
> 
======================
In the Sabba Sutta the Buddha speaks of forms, sounds, aromas, 
flavors, tactile sensations, and ideas. He does not 
speak of "tables, streets, schools, children, 
cars, theatres, and mushrooms & foods and flowers and trees". You say you 
believe he includes these things in 'the all'. On what basis do you believe that? 
He explicitly says just the opposite, ruling out anything other than what he 
directly listed in 'the all' as being "beyond range". 
Your perspective posits "tables, streets, schools, children, cars, 
theatres, and mushrooms & foods and flowers and trees" as the sorts of things 
that exist, you put them forward as existents that are touched, smelled, tasted, 
cognized etc (i.e., as "Tactile-objects, Olfactory-objects, Gustatory-objects, 
Mind-objects, etc." and as "things composed of the Four Great Elements." (I 
presume when you speak of the Four Great Elements, what you would prefer to 
mention are the elements in the periodic table.) In any case, what you are 
presenting is the usual, conventional view of the world. But that is not the 
perspective put forth in the Sabba Sutta. There you will find a perspective that goes 
against the flow, and which put forth no tables, streets, schools, children, 
cars, theatres, mushrooms, foods, flowers, or trees.

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)  



42666

From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 0:33am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Predominant roots?

 	
Dear Ven Dhammanando (& Kel),

--- dhammanando_bhikkhu <dhammanando@c...> wrote: 
> In the case of a sabba~n~nuu-bodhisatta, it's my understanding that
> once he has obtained a prediction of his future Buddhahood, from that
> point on sammaasambodhi is not only inevitable but is also the only
> sort of enlightenment that is available to him. So during those lives
> when he is a disciple of a Buddha -- cultivating the conditions for
> his attainment of the pa.tisambhidaa in the final life -- there is no
> need for death to intervene to stop him advancing from sankhaarupekkha
> to anuloma. Such an advance just cannot happen: his paramii is not yet
> enough for sammaasambodhi, the world cannot sustain two
> sammaasambuddhas at the same time, and his adhi.t.thaana to reach
> sammaasambodhi is of such strength that no lesser attainment would
> suffice.
….
S: Yes. Very well explained. These are very special conditions that will
also apply to some extent to key disciples too – they have also taken
vows, obtained predictions about their future roles and have also been
cultivating the conditions for pa.tisambhidaa, great paramii and so on as
I understand. Nothing by ‘chance’.
….
> On the other hand, if he has not yet received such a prediction, then
> he might well advance to anuloma, so bringing his bodhisatta career to
> a premature end. Indeed any number of things might be the cause
> of a fledgling bodhisatta abandoning this path.
….
S: Whether this ever happens, I have no idea. It seems rather unlikely to
me and I don’t recall any references of this happening, do you?
….
> As for a disciple, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Do
> you mean that all who reach sankhaarupekkha will become sotaapannas in
> the same life unless they meet with sudden death?
…
S: For ‘ordinary’ disciples, I would have expected this, because the
realization of the ti-lakkhana of all conditioned dhammas has been
accomplished and it is the knowledge which leads to attainment of nibbana.
However, like the example of the crow looking for land, I can see that no
time frames are given and it may just have been some mis-guided
speculation on my part. No reason at all why it should be the same life.

On the other hand, we know that all disciples need to hear the teachings
again in a new life in order to become enlightened. It would be
interesting that if say, Sariputta, had attained sankhaarupekkha, that he
still needed to hear the Truths again, however briefly, but as we know,
one cannot become enlightened in realms where there is no chance of
hearing the teachings..

It also raises a question for me about a recent thread we had here on the
understanding of impermanence and dukkha that could be attained under
other dispensations. I’m thinking out loud. Grateful for any more of your
considerations on any of these points.

Thank you for your very detailed and helpful notes on ‘yaava’. Excellent!
….
> Is there a text that states Saariputta had never attained any insight
> before his final life? I know there is a vast quantity of material
> about his doings in former lives, but I have read only a fraction of
> it.
…
S: Likewise. I’m quite sure you’d be more aware of anything relevant than
I would be. 

I also don’t recall ever having heard/read any reference to loss of stages
of insight as Kel and his teachers have indicated. I do appreciate
however, that one has to hear the teachings again for insights to be
‘revived’. Clearly, Sariputta had heard and considered and developed
extraordinary insight (of whatever degree) in order to become enlightened
by just hearing a brief stanza. 
….
> The Pa.tisambhidaamagga Atthakathaa (Pati.A 6-7) lists a number of
> sekha and asekha disciples (Saariputta, Moggallaana, Mahaakassappa,
> Mahaakaccaana, Mahaako.t.thita, the eighty great elders, Aananda, the
> householders Citta and Upaali, the upaasaka Dhammika and the upaasikaa
> Khujjuttaraa) whose attainments in the time of Gotama Buddha were
> reached through five conditions, one of them being 'prior effort'
> (pubbayoga) under previous Buddhas. The author then gives a definition
> of 'prior effort' essentially the same as that in the Visuddhimagga:
> 
> "pubbayogo" naama pubbabuddhaana.m saasane yogaavacarataa
> gatapaccaagatikabhaavena yaava anulomagotrabhusamiipa.m
> pattavipassanaanuyogo
> 
> So, I don't think there's any doubt that at least in Aacariya
> Dhammapaala's view Saariputta (and many others) had reached
> sankhaarupekkha~naa.na while disciples of former Buddhas. 
….
S: this is all very interesting and here other great elders including
Ananda are listed too. Do you understand that this means Ananda had this
same stage of insight ‘revived’ when he listened to the Buddha?

With regard to the comment I took from the Vism with regard to
sankhaarupekkha~naa.na being used to refer to the previous two stages of
insight as well, is it your understanding that in all these contexts, it
refers just to the stage of insight before anuloma?
…
> Sarah:
> <Kel, thanks again for raising these points. You were right in your
> original speculation that I would consider enlightenment inevitable for
> one who had attained this stage of insight.>
> 
> I wonder, do you base this on his being a lesser stream-entrant
> (cuu.la-sotaapanna) and so of assured (niyata) destiny, or is it upon
> some other consideration?
.... 
S: It’s not something I’ve ever thought much about but was based on what I
believed (rightly or wrongly) I had read and heard. As Nina indicated,
much of what you have quoted is new to her as well. I may also raise it
next month in Bkk as A.Sujin may have further ‘angles’.

Meanwhile, I’d be grateful for any further comments you have to offer on
any of these points. I’m really very grateful indeed for all your input.

With respect and metta,

Sarah
======
	
42667

From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 0:59am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Predominant roots?

 	
Hi Kel,

As I said, these threads of ours are never going to be quick and easy
ones;-).

--- kelvin_lwin <kelvin_lwin@y...> wrote: 
> Kel: I thought you would adopt this "maximum limit" view and I 
> asked my teacher if it can be construed as such already. I'll just 
> say the theory. Even disciples-to-be practice the jhanas up to the 
> arupa complete with abhinnas. Also they repeatedly experience 
> sankarupekkha to make panna more and more high quality. It goes 
> back to how this nana work like you referenced, Vism XX1,64, in that 
> until the proper time, the mind will keep circling and experience 
> the same insight. Now as soon as they hear a Buddha teaching in the 
> last life, it triggers the previous practices and they obtain 
> enlightenment instantly since only the last step remains: anuloma. 
> In other words, sankarupekkha insight is re-obtained rapidly owing 
> to past practice. Also due to past jhana obtainments, they becomes 
> arahats liberated in two ways or in the case of some obtain abhinnas 
> first like Ashin Anuruddha. I think this model is self-consistent 
> but you probably have a different one.
….
S: I think this is a very good summary, Kel and I’m grateful to you for
re-checking with your teacher. It’s certainly consistent with the texts
that have been quoted in Pali and English. Perhaps instead of saying
‘ankharupekkha insight is re-obtained’, we can say it is ‘revivived’ or
‘re-ignited’, having lain dormant? 
….
> 
> > as Sariputta – I've always considered that prior to hearing the 
> Buddha's
> > word in their last lives, no stages of insight were attained.
….
S: Perhaps what I should now say is ‘no stages of insight were apparent’.
In other words, the accumulations and wisdom was lying dormant as asaya.
…. 
> Kel: I see it as opposite, Ashin Sariputta is the most developed 
> in terms of loki panna, including sankarupekkha-nana. This also 
> goes back to my previous discussion with Jon about meditation 
> attainments. One can obtain certain nana but due to immaturity 
> slide back down. Keep going up and down like this until 
> sankarupekkha can be experienced again and again. 
….
S: I’m not sure I would agree with this. I understand that once an insight
has been realized, there isn’t a ‘going up and down’, but it can lie
dormant for a very long time, e.g. in woeful planes or without any revival
from hearing the teachings again. Please ask your teacher about this point
or show me any references if you have them.
…..
>Once that reaches 
> full maturity, the crow will find land. Thus the more on can dwell 
> and strike out the search from sankarupekkha, the better one's 
> chance of finding nibbana. 
….
S: It may be just your language, but it does sound very much like a self
doing things here, Kel. Also, I still have no idea of the relevance of
this side-thread (fascinating though it may be) to any of our original
discussion. I’d be glad if you’d spell out the relevance for me.

I just pursued it because I was very genuinely interested to see your
references and of course I’m delighted that Ven Dhammanando is helping us
out as well.
….
>Now to be a Buddha or even a disciple, 
> the level of maturity required is much higher than a normal person. 
> Thus owing to that, they don't become enlightened prematurely and 
> end up cultivating panna that is of orders of magnitude greater. 
> Also there were questions of why unlike some normal arahats, Ashin 
> Sariputta and Ashin Mahamoggallana didn't obtain arahat-hood 
> instantly? I think they took two weeks and one week respectively. 
> I believe commentary explains using simile of a king procession 
> versus a peasant when travelling. A king's require much more 
> preparation and that takes time.
….
S: Excellent and very well said too. It’s like a student graduating a
little later with distinction as opposed to just graduating.

I’d like to read the simile about the king and the peasant if you can find
the reference. You obviously have access to a wealth of good information.

Btw, who is your teacher that you refer to? Please thank him and convey my
respects as well.

Metta,

Sarah
=======
	
42668

From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 1:44am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Predominant roots?

 	
Hi Kel,

Back to our main thread.

--- kelvin_lwin <kelvin_lwin@y...> wrote: 

> Kel: We were talking about dosa so I was just using it. Gross 
> lobha is before dosa but subtle lobha is after dosa. So just 
> depends on what you stage of development you're referring to. My 
> basic point is subtle lobha will not be seen before the gross lobha 
> and dosa are eliminated or temporarily subdued. 
….
S: I think we’re talking about our present stage – very much a beginner
stage for most of us. I really can’t understand your comments. Are you
suggesting that there cannot be any awareness of say dosa until all gross
lobha has been eradicated or subdued? And then are you suggesting there
cannot be any awareness of any subtle lobha until all dosa has been
completely eradicated? There is so much lobha and dosa arising in a day.
Can there not be the development of awareness of both?

From the Satipatthana Sutta itself which I’ve pulled out this time:

“Here, o bhikhus, a bhikkhu understands the consciousness with lust, as
with lust; the consciousness without lust;…..with hate;…..with
ignorance;…..without ignorance;…….the shrunken state;…..the distracted
state;……etc etc”
….. 
> Kel: It's an objective assessment of situations without any 
> connection with atta. There's no denying the influence of situation 
> on any non-arahats. Now if we no longer need to differentiate 
> between situations then great. But for most people, there are more 
> suitable environments for cultivating.
….
S: In terms of paramattha dhammas, what are situations? What are the
dhammas when one’s giving an objective assessment about situations? Can
there be awareness at these times?
….
> Kel<…>
>I said 
> any dhamma will do as the object or device to develop equanimity. 
> Once that is accomplished, it of course should be equanimous with 
> regard to any and all dhammas by definition. Again the question is 
> whether the object matters before that level of equanimity can be 
> reached. My position is no.
….
S: I believe your position is that one particular object, such as vedana,
can be selected and understood. As a result of such selection, development
of awareness and understanding, then all dhammas will be known too. My
position is that the Buddha never suggested that only one object of dhamma
should be known and that there are 4 satipatthanas, 5 khandhas, 6 internal
and external ayatanas to be known. Further, there is no self to say, no
choice about what object will appear to the javana cittas at any given
time. If it’s vedana and there happens to be awareness, fine. If not, by
your selection, no chance of awareness arising. What about, seeing,
hearing and so on? They all have characteristics which can be known. 
…..
> > S: Past memories or stories cannot be `known' because they
> > are not paramattha dhammas. 
> Kel: Are they not mind-door objects? Is there not a citta at the 
> time one is experiencing these memories or stories? Seems to be as 
> much paramattha dhammas here to observe as much as any other time.
….
S: past memories or stories are dhammaaramma.na but not dhammaanupassanaa
or dhammaayatana. Yes, there are cittas at these times and the cittas can
be the objects of awareness (cittaanupassanaa), but not the concepts. This
is the same point Jon, TG and Howard were discussing for ages. As Htoo
just mentioned, we also had discussions before about dhammaaramma.na and
dhammayatana. Ask him if you don’t believe me;-).
….
> Kel: This is just your usual position restated. The desire is 
> not important as much as the cultivation or training to do it. 
> Vedana cetasika is universal and it's easy to maintain awarness of 
> it continuously. This is what most vedanaupassana meditation 
> techniques are based on. 
….
S: I agree (about ‘most venadnupassana meditation techniques’). However, I
don’t think you’ll find any references to it in the teachings. How can
there be ‘easy to maintain awareness’ when a) javana cittas are not
continuous, b) sense door javana cittas take sense objects only and c)
mind door javanas take any kind of paramattha dhamma or concept as object
according pakatu-upanissaya paccaya (natural decisive support condition)
and other conditions, but not by one’s will or intention. Who knows what
lies dormant from previous lifetimes – great insights or overwhelming
kilesa or what?
….
>It is also what jhana practice is based on 
> by finding the nimitta and being able to hold onto it. The skill of 
> being able to focus on something is anatta, otherwise anyone can do 
> it as they wish. 
….
S: Yes, all dhammas are anatta. The skill of an accomplished burglar is
anatta and as Htoo often points out, jhana factors can be kusala or
akusala. Being able to focus on an object (a concept) has nothing to do
with understanding dhammas as anatta.
….
>Then using that skill to isolate some object, deep 
> panna can arose because experience is pure without interference.
…
S: I’m sorry, Kel, but this makes no sense to me. You’re welcome to
elaborate or add any textual support to discuss further.
….
> Kel: Blind and deaf is usually equated with dvihetuka. So 
> they're said to only capable of achieving up to sankarupekkha (I 
> don't have references :P) and cultivate panna. Clearly though we're 
> talking about the maximum here. They're also incapable of achieving 
> jhana, next best life they can hope for is tihetuka in sensuous 
> sphere. This is why Ledi sayadaw said they can become an ariya in 
> the very next life with prior effort accomplished in the current 
> life for dvihetukas. That would bring up an interesting point about 
> what requires a higher panna, jhana or sankarupekkha. Now, there's 
> nothing preventing blind or deaf person from becoming an ariya 
> provided they're tihetuka. So I don't see how all six worlds are 
> necessary. As I said, I separate them into necessary and sufficient 
> conditions. 
….
S: yes, I agree about dvihetuka though I’ve heard it suggested that no
insights are possible (also no references :P)).As you say, also no jhana.
There can be the development of kusala, however as condition as you say.

For anyone, including tihetuka, I understand that *all* doorways have to
be understood. If vedana were sufficient, you’d be suggesting only insight
of one khandha experienced through the mind door. No, I’m sure 5 khandhas
or 6 doorways have to be known. Even at the first stage of insightm namas
and rupas have to be clearly distinguished and sense door and mind door
experiences known for what they are. All of this would be impossible just
by knowing vedana. As I said, in realms without rupas, for example, it’s
impossible to become enlightened.

(Btw, please elaborate on your understanding of vedana with regard to
those meditation practices you mentioned). 
….
> Kel: Probably unnecessary as I'm sure we will read the same 
> things and interpret it completely differently :) I never refuted he 
> talked about all 6 worlds hence the sufficiency. I only said 
> they're not all necessary which I doubt there's specific references 
> to prove one way or another. Though I could be wrong and some 
> commentator did then I'll just claim Buddha didn't say it! *grin*
….
S: *grin* too. Now if I were to have adopted the favoured cherry-picking
of commentaries with regard to the other thread, where would that have
left us??

Good chatting to you Kel. Interesting points and a good meditation:). I
have a back-log of other threads, so pls expect some delays to any
replies.

Metta,

Sarah
========
	
42669

From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:48am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Predominant roots?

 	
Dear Ven Dhammanando,Kel & All,

> > Is there a text that states Saariputta had never attained any insight
> > before his final life? I know there is a vast quantity of material
> > about his doings in former lives, but I have read only a fraction of
> > it.
….
S: I've just remembered that in ‘Great Disciples of the Buddha’,
Nyanponika gives an account of Sariputta’s ‘Original Aspiration’. It’s
quite detailed, more so than in the wheel version on line I think. I’ll
add a little more detail tomorrow as I have to go out now, unless anyone
else does. I think it mentions much of the detail is from AN-A somewhere,
but just refers to how Sariputta didn't attain arahantship 'or any other
stage of sanctity' when he listened to Buddha Anomadassi's chief disciple,
whilst all his own pupils became arahants. This was because of his
aspiration to become the first disciple of a Buddha in future.It's similar
for Moggallana. 

Also, it gives the example Kel gave about kings and paupers to explain why
Sariputta attained arahantship later than Moggallana. As said, I'm in a
rush now.

Metta,

Sarah
=====
	
42670

From: htootintnaing <htootintnaing@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 5:33am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha as object Dialogue with Htoo 2

 	
Dear RobK, Htoo, RobM, Kel, KenH & All,

RobK, thanks for the good examples you gave on lobha following the 
sight of the Buddha to Htoo and myself (#42286).

I'm not sure that anyone has given the following quote which 
compliments the one from Dispeller and which is relevant to this 
thread and also to others such as between RobM & Kel, I believe. 
KenH, I think you raised one
point about the dogs before which is clear in context here.
==================================

From Summary of the Topics of Abhidhamma, ch 4, The Explanation of 
the Law of Retention (tadarammana):

"(25) In all cases, when the object is undesirable the five sense
consciousnesses, receiving, investigating and retentions are 
unwholesome resultants.
... snip ...

The reason why eye-consciousnes, etc, occurring with a
very desirable object are accompanied by equanimity has already been
discussed above.*"

[S: * because of the weakness of the contact between the sense-base 
and the object etc]

Happy to discuss any further points. 

Metta,

Sarah
=========
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Sarah,

Thanks for pointing this old post. The whole message is, I think, 
exactly the same what I read in my past. Because exact words hit my 
memories. The only difference is that now you are writing in English 
whereas I read in Burmese font of Pali and its commentaries. There is 
nothing to dispute. It is very clear. I quoted the Pali in a post, I 
think.

25.'Sabbatthaapi panettha anitthe aarammane akusala vipakaa neva 
pancavinnaana sampaticchana santirana tadaarammanaani'.

26. says 'itthe kusala vipaakaani.' 

27. says 'ati-itthe pana somanassa sahagataa neva santirana 
tadaarammanaani'.

You have already wrote 25 in simple English, good.

26 says 'desirable object causes arising of 'wholesome resultants' 
or 'kusala vipaaka'.

27 says 'highly desirable object [I refered it as 'golden image of 
The Buddha] on the other hand [pana] causes 'investigating mind' 
and 'retaining mind' of happy-feeling.

Thanks for your reply post on that matter.

With respect,

Htoo Naing


42671

From: htootintnaing <htootintnaing@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 6:14am
Subject: Re: Buddha as object Dialogue with Htoo 2

 	
Dear Robert K,

This is my delayed reply to your post earlier.

With respect,

Htoo Naing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert K wrote:

Dear Sarah and Htoo,

When we are talking about material object and when it is taken as a 
highly regarded object: i.e. as arammana-purejatadhipatti (object 
predominance condition).Then the conditioned consciousness is in fact 
always rooted in lobha. It will not be kusala.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo:

I agree and Sarah will also agree, I hope. But what we were 
discussing was 'the law of retention consciousness' or 'tadaarammana 
niyama'. It is in abhidhammatthasangaha by Venerable Anuddha in vithi 
portion in number 25, 26, and 27 while 28 is about 'aagantuka 
bhavanga' or 'visiting life-continuing consciousness'.

But your post is very nice and I like it. Yes, when it is aarammana-
purejatadhipati paccaya or 'object-prenascence-predominence 
condition' it will condition to lobha mula cittas.

In paccaya portion 27. it says

'Tattha garukata maarammanam aarammanaadhipati vasena naamaanam, 
sahajaataadhipati catubbidhopi sahajaata vasena sahajaataanam naama 
ruupaananti ca duvidho hoti adhipati paccayo'.

There are 18 ittha nipphanna rupas. When they serve as aarammana-
purejaata-adhipati paccaya or 'object-prenascence-predominence 
condition they [18 ittha nipphanna ruupas] may condition

1. 8 lobha muula cittas
2. 8 mahakusala cittas
3. 4 mahakiriya nana sampayutta cittas
4. 45 cetasikas after excluding 7 cetasikas 
[dosa,issa,macchariya,kukkucca,vicikicchaa,karunaa,muditaa].

There are 3 options. One is akusala, another is kusala and the third 
is kiriya. But generally most of the time lobha muula cittas will 
arise in such object like 'the glory of The Buddha'. That is why I 
agreed with you in 'object-prenascence-predominence condition'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert K continued:

Venerable U Narada MulaPatthana Sayadaw of Burma explains:

In the Dh. Commentary, vol.III p.53 it is stated
[ talks about when Buddha returned to earth down the jewelled 
staircase and all the gods and humand that saw him] in all that 
assembly, thirty six leagues in circuit not one looked upon teh 
glory of teh Buddha that day but desired for himself the estate of 
Buddha.'endquote Dhcommentary

"Here desire which is greed arises when the glory of the Buddha 
which is visble object is taken as estimable object. Thus only greed
(lobha) consciousness arises when matter is taken as estimable 
object."endquote Narada p98-99 Guide to Conditional Relations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: A good book of course. But arahatta disciples would not develop 
any lobha muula cittas when they saw the glory of The Buddha. As you 
said at that time other condition may take the position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert K:

Now in fact the very wise can look at the Buddha and have kusala 
consciousness rooted in detachment. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: This will be rare occasion. When they develop bhavanaa it may 
be yes. But when they see the glory of The Buddha it may well 
possible that they will also develop lobha as they are still on the 
way and not still arahats.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert K:

But then there is not arammana-purejatadhipati. They see that the 
material body is only a coarse, ephemeral thing, not to be esteemed. 
They are focussed on the theme of Dhamma.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: Then it is no more adhipati paccaya. I agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert K:

For most of us when we take objects such as breath or kasina 
consciousness rooted in lobha arises. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo: This is quite true. This is the point why A Sujin does not 
encourage formal sitting [?].

'Upanissaya paccaya' or 'decisive support condition' states 
that 'purimaa purimaa kusalaa dhammaa pacchimanam pacchimaanam 
akusalaanam dhammaanam kesanci upanissaya paccayena paccayo'.

Initially there will be bhavana kusala cittas of mahakusala cittas. 
But this will condition akusala dhammas to arise. It is decisive 
support condition or upanissaya paccaya.

When the mind stays still, there will be a very very great 
satisfaction and the feeling is so immence that lobha muula cittas 
arise. This is especially when there is lack of knowledge, wisdom, 
experience etc etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert K:

But for the wise they are merely object, nothing desirable or good.

RobertK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo:

True. Nothing is desirable nor undesirable intrinsically. Only the 
wise will see in such instant. We are still full of defilements and 
there is still a long way.

With much respect,

Htoo Naing
	
42672

From:   rjkjp1 <rjkjp1@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 6:28am
Subject: Re: Buddha as object Dialogue with Htoo 2

 	
Dear Htoo,

thanks for this very perceptive post. I agree with it all, nothing 
to add.
with respect 
RobK

In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" 
<htootintnaing@y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Robert K wrote:
> 
> Dear Sarah and Htoo,
> 
> When we are talking about material object and when it is taken as 
a 
> highly regarded object: i.e. as arammana-purejatadhipatti (object 
> predominance condition).Then the conditioned consciousness is in 
fact 
> always rooted in lobha. It will not be kusala.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> Htoo:
> 
> I agree and Sarah will also agree, I hope. But what we were 
> discussing was 'the law of retention consciousness' 
or 'tadaarammana 
> niyama'. It is in abhidhammatthasangaha by Venerable Anuddha in 
vithi 
> portion in number 25, 26, and 27 while 28 is about 'aagantuka 
> bhavanga' or 'visiting life-continuing consciousness'.
> 
> But your post is very nice and I like it. Yes, when it is 
aarammana-
> purejatadhipati paccaya or 'object-prenascence-predominence 
> condition' it will condition to lobha mula cittas.
> 
> In paccaya portion 27. it says
> 
> 'Tattha garukata maarammanam aarammanaadhipati vasena naamaanam, 
> sahajaataadhipati catubbidhopi sahajaata vasena sahajaataanam 
naama 
> ruupaananti ca duvidho hoti adhipati paccayo'.
> 
> There are 18 ittha nipphanna rupas. When they serve as aarammana-
> purejaata-adhipati paccaya or 'object-prenascence-predominence 
> condition they [18 ittha nipphanna ruupas] may condition
> 
> 1. 8 lobha muula cittas
> 2. 8 mahakusala cittas
> 3. 4 mahakiriya nana sampayutta cittas
> 4. 45 cetasikas after excluding 7 cetasikas 
> [dosa,issa,macchariya,kukkucca,vicikicchaa,karunaa,muditaa].
> 
> There are 3 options. One is akusala, another is kusala and the 
third 
> is kiriya. But generally most of the time lobha muula cittas will 
> arise in such object like 'the glory of The Buddha'. That is why I 
> agreed with you in 'object-prenascence-predominence condition'.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> Robert K continued:
> 
> Venerable U Narada MulaPatthana Sayadaw of Burma explains:
> 
> In the Dh. Commentary, vol.III p.53 it is stated
> [ talks about when Buddha returned to earth down the jewelled 
> staircase and all the gods and humand that saw him] in all that 
> assembly, thirty six leagues in circuit not one looked upon teh 
> glory of teh Buddha that day but desired for himself the estate of 
> Buddha.'endquote Dhcommentary
> 
> "Here desire which is greed arises when the glory of the Buddha 
> which is visble object is taken as estimable object. Thus only 
greed
> (lobha) consciousness arises when matter is taken as estimable 
> object."endquote Narada p98-99 Guide to Conditional Relations.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> Htoo: A good book of course. But arahatta disciples would not 
develop 
> any lobha muula cittas when they saw the glory of The Buddha. As 
you 
> said at that time other condition may take the position.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> Robert K:
> 
> Now in fact the very wise can look at the Buddha and have kusala 
> consciousness rooted in detachment. 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> Htoo: This will be rare occasion. When they develop bhavanaa it 
may 
> be yes. But when they see the glory of The Buddha it may well 
> possible that they will also develop lobha as they are still on 
the 
> way and not still arahats.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> Robert K:
> 
> But then there is not arammana-purejatadhipati. They see that the 
> material body is only a coarse, ephemeral thing, not to be 
esteemed. 
> They are focussed on the theme of Dhamma.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> Htoo: Then it is no more adhipati paccaya. I agree.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> Robert K:
> 
> For most of us when we take objects such as breath or kasina 
> consciousness rooted in lobha arises. 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> Htoo: This is quite true. This is the point why A Sujin does not 
> encourage formal sitting [?].
> 
> 'Upanissaya paccaya' or 'decisive support condition' states 
> that 'purimaa purimaa kusalaa dhammaa pacchimanam pacchimaanam 
> akusalaanam dhammaanam kesanci upanissaya paccayena paccayo'.
> 
> Initially there will be bhavana kusala cittas of mahakusala 
cittas. 
> But this will condition akusala dhammas to arise. It is decisive 
> support condition or upanissaya paccaya.
> 
> When the mind stays still, there will be a very very great 
> satisfaction and the feeling is so immence that lobha muula cittas 
> arise. This is especially when there is lack of knowledge, wisdom, 
> experience etc etc.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> Robert K:
> 
> But for the wise they are merely object, nothing desirable or 
good.
> 
> RobertK
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> Htoo:
> 
> True. Nothing is desirable nor undesirable intrinsically. Only the 
> wise will see in such instant. We are still full of defilements 
and 
> there is still a long way.
> 
> With much respect,
> 
> Htoo Naing
	
42673

From: Hugo <eklektik@g...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:10am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha said: That's how you should train yourselves

 	
Dear Sarah,

> S: No rule that is right for all. 

Good!, so you agree that it is right at least for some.

>In the end, whether we go forth or not,
> whether we're in the forest or the city, there are only ever the present
> namas and rupas to be known. The 'problems' or defilements will not be
> eradicated by going forth.

I agree, it doesn't matter what physical or mental practice we do if
we don't understand why it is being done, and what is going on.

If we just do any special activity without understanding why (I mean
the real why), we are just doing rites and rituals.

Like my wife the other day at the supermarket showed me some
"meditation CDs" then she told me "after you explained to me what you
do at your meditation sessions, I understand you don't need them
right?", I said "right, if I needed them, I would be doing something
but not Buddhist meditation".


> > So, if now you agree that training is good then we agree in everything
> > and we can close this thread.
> ….
> S: I don't believe I've ever said 'training is useless' (snipped by
> mistake), but I think we may have a different understanding of training as
> in 'training is good'. I am interested in training as the development of
> satipatthana – no self involved of any kind.

This looks a little more "aligned" but there are still some rough corners.

How can you train in developing satipatthana without involving a self?

Why do you read Dhamma books and interact in this mailing list?

Do you have a self? Do you cling to it?


> In any case, let me take this chance to thank you for your contributions
> here to date - I enjoy all your threads and find a lot of value in them.

:-)

Thanks again,
-- 
Hugo
	
42674

From: Hugo <eklektik@g...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:28am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Could this be dukkha?

 	
Dear Christine,

Thanks for your contribution to the group, very useful for those who
hasn't got the First Noble Truth, you showed an excellent example of
it.

> Why me??!!?

Oh, nothing personal I am sure, take a look at the chanting:

http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/misc/chanting/reflections.html#five

Byaadhi-dhammomhi byaadhi"m anatiito.
I am subject to illness. Illness is unavoidable.


It's been more than 18 hours since your last "life sucks" report, how
things are going now?

Have you tried Afrin spray?

I don't know if you can get "Eucasol" where you live but it is great
for nasal decongestion, I think it is a Swiss product.

Greetings,
-- 
Hugo
	
42675

From: buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:39am
Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun

 	
Hi Sarah,

Sarah: <sigh> At least Tep thought I hadn't missed the points, but 
you're
always my toughest critic, James;-).

James: ;-)) Really? The criticism is with love I assure you. Also, 
I don't believe that Tep thought you hadn't missed any points. 
Maybe you should re-read his post. He stated that you had missed 
the points from B. Bodhi who you had quoted. 

Sarah: I have no opinions/beliefs regarding A.Mun and friends who 
know me will tell you that I never speculate or have any interest in 
discussions about s attainments. I don't think it's helpful.

James: Well, in this case it is helpful to know if he was just 
hallucinating or if he was an arahant and telling the truth. It is 
relevant to this discussion. I think you are just avoiding a direct 
answer. You entered this thread so you must have an opinion one way 
or the other on the subject.

Sarah: No, I haven't read the biography – just snippets posted here.

James: I think you should read it; it would be very enlightening for 
you.

Sarah: I could add that I have no reason to doubt comments made by 
the Buddha and in the commentaries about the decline of the sasana, 
however. (See `sasana' in U.P.)

James: Do you have an outside source to refer to in this regard? I 
find most of the posts in U.P. to be highly biased and don't read 
them for background information (except my posts to the star kids, 
of course! Lol ;-))

Sarah: I believe the texts, including the sutta I quoted, clearly 
indicate that all khandhas cease, never to arise again at 
paranibbana. Of course, cittas make up the vinnana khandha. Just as 
when no more fuel is added to the fire, the flames cease for good, 
so for the khandhas when no more fuel is added.

James: Interesting, there is a law of physics which applies to this 
matter: Energy is never destroyed, it is only transformed. The 
consciousness of an arahant is not like that of a wordling. As the 
Buddha said, he was deep and unfathomable like the ocean- and yet 
you speak as if you have him all figured out ;-).

Sarah: There cannot be any citta communication with cittas which 
have been completely extinguished. 

James: Of course, but the point I am making is that it is quite 
possible that the cittas have not been extinguished but merely 
transformed. However, my larger point is that we shouldn't think we 
know something just from reading the suttas. That would be a 
significant flaw and a hindrance to practice. Life and experience 
are a lot more than what is written in the suttas.

Sarah: Of course, as you and Phil made clear, we all hear different 
things and often have mixed-up ideas of what someone has said.

James: Excuse me? Who and what are you referring to? Who had 
the `mixed-up' ideas (but I can guess who you think! ;-)) Not only 
that, you haven't read the biography so you don't really know what 
you are talking about. The way this matter is discussed in the 
biography it could not possibly have been a mistake in hearing. 
There are several pages of descriptions and explanations of events 
which occur at different times. This wasn't a `one time' thing.

Sarah: I have no idea at all how reliable the quotes given in the 
biography are or whether they are in context, so I wouldn't 
necessarily jump to any conclusions from this one source.

James: Again, you need to read the biography in order to talk about 
it. (BTW, I was pretty sure you hadn't read it; that's why I asked 
in the first place ;-).

Metta,
James

ps. Again, you can find the biography at this link:
http://buddhanet.net/pdf_file/munbio_photos.pdf



42676

From: Hugo <eklektik@g...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:50am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Eight Conditions for the Arising of Panna

 	
Dear Tep,

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 02:21:07 -0000, Tep Sastri <tepyawa@m...> wrote:
> So Phra Ajaan Lee's emphasis was on the "middle part" of the Sila-
> Samadhi-Panna path: "Admittedly, centering the mind, like placing
> bridge pilings in the middle of a river, is something difficult to do. But
> once the mind is firmly in place, it can be very useful in developing
> virtue and discernment".
> 
> Did he mean the training in concentration should be fully developed
> first (completing the pilings in the middle of the river), even when virtue
> and discernment are still very weak(no pilings have been placed on
> the near shore or the far shore)?

I think that Ajahn Lee is saying that you can't develop ONLY one or
the other, you develop all of them at the same time, similar to what
Ajahn Chah says about Vipassana and Samatha meditation (i.e. you can't
do Vipassana without first having some level of calmness). Ajahn Lee
uses the simile of walking with two legs, you can't walk with only
one.

He is just saying that "centering the mind" is the most difficult of
the three, and also a very useful ally in getting everything to stand
up.

I think we should not look at them in serial form, but in a circle
because each of them provide feedback to the others.

Can you behave according to Sila if your mind is a chaos of cravings?
Can you have any real understanding if your mind is a chaos of cravings?

Also, once you understand that certain behavior will make you suffer,
you are more prone to behave properly.

Once you understand how craving works and what it does to you, it is
eaiser to cut it off.

Once there are less cravings and less behavior that make you feel
remorseful, your mind is more "centered".

and so on.

I have verified the above personally, or at least I think I have. :-)


> Does it imply that lokuttara samadhi is
> possible without strong support of both sila and panna? If you
> answered 'yes' twice, then isn't that the same as saying we could
> become non-returners without first becomeing stream-enterers and
> once-returner?

I couldn't answer that one with any level of certainty, but if there
were people who became enlightened in a split second, it might be
possible, on the other hand it might be that they had already gone
through all the other stages, who knows?

At the end, how does it help us to know that? (to plan our route to
Enlightenement? :-) )

Greetings,
-- 
Hugo


42677

From: <TGrand458@a...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 4:36am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Commnets on the Sabba Sutta/TG & Jon

 	
Hi Howard This is pretty fun!

In a message dated 2/24/2005 12:17:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
upasaka@a... writes:
I 
presume when you speak of the Four Great Elements, what you would prefer to 
mention are the elements in the periodic table.) In any case, what you are 
presenting is the usual, conventional view of the world. But that is not the 
perspective put forth in the Sabba Sutta. There you will find a perspective 
that goes 
against the flow, and which put forth no tables, streets, schools, children, 
cars, theatres, mushrooms, foods, flowers, or trees.

With metta,
Howard

Now there's an example of assumption/presumption!!! And yes, it is an 
incorrect assumption at that. When I speak about the Four Great Elements, I speak 
about the Four Great Elements. The elements in the Periodic table are composed 
of the Four Great Elements as well.

Now, this so called "conventional knowledge" arises for a reason...because 
that's what appears to us. Now, it usually appears to us with a deluded overlay 
of self view, but that doesn't make its physical presence right or wrong...it 
just makes seeing it as a self or entity wrong.

Describing the 12 sense bases elements does not go against "the flow". What 
goes against the flow in the Buddha's teaching is describing as dukkha what 
most people take as sukha. Describing things as not-self that most people take 
as self. And deeply defining impermanence in ways that goes against a 
tendency to see things as permanent. One needs to note where the Buddha says his 
teaching goes against the flow, then check the context. Your Sutta example makes 
no such claim. There is NO Sutta where the Buddha lists the elements and 
says, within that context, that this goes against the stream of what is normally 
accepted !!! 

The Buddha often brings in what is "commonly accepted" as proofs of a correct 
position as well !!! -- Arguing against some ascetic and brahmins position 
that all feelings were created in the past...the Buddha mentions some feelings 
that are not created in the past and says about these ascetics and brahmins -- 
"they overshoot what is considered to be true in the world." Connected 
Discourses of the Buddha, vol. 2, pg. 1279. I believe you are overshooting as well.

Enough for now.

TG


42678

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 5:55am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Commnets on the Sabba Sutta/TG & Jon

 	
Hi, TG -

In a message dated 2/24/05 1:00:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
TGrand458@a... writes:

> Enough for now.
> ===================
Okay! Too much fun is not the Middle Way! ;-))

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)  


42679

From: Christine Forsyth <cforsyth1@b...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:33am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Could this be dukkha?

 	
Hello Hugo,

Thank you for your concern. I usually just endure the minor 
symptoms of minor illnesses - I think it was the heat, no sleep and 
mosquitos that got to me and brought about the whinging. Mainly the 
no sleep. Things move along - I'm up to the losing my voice stage 
now - which means that, as I work in one of the 'talking 
professions', I'll be catching up on administration and paper work 
today. Thanks for your observations, dhamma reminders and helpful 
suggestions,

metta and peace
Christine
---The trouble is that you think you have time---

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo <eklektik@g...> wrote:
> Dear Christine,
> 
> Thanks for your contribution to the group, very useful for those 
who
> hasn't got the First Noble Truth, you showed an excellent example 
of
> it.
> 
> > Why me??!!?
> 
> Oh, nothing personal I am sure, take a look at the chanting:
> 
> http://accesstoinsight.org/lib/misc/chanting/reflections.html#five
> 
> Byaadhi-dhammomhi byaadhi"m anatiito.
> I am subject to illness. Illness is unavoidable.
> 
> 
> It's been more than 18 hours since your last "life sucks" report, 
how
> things are going now?
> 
> Have you tried Afrin spray?
> 
> I don't know if you can get "Eucasol" where you live but it is 
great
> for nasal decongestion, I think it is a Swiss product.
> 
> Greetings,
> -- 
> Hugo
	
42680

From: <TGrand458@a...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:37am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Commnets on the Sabba Sutta/TG & Jon

 	
In a message dated 2/24/2005 11:09:44 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
upasaka@a... writes:
Hi, TG -

In a message dated 2/24/05 1:00:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
TGrand458@a... writes:

> Enough for now.
> ===================
Okay! Too much fun is not the Middle Way! ;-))

With metta,
Howard
Hi Howard

I didn't mean by "enough for now" not to continue the discourse...I just 
meant I was done with my post. 

TG


42681

From: Carl <c7carl@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 1:39pm
Subject: Re: Jatis

 	
Hi RobM, Nina, Larry, Sarah,


==============================================
"robmoult" <rob.moult@j...> wrote:

RobM: After the falling away of the bhavanga, there arises a five-
sense-door adverting consciousness which is kiriya (not associated 
with kamma or kamma-result). This is the first citta of the process
to "touch" the new object.... 

Carl:(sloooowly catching on) Thanks Rob, 
The first citta in the sense process (after bhavanga cittas) is 
pancadvaravajjajana-citta (five-sense-door adverting consciousness) 
and its jati is kiriya. It is a kiriyacitta.

RobM:(Rob, you posted this elswhere) ".....All cittas have ekaggata 
and manisikara; however in this particular citta, these two 
cetasikas play a prominent role in achieving the fuction of the citta
(adverting). ....." 
=================================== 
Carl: Yes, I can understand how these two cetasikas, ekaggata(one-
pointedness) and manisikara(attention)are important in the process 
of adverting consciousness to the door at which a sense rupa 
is "knocking". 

Does pancadvaravajjajana-citta (adverting-citta) actually have 
contact with the new sensory rupa or does it experience the arrest-
bhavanga-citta only? Does pancadvaravajjajana-citta(adverting 
citta) merely pave the way for the new object to contact a 
dvipancavinnana-citta(sense cognition-citta)?

What is the a need for pancadvaravajjajana-citta to be a 
kiriyacitta? Why couldn't a vipaka-citta do this job(adverting)? 
====================================== 


RobM: Carl, anticipating your next question...
When a javana citta is "akusala", it means that it has an 
unwholesome ethical quality; it has unwholesome roots.

However, akusala vipaka cittas are ethically neutral. They do not 
have unwholesome roots nor do they have wholesome roots. Akusala 
vipaka cittas earn the name "akusala" simply because they are the 
resultant of some past akusala action. Similarly, kusala vipaka 
cittas are also ethically neutral (no roots), but they are the 
resultant of some past kusala action.
===========================
Carl: Thanks for these clarifications.


==================================================================

From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@y...>wrote: 


S: ...(snip snip)...........I think in the passages you quoted, you 
are confusing:

a) panca-dvara-vajjana cittas ("five-sense-door adverting-
consciousness")
which are kiriya (inoperative- i.e neither cause nor result- cittas)
and
b) cakkhu-vinnana (seeing-consciousness) etc which are the vipaka 
(result
of kamma) cittas which immediately follow the panca-dvara-vajjana 
citta
above. This is why panca-dvaravajjana citta is also given as a 
condition
for seeing, hearing etc.
================================
Carl: Yep! I wasn't stuck in the mud after all! Just not paying 
attention.

Sarah, are you saying that Kiriya cittas are not a result of cause 
and effect? 
==============================

S: If you look in Useful Posts under `processes'
(vithi),you'll see 
clear charts of the order of cittas. OK, I've just copied from the
first one of RobK's who quotes from `Realities and
Concepts':
.......snip.....
=====
Carl: Thank you for this Sarah. There is a wealth of info in the UP 
section.
=====


Thanks Nina and Larry for your patience and interest. I may be 
actually understanding a tiny bit!
Carl
	
42682

From: Tep Sastri <tepyawa@m...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 2:11pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha said: That's how you should train yourselves

 	
Hi Hugo -

I am interested in the dialogue between you and Sarah below.

> >S: I don't believe I've ever said `training is useless' (snipped by
> >mistake), but I think we may have a different understanding 
>> of training as in `training is good'. I am interested in training 
>>as the development of satipatthana – no self involved of any kind.

> H: How can you train in developing satipatthana without 
> involving a self? Why do you read Dhamma books and 
> interact in this mailing list? Do you have a self? Do you cling to it?

May I be permitted to answer your questions, Hugo ? I am assuming 
that your answer is 'yes', and am going ahead answering them.

No, I don't think anyone can develop satipatthana and right 
understanding without a self to begin with. This self consists of rupa 
and nama; both of them are real at this very moment. Sure, they are not 
permanent. Sure, the existed rupa and nama in the past are no longer 
existing. But without the present-moment self, there cannot be 
development of citta. The fact that this clinging aggregates of ours 
exist, that we can use them for learning the Dhamma (reading the 
suttas and discussing the Dahmma at DSG, etc.) and as the laboratory 
for practicing the Dhamma, is very important. But we don't have to cling 
(upadana) to them; that's why we keep on contemplating each 
khandha that 'This is not mine, not I, not my self ', so that we can let go 
of cravings and attain the total release (some day).


Kindest regards,


Tep

========

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo <eklektik@g...> 
wrote:
> Dear Sarah,
> 
> > S: No rule that is right for all. 
> 
> Good!, so you agree that it is right at least for some.
>


42683

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:49am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Commnets on the Sabba Sutta/TG & Jon

 	
Hi, TG -

In a message dated 2/24/05 4:04:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
TGrand458@a... writes:

> Hi Howard
> 
> I didn't mean by "enough for now" not to continue the discourse...I just 
> meant I was done with my post. 
> 
> TG
> 
===================
LOL!! ;-))

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)  



42684

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 4:56pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Commnets on the Sabba Sutta/TG & Jon

 	
Larry: "One question, do you experience the eye?" 
--------------------------------------- 
Howard: "Yes. Please refer to the conversation about locational rupas I
had with Robert K. He actually made it clear to me how the eye can be
understood to be a paramattha dhamma, and not pa~n~natti."

Hi Howard,

I don't recall how that went but it is usually said that the eye
(sensitive matter) is a rupa that is cognized in a mind door process
only, probably by panna. In my experience this is reason. What is it in
your experience?

Larry


42685

From: Tep Sastri <tepyawa@m...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 6:21pm
Subject: Re: Eight Conditions for the Arising of Panna

 	
Hi Hugo -

Thank you very much for answering my questions. 

H: I think that Ajahn Lee is saying that you can't develop ONLY one or 
the other, you develop all of them at the same time, similar to what 
Ajahn Chah says about Vipassana and Samatha meditation (i.e. you 
can't do Vipassana without first having some level of calmness).
... I think we should not look at them in serial form, but in a circle
because each of them provide feedback to the others.
... Can you behave according to Sila if your mind is a chaos of 
cravings? Can you have any real understanding if your mind is a 
chaos of cravings?


T: Right, you have to start from something; you cannot add 0 to 0 and 
expect something nonzero as the result. Some people say the path of 
the Dhamma practice must start from sila as foundation, then add 
some samadhi, then some panna, etc. Others say that the path is not 
linear; it consists of loops and feedback branches. You just said that 
all 3 components had to be developed at the same time! 

If that suggested "model" is right, the practitioner would have to answer 
the following questions: How much of the three components should I 
prepare to have at the beginning, and after that, how do I do all of them 
at the same time? Just imagine telling a kid, who does not know how to 
juggle, to figure it out by himself how to keep three balls in the air at the 
same time. The kid would go crazy (unless he is an extraordinary kid).

But you don't have to look far to find practical answers. Assuming that 
you have strong saddha in the Buddha and the Teachings, then study 
MN 7 < He considers thus: '[The imperfections of the mind] have in part 
have been given up, expelled, released, abandoned and relnquished 
by me,' and he gains inspiration in the meaning, gains inspiration of the 
Dhamma, gain gladness connected with the Dhamma. When he is 
glad, rapture is born in him; in one who is rapturous, the body becomes 
tranquil; one whose body is tranquil feels pleasure; one who feels 
pleasure; in one who feels pleasure, the mind becomes 
concentrated. ..."> and MN 39 <"Bhikkhus, what are the things that 
make you a recluse and a brahmin? We will be endowed with shame 
and remorse. ...there is something more to do....We will be pure in our 
bodily actions manifest, open and without a flaw. ...there is something 
more to do. ...">, or follow AN X.92 <"When, for a disciple of the noble 
ones, five forms of fear & animosity are stilled; when he is endowed 
with the four factors of stream entry; and when, through discernment, he 
has rightly seen & rightly ferreted out the noble method, then if he wants 
he may state about himself: 'Hell is ended; animal wombs are ended; 
the state of the hungry shades is ended; states of deprivation, 
destitution, the bad bourns are ended! I am a stream-winner, steadfast, 
never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening!' ">. 

Of course, there are several more suttas one can select to study and 
find out the right answer without having to ask anyone else.


Warm regards,


Tep

========

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo <eklektik@g...> 
wrote:
> Dear Tep,
> 
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 02:21:07 -0000, Tep Sastri <tepyawa@m...> 
wrote:
	
42686

From: Jonothan Abbott <jsabbott@n...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 6:59pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation

 	
Hi, Hugo

Glad to see we are more in agreement than before ;-)). I'd just like to 
comment on one or two of your points.

>>Well, these are the factors given by the Buddha. Now the question is,
>>were they given as things to be *done as a practice*, or were they given
>>as things to know about so that with that knowledge our lives can be
>>better directed?
>> 
>>
>
>I don't know, that's why I try it first as what they seem to be to me,
>if that works, then perhaps that's right. Also, I look at them the
>other way and see if that works.
>
>Do you know?
>
>How did you know? or 
>
>How did you come to the conclusion that they were not given as "things to do"?
> 
>

Well, the quality of an action always depends on the accompanying mental 
state, and as soon as we find ourselves talking in the realm of doing 
this or that action we are in danger of losing sight of the fact that it 
is the mental state that is all important.

On the other hand if the 'thing to be done' is the development of 
kusala, then there is no particular action or set of actions involved, 
since the different kinds of kusala are not associated with particular 
kinds of action.

See the next segment about discussion as practice.

>Jon:
> 
>
>>Yes, all actions require intention, no argument about that. But are the
>>things you have just mentioned things that are to be done *as part of 'a
>>practice'*?
>> 
>>
>
>YES!,
>
>The fact that I subscribed to this mailing list, is because I know
>that discussion (withing limits) is a factor that will help me
>understand more about what the Buddha taught!
>
>So, "discussion" is one of the many ways "I practice".
> 
>

I'm glad that you see the value of useful discussion, because there are 
many people who do not.

However, if we were to generalise and say that dhamma discussion on 
mailing lists is practice, or that one should join in dhamma discussion 
on mailing lists, it is not the same thing at all, because such 
discussion could be driven by wrong view, or could be a condition for a 
lot of dosa, or could be frivolous. So it always comes back to the 
development of right understanding at the present moment.

And when participating with kusala, is there any need to think of it as 
a 'practice'? It is just moment of doing something beneficial.

>>Yes, but presumably we are all doing as much as we are capable of right
>>now, given our (limited) level of understanding and the circumstances in
>>which we find ourselves (both of which we must take as 'givens').
>> 
>>
>
>Cool, so we keep agreeing in the major things it is just detais we disagree.
>
>You said "presumably", which implies that you are not sure, cool, I am
>not sure too, so both you and I do not know how capable we really are.
>
>So, what we should do?
>
>I think we should keep trying to do as much as we can but wisely, that
>means recognizing that we might not "accomplish" anything, but because
>we don't know what are our capabilities we should not stop actively
>trying.
> 
>

Good. As you say, we agree on some of the major things now.

>> As
>>long as we don't have the idea that the development of kusala is
>>technically impossible at this very moment, or that conditions would be
>>so much better if only things were different, or conditions will be so
>>much better when (whatever, whatever later event or set of circumstances
>>occurs), then there will be no rocks in the way of right view arising.
>> 
>>
>
>I agree, but if I have the option to either stay at home or go and
>party all-night, which one should I choose?
>
>If I have the option of reading a science fiction novel or a Dhamma
>book, which one should I do?
>
>If I have the choice to watch T.V. or meditate, what should I do?
>
>That's what I am talking about.
> 
>

We can make generalisations about these contrasting situations, but i 
personally don't think there is a lot of value in thinking we should be 
doing X instead of Y.

Jon
	
42687

From: agriosinski <agriosinski@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:16pm
Subject: Re: Commnets on the Sabba Sutta

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote:
[...]> 
> The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear 
& sounds, 
> nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, 
intellect & 
> ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would 
say, 'Repudiating this 
> All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might 
be the 
> grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and 
furthermore, would be 
> put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." 
> =========================
> My comments follow:
> 
> Note that not included in "the all" are aany of those 
conventional 
> objects that seem to populate our world such tables, streets, 
schools, children, 
> cars, theatres, and mushrooms. 

Hi Howard,

I better get your (and others) opinion here, as my understanding of 
this sutta may be way off. Here how I understand it:

Tables, streets, children etc. arise as 
1. Ideas (listed as "intellect & ideas".)
2. They are conditioned by various conditions and triggered by
sensual experience of specific contacts (listed as "eye & forms, 
ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, 
body & tactile sensations" .)


The range here is drawn around six ayotana & their aramana in 
sensual experience of kamma loka. 
Thats All there is - it is said.

metta,
Agrios
	
42688

From: Waters Illusion <artupayam@h...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:04pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread (267): Charles

 	
"Charles DaCosta" wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I had to point out something some what unrelated:
> 
> Is the body, or Form, a sequence of Mind states, or is Form just 
> form? 
> 
> CharlesD
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
Htoo wrote:

> Dear Charles D,
> 
> Form is just form and mind states are mind states. If they are 
> separately seen then it is quite near to see realities.
> 
> With Metta,
> 
> Htoo Naing
________________________________________________________

Charles,

I agree with Htoo, it is actually what keeps me going when I 
meditate. By just keeping in mind that mind and matter are seperate 
entities...in that way I have disassociated myself (my mind) with 
all phenomenon of the body. For instance if I feel pain...yes the 
body is in pain, but not my mind, it still remains equanimous. 
Often times, people make situations worse by associating "the pain" 
as mine...my pain...I'm hurt...etc.

-Maya-
	
42689

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:24pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Commnets on the Sabba Sutta/TG & Jon

 	
Hi, Larry -

In a message dated 2/24/05 9:26:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... 
writes:

> Hi Howard,
> 
> I don't recall how that went but it is usually said that the eye
> (sensitive matter) is a rupa that is cognized in a mind door process
> only, probably by panna. In my experience this is reason. What is it in
> your experience?
> 
> Larry
> 
===========================
I may well not know what I'm talking about, Larry, but I don't think 
that awareness via the mind door is synonymous with the application of reason. 
When I see, there is is the sense that I have of the seeing associated 
with a physical activity at the location conventionally described as the 
eyes, even though science tells me it is in the brain. When I hear, there is the 
sense of the hearing associated with an "activation" in the location of the 
ears, where, again, science tells me it is in the brain. Pains appear at 
locations in the body. Odors seem to be at the nose, again even though science points 
to the brain. Thoughts, on the other hand, seem to me to be associated with 
activity in the head location, and emotions in the chest-throat location. Every 
type of sensing seems to have a physical location associated with that 
function, and it is an "activation" of those locations that I do experience and that 
I identify with "eye", "ear", etc.
I realize that what I have said above is vague, but it is difficult to 
describe. How does one describe "blue"? ;-) The sense doors seem to me to be 
locational rupas that arise and cease, and I seem to be aware of of them. I 
suspect we all are.

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)  



42690

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:48pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Commnets on the Sabba Sutta

 	
Hi, Agrios -

In a message dated 2/24/05 11:19:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
agriosinski@y... writes:

> Hi Howard,
> 
> I better get your (and others) opinion here, as my understanding of 
> this sutta may be way off. Here how I understand it:
> 
> Tables, streets, children etc. arise as 
> 1. Ideas (listed as "intellect &ideas".)
> 
---------------------------------------------
Howard:
That may well be so, though, I cannot find any single mind-door object 
that is a child-idea. But I could be wrong, and concepts/thoughts/ideas might 
actually be mind-door paramattha dhammas.
But in any case, I wasn't referring to *ideas* of tables, streets, and 
children etc, but to alleged *real* tables, streets, and children etc. And 
these are *not* included by the Buddha in "the all".
----------------------------------------------


> 2. They are conditioned by various conditions and triggered by
> sensual experience of specific contacts (listed as "eye &forms, 
> ear &sounds, nose &aromas, tongue &flavors, 
> body &tactile sensations" .)
> 
> 
> The range here is drawn around six ayotana &their aramana in 
> sensual experience of kamma loka. 
> Thats All there is - it is said.
> 
-------------------------------------
Howard:
I don't think the Buddha is defining the range to be these 12, and 
saying that this range is all there is. It isn't, IMO, an outright statement that 
there is nothing other than these 12. 
What I think that the Buddha is saying is that these 12 are to be 
*considered* all there is, and that one should not claim more than these, because 
anything else is beyond the range of experience. In fact, I have seen 
translations of the Sabba Sutta which actually say "beyond the range of experience" 
instead of just "beyond range".
----------------------------------------------

> 
> metta,
> Agrios
> 
> 
=====================
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)  



42691

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:07pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Commnets on the Sabba Sutta/TG & Jon

 	
Howard: "The sense doors seem to me to be locational rupas that arise
and cease, and I seem to be aware of of them. I suspect we all are."

Hi Howard,

I think I see what you mean. It's tricky because you have to eliminate
any 5-door consciousness or rupas in order to identify a mind-door
inkling or intuition of sensitive matter. Plus I'm not sure what kind of
a dhamma 'location' is.

One thing to be noted is that the other 9 suttas in this section are
concerned with abandoning the all (SNIV,23-32). The objection might be
made, what's the problem if one sees one's chariot as anicca, dukkha,
anatta? Why do we have to reduce everything to the most minute elements
of experience? 

Larry
	
42692

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:34pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Commnets on the Sabba Sutta

 	
Hi Agrios,

There is a little controversy about whether 'dhamma ayatana' includes
concepts even though concepts are included in 'dhamma arammana'. The
'Guide' in CMA p.287 says they are not included, but Note 9 SNIV,24 says
dhamma arammana are included in dhamma ayatana. B. Bodhi wrote both
notes from commentaries. 

Sarah might have something to say about this. She brought it up a couple
of years ago.

Larry
-------------------
Agrios: "Hi Howard, 
I better get your (and others) opinion here, as my understanding of this
sutta may be way off. Here how I understand it: 
Tables, streets, children etc. arise as 
1. Ideas (listed as "intellect & ideas".) 
2. They are conditioned by various conditions and triggered by  
sensual experience of specific contacts (listed as "eye & forms,   ear
& sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors,   body & tactile
sensations" .) 
The range here is drawn around six ayotana & their aramana in sensual
experience of kamma loka. 
Thats All there is - it is said. 
metta,
Agrios"
	
42693

From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:52pm
Subject: Sariputta's Aspiration

 	
Dear Ven Dhammanando, Kel & All,

This is a bit of a an off-shoot of our thread for anyone interested in the
commentary accounts about Sariputta and MahaMoggallana’s original
Aspirations..

In ‘The Clarifier of the Sweet Meaning’ (Madhuratthavilaasinii), PTS
transl,under Anomadassin Buddha, it mentions the two chief disciples
making their aspiration. A footnote refers to AA I 152ff and Dh A 106ff
for further details if you wish to check.

Incidentally, at this time of Buddha Anomadassin, ‘our Bodhisatta’ who had
made his aspiration a long time previously, was a powerful yakkha-general
and ruler ‘over countless hundreds and thousands of crores of yakkhas’. He
approached the Buddha who declared that ‘innumerable eons from now this
one will be a Buddha’ and so the Bodhisatta made his ‘endeavour firmer for
fulfilling the perfections’. Buddha Anomadassin was the eighteenth Buddha
before Buddha Gotama.

At this time, the life-span of humans was said to be a hundred thousand
years. The Buddha ‘caused the rain of Abhidhamma to rain down for three
months’ and ‘eighty crores of devas penetrated’. He recited the Patimokkha
‘in the midst of eight hundred thousand arahants who had gone forth’ and
then to two further assemblies of similar sizes.

Back to Nyanaponika’s summary from the other commentaries on the original
aspirations of Sariputta and Moggallana, but first let me quote the
example Kel gave with regard to the attainment of arahantship of the two:

“Now it may be asked: Did not Sariputta possess great wisdom? And if so,
why did he attain arahantship later than Moggallana?” The answer,
according to the commentaries, is because of the greatness of the
preparations required. When poor people want to go anywhere they take to
the road at once; but in the case of kings, extensive preparations must be
made, and these require time. And so too is it in order to become the
first chief disciple of a Buddha.”

As I mentioned, Nyanaponika gives a summary of Sarada and Sirivaddhana
(later to become Sariputta and Moggallana) and their encounter with Buddha
Anomadassin. The Buddha was at a hermitage with one hundred thousand
arahants when Sarada and his ascetic pupils went to pay respect for a
week, holding a canopy of flowers over the Buddha while he was in
nirodhasamaapatti (attainment of cessation). His two chief disciples then
gave talks before the Buddha spoke. All Sarada’s ascetic pupils became
arahants, but as I mentioned Sarada did not attain any ‘stage of
sanctity’, i.e ariyan state. Instead he made his aspiration ‘as the fruit
of the act of homage’ performed by holding the canopy of flowers over the
Buddha for a week, to the Buddha and was told that it would be successful.

Sirivaddhana, a lay devotee, then provided great alms to the Buddha and
monks and made his aspiration to become the second disciple. They were
reborn in heavenly and Brahma-worlds.

Nyanaponika says there is no further continuous narrative about them, but
of course Sariputta in particular plays an important role in many, many
Jatakas, where often both the Bodhisatta and he are animals.

It’s also pointed out that all Buddhas have a pair of chief disciples and
all Buddhas in the future will do so too. It is ‘inherent in the very
nature of the Buddha’s Dispensation’.

In conclusion here, nothing new is added to the question of the degree of
insight attained by Sariputta at the time, but clearly there was an
Aspiration and very special conditions as I’m sure there were for all the
great disciples.

I look forward to anything further anyone has to add.

Metta,

Sarah
========
	
42694

From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:03pm
Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 131 - Applied thinking/Vitakka, Sustained thinking/Vicaara(a)

 	
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.8 Applied thinking(Vitakka),Sustained thinking(Vicaara)]
*****
Part II: The Particulars,ch 8
***
Seven cetasikas, the universals (sabbacitta-sådhårana), arise with
every citta. Besides these seven cetasikas there are six cetasikas,
the particulars (paki.n.nakå), which accompany cittas of the four
jåtis but not every citta. Both the “universals” and the “particulars”
are of the same jåti as the citta they accompany. Thus, they can
be kusala, akusala, vipåka or kiriya. 

In addition to the “universals” and the “particulars” there are also
akusala cetasikas which arise only with akusala cittas and sobhana
(beautiful) cetasikas which arise only with sobhana cittas.

Vitakka, applied thinking or initial thinking, and vicåra, sustained
thinking or sustained application, are two cetasikas among the
“particulars” (1). We believe that we know what thinking is. We
think of what we have seen, heard, smelt, tasted or experienced
through the bodysense, or we think of ideas and concepts. We
build up long stories of what we experienced and we cling to
thinking. 

In order to know the realities of vitakka and vicåra we
should not be misled by the conventional term “thinking”. Through
the study of the Abhidhamma and the commentaries we can
acquire a more precise knowledge of realities.
***
1) See also Dhammasangani #7 and 8.
*****
[Ch.8 Applied thinking(Vitakka),Sustained thinking(Vicaara)to be contd]

Metta,

Sarah
======
	
42695

From: cosmique <cosmique1000@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:13pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun

 	
Dear Sarah & James,



James wrote: Interesting, there is a law of physics which applies to this matter: Energy is never destroyed, it is only transformed. The consciousness of an arahant is not like that of a wordling. As the Buddha said, he was deep and unfathomable like the ocean- and yet you speak as if you have him all figured out ;-).



Cosmique: Let me put my two cents in. I have been following this discussion since its very beginning because a nibbana-citta relation is my most favorite subject. I have read some books by Rev. Mahabhoowa, a student of Acharya Mun, and, as far as I remember, according to this tradition the ultimate reality is identified with the purified citta free from khandha. I might have forgotten some things but I remember my surprise when I read that citta according to Mahabhoowa was composed of 4 mental khandhas, and with cessation of the khandhas what was left was just pure citta. In other words, citta exists after parinibbana. This sounds a little non-orthodox, doesn’t it?

Having read quite a few books on this subject I dare to come to a conclusion that a lot of confusion arises because of misapplication of the terminology. In other words, what some try to term as “the liberated citta” is not quite a citta at all. To say that citta exist after parinibbana would be a misnomer. Citta’s work is to know objects. If there is no object, there is no subject; therefore, there is no citta as such. What is left after citta & cetasikas are suspended cannot be called citta, because subject-object relation is absent in that state and that state does not cognize objects. Therefore, to call that state “citta” is incorrect by definition. Far example, when we switch the light off can we say that the light still exist in the room? Obviously not! The function of the light is to shine, but the room is dark; the light is gone. On the other hand, the electricity is not gone, but it is not the light any more since it does not perform the function of the
light. Well, perhaps, one can refer to the electricity as the light only poetically or allegorically. Just as matter is not called energy, nibbana is not called citta, although they are not so far apart. 



Metta,



Cosmique



The heaviness of one's burden is due to one's grasping.


---------------------------------

42696

From: buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:28pm
Subject: Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun

 	
Hi Sarah,

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" 
<buddhatrue@y...> wrote:
> 
> Hi Sarah,
> 
> Sarah: I could add that I have no reason to doubt comments made by 
> the Buddha and in the commentaries about the decline of the 
sasana, 
> however. (See `sasana' in U.P.)
> 
> James: Do you have an outside source to refer to in this regard? 
I 
> find most of the posts in U.P. to be highly biased and don't read 
> them for background information (except my posts to the star kids, 
> of course! Lol ;-))
<snip>

As an update to my previous post:

I decided to do a bit of research on my own about the Buddha Sasana 
since I realized it isn't fair to put the burden on you, and I don't 
trust the UP files. From my research, I have found that in the 
Bhikkhuni Khandhaka of the Cullavagga Pali the Buddha supposedly 
made the prediction that the Sasana would last only 500 years 
(instead of the original 1000) because of the admittance of women 
into the Sangha. Later, Buddhaghosa decides that because the women 
bhikhunnis were given eight special observances to follow (like 
a "dyke to a reservoir"), he declares that the Buddha Sasana will 
last for 5,000 years instead of 500 years. Buddhaghosa also 
declares that the first 1000 years will have Arahants with the four 
analytical knowledges,; the 2nd thousand years will have Arahants 
who have destroyed all cankers; the 3rd thousand years will have non-
returners; the 4th thousand years will have once-returners; and the 
last 5th thousand years will have Sotapannas. Then the dispensation 
will be over but there will still be recluses (monks).

Sarah, I will give you three guesses as to how I value the opinions 
of Buddhaghosa!! (But I'm sure you'll get it in one guesss) ;-)) 
Secondly, I greatly doubt the authenticity of the Cullavagga and 
don't believe the Buddha gave any such prediction in the first 
place. Honestly, the issue of women in Buddhism is one that bothers 
me because the texts portray the Buddha as a blatant sexist and, in 
my heart of hearts, I don't believe that he was. Perhaps you might 
like to read Chapter 7 "The Dispensation and the Position of Women" 
in the book `The Mission Accomplished' by Ven. Pategama Gnanarama 
PhD at this link:
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/mission-accomplished.pdf

Sorry to keep adding to your reading list. ;-)

Metta,
James
	
42697

From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@y...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:49pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dialogue with RobM-1

 	
Hi RobM,

Thanks for your prompt feed-back on this thread too. I always learn
something from your further reflections.

--- robmoult <rob.moult@j...> wrote: 
> When an Arahant experiences akusala vipaka such as painful bodily 
> experience, then which citta will play the role of javana? It must 
> be kiriya. But there are eight of them, so which one? Because the 
> Arahant has no perversion of perception, the javana will not be with 
> pleasant feeling. Now we are down to four; prompted / unprompted and 
> with or without wisdom. I am saying that the choice of one of the 
> four will depend on accumulations.
…
S: I agree with these comments, but I’m not sure how they support your
earlier comment which I referred to in which you said ‘the javana (or an
Arahant) will follow the intrinsic nature of the object….’etc. The
intrinsic nature here is of an undesirable rupa.
….
> Of course, the accumulations of an Arahant become much more obvious 
> when we look at the macro level and note the different personalities 
> of each of the Buddha's main disciples, all of whom were Arahants.
….
S: This would just be speaking genrally, I think.
….
> I think that I mentioned my reasoning in another post. It seems 
> clear to me that touching a very hot thing or a very cold thing is 
> intrinsically undesirable using the criteria of "average men" such 
> as accountants and government officials :-). I can also understand 
> how intrinsic nature can apply to pressure, taste, smell and maybe 
> even sound. 
….
S: The difficulty is that we’re bound to start thinking of situations or
stories about various objects when as the text stressed: “Only by way of
[kamma] result, however, is it rightly distinguishable. For [kamma] result
consciousness cannot be mistaken. If the object is agreeable it is
profitable result that has arisen; if disagreeable, it is unprofitable
result that has arisen.”

So we can make general statements as you do or speculate, but we can never
say for sure whether the taste or sound or any other rupa is really
intrinsically desirable or not at any given moment, I think.
….
> Keeping in mind that visible object is what exists before any 
> identification of form, any naming of contect, etc. is done, I 
> cannot think of any cases where a visible object clearly falls into 
> the intrinsically desirable or intrinsically undesirable category, 
> again using the criteria of "average men" such as accountants and 
> government officials :-).
….
S: And given the amount of perversion that arises in a day (whenever the
javana cittas are not kusala, which of course is most the time), there
really is no way of knowing, I think. K.Sujin just stresses that it's
impossible to know what is kusala and what is akusala vipaka at any moment
and no use trying. This makes sense to me, but of course we generalise and
speak conventionally all the time and that's fine.
….
> True, it is speculation. But not without some grounds. Not based on 
> observation of akusla or kusala vipaka arising but rather based on 
> the criteria of "average men" such as accountants and government 
> officials :-).
> 
> Sorry, I can't write "accountants and government officials :-)" 
> without an accompanying smiley - just one of my accumulations, I 
> guess :-).
…
S: Yes, it makes me smile too, especially being married to a government
official :-)
….
> 
> In CMA, Bhikkhu Bodhi defines patipatti as sila, samadhi and panna.
> 
> The symbolic meaning of a stupa involves the base (sila), body 
> (samadhi) and the pinnacle (panna).
> 
> =====
S: The Eightfold Path consists of the development of (higher) sila,
Samadhi and panna. But where does it say that (higher) sila or any sila
comes first, then Samadhi, then panna? 

Dispeller 570: “But this path is both vision and conduct (vijjaa c’eva
cara.na~n ca) because of the inclusion of Right View and Thinking by
vision and of the remaining states by conduct.”
….
> All cittas have ekaggata and manisikara; however in this particular 
> citta, these two cetasikas play a prominent role in achieving the 
> fuction of the citta (adverting).
….
S: We’re talking about sense-door adverting consciousness (panca dvara
vajjana citta). I think you’ve mentioned this before. I’m interested in
where you get it from and to see any textual support for it. Another name
for this citta in ‘vithi patipada manasikara’, but here the manasikara has
nothing to do with the cetasika of advertence, so I’m wondering if there
is some confusion or if there really is support for your comment.

Metta,

Sarah
========
	
42698

From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@y...> 
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 0:33am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Eight Conditions for the Arising of Panna

 	
Hi Tep,

> Your presentation of the Patimokkha sila is commendable.
...
S: Thanks to the sutta and points you raised for helping me to consider
further.

Just a couple of further points:

--- Tep Sastri <tepyawa@m...> wrote: 
> T: I would like to bluntly comment that Nyanatiloka Bhikkhu says that 
> the lay people have a lot greater freedom of choice with respect to 
> moral rules than bhikkhus is simply because they are not bhikkhu. 
> Being bhikkhus, according to the Buddha, means they have to attain 
> higher sila, etc.. However, it is my belief that many lay people are 
> going to spend "aeons" of uncountable rebirths unless they are less 
> relaxed and become more conscientious in developing "higher sila" 
> and following "the training precepts or steps(sikkhaapada) without
> fail".
….
S: I believe that higher sila has to be developed by everyone regardless
of whether one is a bhikkhu or lay person as you say. However, only the
sotapanna has perfected higher sila – it is the sila which is developed
with samma ditthi (right understanding) of the eightfold path only. In
other words, bhikkhus may appear to follow the Patimokkha perfectly, but
without the high development of satipatthana, there cannot be the
attainment of higher sila that lay people such as Visakkha attained before
she had a large number of children, grand-children and led such a busy
life as a lay devotee. 

So I don’t think it’s so much a question of being relaxed or not with
regard to the training precepts, but developing the understanding which
really knows what is right and what is wrong and that both right and wrong
are merely conditioned namas.

I’d like to quote James here:

J:>”Allow me to quote from the commentary notes of the 
Satipatthana Sutta:

Bhikkhu[15] is a term to indicate a person who earnestly endeavors 
to accomplish the practice of the teaching. Others, gods and men, 
too, certainly strive earnestly to accomplish the practice of the 
teaching, but because of the excellence of the bhikkhu-state by way 
of practice, the Master said: "Bhikkhu." For amongst those who 
accept the teaching of the Buddha, the bhikkhu is the highest owing 
to fitness for receiving manifold instruction. Further, when that 
highest kind of person, the bhikkhu, is reckoned, the rest too are 
reckoned, as in regard to a royal procession and the like, when the 
king is reckoned, by the reckoning of the king, the retinue is 
reckoned. Also the word "bhikkhu" was used by the Buddha to point 
out the bhikkhu-state through practice of the teaching in this 
way: "He who practices this practice of the Arousing of Mindfulness 
is called a bhikkhu." He who follows the teaching, be he a shining 
one [deva] or a human, is indeed called a bhikkhu. Accordingly it is 
said: 

"Well-dressed one may be, but if one is calm,
Tamed, humble, pure, a man who does no harm
To aught that lives, that one's a brahman true.
An ascetic and mendicant too."[16] “<
*****
Also, remember Nina’s post to Lars about the meanings of adhi sila (higher
sila), adhi citta and adhi panna? (see #41165). This is from another of
her posts #35714:

N:>”The ³Visuddhimagga², in the Chapter on Virtue, Síla, gives the
following fourfold classification of purity of síla (pårisuddhi síla):
the restraint of ³Påtimokkha² including 227 rules of discipline for the
monk, the restraint of the sense faculties (indriya saóvara síla), the
purity of livelihood (åjíva pårisuddhi síla), the use of the four
requisites of robe, dwelling, food and medicines, that is purified by
reflection (paccaya sannissita síla).

With regard to the restraint of the Påtimokkha, we read in the ³Book of
Analysis² (Ch 12, 244):

Herein a bhikkhu dwells restrained and controlled by the Påtimokkha
restraint, endowed with (proper) behaviour and a (suitable) alms resort,
seeing peril in (his) slightest faults, observing (the precepts) he trains
himself in the precepts....

As regards restraint of the sense faculties, there are different levels of
restraint. We read in the ³Middle Length Sayings² (no. 27, Lesser
Discourse on the Simile of the Elephant¹s Footprint) that the Buddha spoke
to the brahman Jånussoni about the monk who has restraint as to the
sense-faculties:

... Having seen visible object with the eye he is not entranced by the
general appearance, he is not entranced by the detail. If he dwells with
this organ of sight uncontrolled, covetousness and dejection, evil
unskilled states of mind, might predominate. So he fares along controlling
it; he guards the organ of sight, he comes to control over the organ of
sight....

The same is said with regard to the other senses and the mind-door. When
awareness arises of visible object, sound or the other sense objects,
there is no opportunity for the arising of akusala citta. At such a moment
one does not harm anybody else through body or speech. When we understand
which paramattha dhamma síla is, namely, citta and cetasika, it will be
clear that there can be síla, even when one does not act or speak.
Satipatthåna is the Buddha¹s teaching, and thus, satipatthåna should not
be separated from the other ways of síla the monk should observe: the
restraint of the ³Påtimokkha², the purity of livelihood and the use of the
requisites which is purified by reflection.”<
*****
S: So I believe that adhi-sila and satipatthana cannot be separated.

It’s always good to hear your well-considered reflections, Tep.

Metta,

Sarah

I agreed with your comments on the Aggivacchagotta Sutta #42562 and your
other comments in this thread.
=========================================
	
42699

From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@y...> 
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 1:34am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the Five Indriyas, what is sati, no 1- MN 95.

 	
Hi Tep,

You quoted and commented on a few lines of the Canki Sutta, MN95 in your
discussion with Nina and I thought it was a good analysis, but I didn't
wish to butt in at the time. It’s helpful to consider what is meant by
‘striving’, for example as you were doing:
….
T: The talking about the "right practice", based on using suttas, reminds
me of MN 95. Please allow me to present an excerpt from this sutta with my
thoughts. I think you might like it too (you most probably have read this
sutta).

" The final arrival at truth, Bharadvaja, lies in the repetition,
development, and cultivation of those same things. In this way,
Bharadvaja, there is the final arrival at truth; in this way one finally
arrives at truth; in this way we describe the final arrival at truth."

"Striving is most helpful for the final arrival at truth, Bharadvaja. If
one does not strive, one will not finally arrive at truth: but because one
strives, one does finally arrive at truth. That is why striving is most
helpful for the final arrival at truth." etc. etc.

The striving (atapi) is a supporting factor in this training of the
supramundane insight ('final arrival at truth'). The whole process
described in this discourse, which starts from 'hearing the Dhamma' may be
summarized as follows: 

The final arrival at truth <--- Striving <--- Scrutinizing <---
Application of will <--- Zeal <--- Reflection on the Teachings
<---Examination of meanings <--- Memorizing the Teachings <--- Hearing the
Dhamma.”<
*****
S: As you rightly went on to mention “There are words like "application of
will" and "striving", which indicate 'bala' and persistence(viriya) during
the vipassana bhavana.” You also went on to indicate that this is “without
a 'self' directing the effort, or lobha that yearns for results”.

As I understand, atapi (striving) is a synonym for right effort (samma
vayama) and indicates the presence of the other 8-fold path factors and
the 4 sammappadhaana (4 right efforts).

We read the phrase ‘ardent, clearly comprehending and mindful’ in the
Satipatthana Sutta. The commentary adds on ardent (atapi):
...
“Atapi = "Ardent". What burns the defilement of the three planes of
becoming is ardour. Ardour is a name for energy.

"Although the term burning [atapana] is applied to the abandoning of
defilements here, it is also applicable to right view, thought, speech,
action, livelihood, mindfulness and concentration. As "ardour" [atapa],
like "glow" [atappa], is restricted by use to just energy generally, it is
said: "ardour is a name for energy." Or because of the occurrence of
energy [viriya] by way of instigating the associated things, in the
abandoning of opposing qualities, that itself (i.e., energy) is ardour
(atapa]. 

"In this place only energy [viriya] is referred to by "atapa". By taking
the word ardent [atapi] the Master points out the one possessed of right
energy or exertion [sammappadhana].”
*****
So’striving’ is the right effort in the development of vipassana bhavana
as you said, which develops with clear comprehension (sampajaana or panna)
and mindfulness (sati) until they become balas (powers) along with saddha
(confidence) and concentration (smadhi). As you said this is‘ “without a
'self' directing the effort, or lobha that yearns for results”.’

If there is a moment of satipatthana now – awareness and understanding of
any dhamma appearing- then right effort is also there and this is a moment
of bhavana, as I see it.

I look forward to any other sutta extracts with your comments too.

Metta,

Sarah
=======
	
42700

From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@y...> 
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 2:11am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun

 	
Hi James,

--- buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> wrote: 
> Sarah: I have no opinions/beliefs regarding A.Mun …
> 
> James: Well, in this case it is helpful to know if he was just 
> hallucinating or if he was an arahant and telling the truth. It is 
> relevant to this discussion. I think you are just avoiding a direct 
> answer. You entered this thread so you must have an opinion one way 
> or the other on the subject.
…
S: I have an opinion on the point about cittas and paranibbana. If anyone
suggests they can communicate with the cittas of the Buddha after his
paranibbana, I think it’s wrong. 
…
> Sarah: I believe the texts, including the sutta I quoted, clearly 
> indicate that all khandhas cease, never to arise again at 
> paranibbana. Of course, cittas make up the vinnana khandha. Just as 
> when no more fuel is added to the fire, the flames cease for good, 
> so for the khandhas when no more fuel is added.
> 
> James: Interesting, there is a law of physics which applies to this 
> matter: Energy is never destroyed, it is only transformed. The 
> consciousness of an arahant is not like that of a wordling. As the 
> Buddha said, he was deep and unfathomable like the ocean- and yet 
> you speak as if you have him all figured out ;-).
….
S: I believe it is the truths and his omniscience which are deep and
unfathomable. In any case, the khandhas of an arahant or Buddha are still
anicca, dukkha and anatta. As I said, at paranibbana, no new fuel for the
khandhas to arise. 

We’re discussing dhammas, not physics;-).
….
> Sarah: There cannot be any citta communication with cittas which 
> have been completely extinguished. 
> 
> James: Of course, but the point I am making is that it is quite 
> possible that the cittas have not been extinguished but merely 
> transformed. 
…
S: I don’t believe there is any suggestion of this possibility in the
texts.
…
>However, my larger point is that we shouldn't think we 
> know something just from reading the suttas. That would be a 
> significant flaw and a hindrance to practice. Life and experience 
> are a lot more than what is written in the suttas.
…
S: <smile> no comment
….
> ps. Again, you can find the biography at this link:
> http://buddhanet.net/pdf_file/munbio_photos.pdf
…
S: You’re welcome to post any further (short) extracts for discussion. I’d
be happy to discuss any points of dhamma. I think this is more useful than
‘A.Mun study’, ‘K.Sujin study’ or even ‘James’ or ‘Sarah’ study;-).

Metta,

Sarah
========
	
42701

From: gazita2002 <gazita2002@y...> 
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 2:12am
Subject: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 128 - Vitality-Nina

 	
Dear Nina,

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@x> 
wrote:
> Dear Azita,
> op 22-02-2005 01:48 schreef gazita2002 op gazita2002@y...:

> > Azita: are all these cetasikas 'known' by the time 'one' becomes
> > sotapanna, or is it only a Buddha that knows them?
> > By known, I mean experienced and understood for what they really
> > are - anatta, anicca, dukkha.
> N: No, not necessary. The pañña of different persons is different. 
Whatever
> object appears can be object of awareness and understanding, so that
> eventually it is seen as anatta, anicca, dukkha. It does not mean 
that all
> cetasikas have to be known. We should not worry about that.
> Nina.

Azita: thank you for your comment Nina. You know, sometimes I think 
I understand a lot of Dhamma, and then next time I come to it, I 
realise how little I really know. 
I have heard :-), that the development of right understanding 
goes along with detachment even from the very beginning. I wondered 
how that could be, but I start to understand what that means now. 
Even when we first hear the words of the Buddha, we want 
something, we want more understanding. However, the wanting is a 
hindrance and yet 'we' can't stop the wanting, and we can be aware of 
the wanting when there is a degree of understanding; but we cant make 
the understanding happen when 'we' desire it.
The ultimate Catch 22. The Dhamma is subtle, like the 'b' in 
the word 'subtle'.

Patience, courage and good cheer,
Azita.
	
42702

From: Charles DaCosta <dacostas@P...> 
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 9:41pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Thread (267): Charles

 	
In Zen, there is a saying: If you are knocked down 6 times, you must get up seven. 
AND: When does one and one give you one.

One (one pun intended) of the ways of looking at these is when body/form phenomena progress to mind phenomena, it requires extra work. Over time it will progess.

CharlesD

sorry I had 2 min to reply. Not much thought


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Waters Illusion 
<....>
Charles,

I agree with Htoo, it is actually what keeps me going when I 
meditate. By just keeping in mind that mind and matter are seperate 
entities...in that way I have disassociated myself (my mind) with 
all phenomenon of the body. For instance if I feel pain...yes the 
body is in pain, but not my mind, it still remains equanimous. 
Often times, people make situations worse by associating "the pain" 
as mine...my pain...I'm hurt...etc.

-Maya-
	
42703

From: sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@y...> 
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:12am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dialogue with RobM-1

 	
Rob, a typo correction

--- sarah abbott <sarahprocterabbott@y...> wrote: 
> Another
> name
> for this citta in ‘vithi patipada manasikara’, but here the manasikara
> has
> nothing to do with the cetasika of advertence, 
....
S: this should read: "nothing to do with the cetasika of attention (i.e
manasikara cetasika)."

Sarah
	
42704

From: gazita2002 <gazita2002@y...> 
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:36am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha said: That's how .......Hugo

 	
Hello Hugo, Sarah and other friends,

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott 
<sarahprocterabbott@y...> wrote:
> Dear Hugo,
> 
> --- Hugo <eklektik@g...> wrote: 
> <…>
> > Will I ever see anything different?

Azita: No, 'you' won't ever see it differently, but wisdom and 
understanding will, given the right conditions. 


> S: If it's any comfort at all, let me assure you that many others 
here
> have gone through the frustrations (and more) that you're going 
through as
> you listen to the `stuck record', to give a very old-fashioned 
simile. 
> ….
> > Your replies are always the same, keep pointing to something, it 
seems
> > to me that if you were trying to help a little kid learn to share 
you
> > will just keep telling him "sharing is good, sharing is good" 
withouth
> > ever talking to him in any different way, without "lowering" 
yourself
> > to his level of understanding, without showing him that same 
truth by
> > using other means that are available to him.

Azita: Sarah's right I think, Hugo. Many of us do go thro the 
frustrations again and again, because 'we' want something. 'we' want 
to understand and we cant make it happen :-( 
I have heard that it takes much patience to develop some 
understanding of the Buddhas teaching. We have to listen and study 
the teachings, contemplate what we hear and study and - I guess this 
is where I'm at - realising that no amount of desire for results will 
aid the development of understanding - and also realising that maybe 
in this life we will never really understand. Maybe there aren't ever 
going to be the right conditions in this existence - who knows.
We all want to hear comforting words, but I don't think the 
reality is very comforting :-( IMHO

> ….
> S: As Sukin said, once you get it, we'll be able to leave the task 
of
> explanation to you with your rich repertoire of language!
> ....snip......
> Metta,
> 
> Sarah

Patience, courage and good cheer,
Azita.


42705

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 1:10am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Commnets on the Sabba Sutta/TG & Jon

 	
Hi, Larry -

In a message dated 2/25/05 1:13:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... 
writes:

> 
> Howard: "The sense doors seem to me to be locational rupas that arise
> and cease, and I seem to be aware of of them. I suspect we all are."
> 
> Hi Howard,
> 
> I think I see what you mean. It's tricky because you have to eliminate
> any 5-door consciousness or rupas in order to identify a mind-door
> inkling or intuition of sensitive matter. Plus I'm not sure what kind of
> a dhamma 'location' is.
> 
----------------------------------------
Howard:
Yes, it *is* tricky. It is subtle, and perhaps I'm mistaken. Perhaps a 
sensed physical location is a "subtle rupa".
----------------------------------------

> 
> One thing to be noted is that the other 9 suttas in this section are
> concerned with abandoning the all (SNIV,23-32). The objection might be
> made, what's the problem if one sees one's chariot as anicca, dukkha,
> anatta? Why do we have to reduce everything to the most minute elements
> of experience? 
> 
---------------------------------------
Howard:
Well, I think the abandoning of chariots etc is the abandoning of 
merely apparent but not actual phenomena, and which can be seen to be not actual 
by the cultivation of vipassana. Abandoning "the most minute elements of 
experience," however, also brought about by the cultivation of wisdom, is an 
abandoning of actual elements of experience, and that is a different sort of 
abandoning, because they are experiential realities. The abandoning of them amounts to 
the cultivation of a clear seeing of their conditioned, utterly dependent, 
impermament, insubstantial, and unsatisfying nature, and the resulting 
dis-enchantment and release of clinging.
------------------------------------------

> 
> 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)  


42706

From: agriosinski <agriosinski@y...> 
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 6:21am
Subject: [dsg] Re: Commnets on the Sabba Sutta

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote:
> Hi, Agrios -
> 
> In a message dated 2/24/05 11:19:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> agriosinski@y... writes:
> 
> > Hi Howard,
> > 
> > I better get your (and others) opinion here, as my understanding 
of 
> > this sutta may be way off. Here how I understand it:
> > 
> > Tables, streets, children etc. arise as 
> > 1. Ideas (listed as "intellect &ideas".)
> > 
> ---------------------------------------------
> Howard:
> That may well be so, though, I cannot find any single mind-
door object 
> that is a child-idea. But I could be wrong, and 
concepts/thoughts/ideas might 
> actually be mind-door paramattha dhammas.
> But in any case, I wasn't referring to *ideas* of tables, 
streets, and 
> children etc, but to alleged *real* tables, streets, and children 
etc. And 
> these are *not* included by the Buddha in "the all".
> ----------------------------------------------

Hi Howard,

There are various personal ideas of "child" which arise on its terms.
Arising of this idea is Dhamma, not the subject of the idea.
There is no subject of idea.
I dont think in light of DO we can talk about something "to be"
or to exist, or to "truly be". It never is this way.

I am not good in cittas classification, but it seems to me that 
concept "child" starts arising way before any naming takes place.

In Honeyball Sutta:
"Dependent on intellect & ideas, intellect-consciousness arises. The 
meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite 
condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in 
the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks 
about, one complicates. Based on what a person complicates, the 
perceptions & categories of complication assail him/her with regard 
to past, present, & future ideas cognizable via the intellect."

Now there is "child" you are talking about. A personal version of it.
And is made in DO process starting with single mind door
(listed as "intellect &ideas".)
It is gone by now, nothing left. 
To have another "child" there has to be another intellect & ideas
proces started and of course the new "child" created will be
a different one.

In any case, in both suttas it starts with "intellect &ideas".
You are right that children etc. are *not* included by the Buddha 
in "the all". The process of creating various multiple versions
of "children" is. The Dhamma.


> > 2. They are conditioned by various conditions and triggered by
> > sensual experience of specific contacts (listed as "eye &forms, 
> > ear &sounds, nose &aromas, tongue &flavors, 
> > body &tactile sensations" .)
> > 
> > 
> > The range here is drawn around six ayotana &their aramana in 
> > sensual experience of kamma loka. 
> > Thats All there is - it is said.
> > 
> -------------------------------------
> Howard:
> I don't think the Buddha is defining the range to be these 
12, and 
> saying that this range is all there is. It isn't, IMO, an outright 
statement that 
> there is nothing other than these 12. 
> What I think that the Buddha is saying is that these 12 are 
to be 
> *considered* all there is, and that one should not claim more than 
these, because 
> anything else is beyond the range of experience. In fact, I have 
seen 
> translations of the Sabba Sutta which actually say "beyond the 
range of experience" 
> instead of just "beyond range".
> ----------------------------------------------

Buddha would say so if it was the intent.
Seems to me, that word "experience" can be understood in various
ways. Personal feeling can be told to be an experience, and knowing
directly arising of personal feeling can be named as experience.
Buddha didn't sort this things for us in this sutta.
He simply states what is All. 

metta,
Agrios
	
42707

From: agriosinski <agriosinski@y...> 
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 6:26am
Subject: [dsg] Re: Commnets on the Sabba Sutta

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote:
> Hi Agrios,
> 
> There is a little controversy about whether 'dhamma ayatana' 
includes
> concepts even though concepts are included in 'dhamma arammana'. The
> 'Guide' in CMA p.287 says they are not included, but Note 9 SNIV,24 
says
> dhamma arammana are included in dhamma ayatana. B. Bodhi wrote both
> notes from commentaries. 
> 
> Sarah might have something to say about this. She brought it up a 
couple
> of years ago.
> 
> Larry

Thanks Larry,
this idea of being included or not, apply only if you create
some sort of list, right?
Otherwise there is no point doing it, as there is just one Dhamma
at the time.

metta,
Agrios
	
42708

From: Hugo <eklektik@g...> 
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 6:33am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation

 	
Hello Jon,

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:59:06 +0800, Jonothan Abbott
<jsabbott@n...> wrote:
> Glad to see we are more in agreement than before ;-)). I'd just like to
> comment on one or two of your points.

Unfortunately your reply went back to the same.


> We can make generalisations about these contrasting situations, but i
> personally don't think there is a lot of value in thinking we should be
> doing X instead of Y.

This is really shocking and I can't "fit it" inside the Buddhist
philosophy, but my level of understanding may be the reason, so no
need to worry, if that's "The Truth", I will get to it someday in some
life (I hope).

Thank you very much for your replies and explanations, specially for
trying different approaches, I really appreciate it, but I think I
should close this thread now, I have nothing further to discuss.

Greetings,
-- 
Hugo


42709

From: Hugo <eklektik@g...> 
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 9:32am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha said: That's how .......Hugo

 	
Hello Azita,

>Many of us do go thro the
> frustrations again and again, because 'we' want something. 'we' want
> to understand and we cant make it happen :-(

I agree.

It is simple logic, frustration arises because whatever you want to
happen doesn't happen.


> I have heard that it takes much patience to develop some
> understanding of the Buddhas teaching.

It takes the patience of whom?

Who develops this understanding?

> We have to listen and study
> the teachings, contemplate what we hear and study

Are you saying that we have to do something specific and on purpose?

Who contemplates, who hears, who studies?


> and - I guess this
> is where I'm at - realising that no amount of desire for results will
> aid the development of understanding -

I agree that it is not just the AMOUNT of desire, I think it is how
you use the energy from that desire.


> and also realising that maybe
> in this life we will never really understand.

I agree.

> Maybe there aren't ever
> going to be the right conditions in this existence - who knows.

I agree.


> We all want to hear comforting words, but I don't think the
> reality is very comforting :-( IMHO

I don't want to hear any specific kind of words, I just want to know
"The Truth".

If I were looking for comforting words, I would have gone to a
religion that offers comfort by praying or by believing that some
entity will save us as long as we love it.


> Patience, courage and good cheer,

Who is to have patience?
Who is to have courage?

Can you develop patience and courage?


Azita, do you realize the contradiction of your line of thinking?


Azita, do you have a self?, do you cling to it?


Greetings,
-- 
Hugo
	
42710

From: Tep Sastri <tepyawa@m...> 
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 10:19am
Subject: Re: the Five Indriyas, what is sati, no 1- MN 95.

 	
Hi Sarah -

So far I have not known any moderators of other Buddhism discussion 
groups, who are more energetic or have demonstrated better 
communication skill than you. 

The fruit of your additional research has produced a clean and 
complete definition of Striving :

S: "So'striving' is the right effort in the development of vipassana 
bhavana as you said, which develops with clear comprehension 
(sampajaana or panna) and mindfulness (sati) until they become 
balas (powers) along with saddha (confidence) and concentration 
(samadhi). As you said this is` "without a 'self' directing the effort, or 
lobha that yearns for results".'

S: "If there is a moment of satipatthana now – awareness and 
understanding of any dhamma appearing- then right effort is also there 
and this is a moment of bhavana, as I see it."

S: I look forward to any other sutta extracts with your comments too.


T: I truly appreciate your sincere request and am delighted to comply.


Kindest regards,


Tep

May your persistence be aroused and not lax; your mindfulness 
established and not confused; your body calm and not aroused;
your mind centered and unified.
=========

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott 
<sarahprocterabbott@y...> wrote:
> Hi Tep,
> 
> You quoted and commented on a few lines of the Canki Sutta, MN95 
in your
> discussion with Nina and I thought it was a good analysis, but I didn't
> wish to butt in at the time. It's helpful to consider what is meant by
> `striving', for example as you were doing:
> ….
	
42711

From: Hugo <eklektik@g...> 
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 0:46pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Eight Conditions for the Arising of Panna

 	
Hello Tep,

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 02:21:09 -0000, Tep Sastri <tepyawa@m...> wrote:
> T: Right, you have to start from something; you cannot add 0 to 0 and
> expect something nonzero as the result.

Agree.

But you can't say: "ok, starting now I will develop one but not the others."

> Some people say the path of
> the Dhamma practice must start from sila as foundation, then add
> some samadhi, then some panna, etc.

The moment they said that, they needed some wisdom in order to decide
that Sila should be the foundation, thus, making Sila not the first
step, so I think this should not be read that literally and in an
strict sequence.

> Others say that the path is not
> linear; it consists of loops and feedback branches. You just said that
> all 3 components had to be developed at the same time!

Developing them at the same time and having feedback and branches is
the same model, because they are interrelated, you don't have a bag
for Sila, a bag for Samadhi and a bag for Pañña that you need to fill,
you have more like a dough made out of all of this, and btw that same
dough is the "self" that tries to do something about itself.


Or according to your experience can you develop them one by one and isolated?

How?

This is how I see it:

If you want to develop a moral and virtuous character, you have to
understand what is wholesome and what is not (wisdom/discernment
involved) if you get in contact with the object of the temptation, you
need a strong mind in order to avoid falling for the temptation.

If you want to understand what is wholesome and what is not, you need
to have a "clear" mind (or as clear as you can), if you want to be
able to practice in order to "clean your mind" behaving according to
morality and virtue will definitely lead you to places and situations
where you can do it, also behaving moraly and with virtue will
"prevent" you from doing something that you may feel remorseful about
in the future creating chaos in your mind.

See?, you can't have only one, but yes, all of them develop at
different speeds and different levels.

At least that's how I would interpret what I have experienced, now
have I REALLY developed Sila, Pañña and Samadhi?, I can't tell you for
sure, I just think I have.

Note, when I say Pañña I mean worldly wisdom, I haven't penetrated
anything other than a few of my gross defilements, but they were easy
targets (i.e. they were big).


> If that suggested "model" is right, the practitioner would have to answer
> the following questions: How much of the three components should I
> prepare to have at the beginning, and after that, how do I do all of them
> at the same time?

Why would the practitioner make those questions?
What "units" are we using to "measure" the three components?
Why do we want to "measure" anything?

You don't have to gather anything at the beginning, you start with
whatever you have, but you need to understand what you have, how it
works, what is that that you can "control" (note the quotes), and what
is that you can't, and when you tweak this what happens with that.


> Just imagine telling a kid, who does not know how to
> juggle, to figure it out by himself how to keep three balls in the air at the
> same time. The kid would go crazy (unless he is an extraordinary kid).

Cool, I know how to juggle 3 balls so I can talk by experience about this!

To begin with, your analogy assumes that the Sila, Samadhi and Pañña
are three independent, unrelated objects that need to be
manipulated/gathered by another independent and unrelated object. And
just because of the above, it doesn't look like a very good analogy at
all, but I will try to use it anyway.

mmmm......oops, I can't use it, because the way I learned how to
juggle was first with one ball (leaving the other two on a table),
then with two balls (leaving one on the table), then finally with
three. But I can't put neither Sila, nor Samadhi, nor Pañña on the
table while I practice with only one, because to begin with I am not
separated from them.

This is the point where the concept of 'self' trying to gather Sila,
Samadhi and Pañña stops helping you and starts being a hindrance.

Sorry, I can't use your analogy.

> Of course, there are several more suttas one can select to study and
> find out the right answer without having to ask anyone else.

I don't think we have to read anymore, this one is easy to verify in
just a few moments of thinking, and a few days (or months, depending
on what you are "testing") of observing your own behavior.

But if you have the suttas it would be good to know, we just have to
keep in mind to whom are those suttas being directed and under which
circumstances, so it wouldn't surprise me to find one where The Buddha
encourages somebody to develop one first and then the others, because
for that specific person at that specific time that was the right
approach while in another, The Buddha encourages some other person to
develop a different quality.


Greetings,
-- 
Hugo
	
42712

From: Hugo <eklektik@g...> 
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 0:54pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Eight Conditions for the Arising of Panna

 	
Hello Tep and Sarah,

> > T: I would like to bluntly comment that Nyanatiloka Bhikkhu says that
> > the lay people have a lot greater freedom of choice with respect to
> > moral rules than bhikkhus is simply because they are not bhikkhu.
> > Being bhikkhus, according to the Buddha, means they have to attain
> > higher sila, etc.. However, it is my belief that many lay people are
> > going to spend "aeons" of uncountable rebirths unless they are less
> > relaxed and become more conscientious in developing "higher sila"
> > and following "the training precepts or steps(sikkhaapada) without
> > fail".
> ….
> S: I believe that higher sila has to be developed by everyone regardless
> of whether one is a bhikkhu or lay person as you say. However, only the
> sotapanna has perfected higher sila – it is the sila which is developed
> with samma ditthi (right understanding) of the eightfold path only. In
> other words, bhikkhus may appear to follow the Patimokkha perfectly, but
> without the high development of satipatthana, there cannot be the
> attainment of higher sila that lay people such as Visakkha attained before
> she had a large number of children, grand-children and led such a busy
> life as a lay devotee.

I agree with Sarah, if a monk remembers and follows all of the 227
precepts but doesn't understand why they were established it is no
different than teaching a dog to jump through hoops, then go to a box
get something out of it, then sit next to his owner and bark three
times.

Same thing with the 5 precepts for us lay people, or meditation
sessions, if we don't understand why we are doing them it is just
rites and rituals.

Greetings,
-- 
Hugo


42713

From: Larry <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:35pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Comments on the Sabba Sutta/TG & Jon

 	
Howard: "Well, I think the abandoning of chariots etc is the 
abandoning of merely apparent but not actual phenomena, and which can 
be seen to be not actual by the cultivation of vipassana. 
Abandoning "the most minute elements of experience," however, also 
brought about by the cultivation of wisdom, is an abandoning of 
actual elements of experience, and that is a different sort of
abandoning, because they are experiential realities. The abandoning 
of them amounts to the cultivation of a clear seeing of their 
conditioned, utterly dependent,impermanent, insubstantial, and 
unsatisfying nature, and the resulting dis-enchantment and release of 
clinging."

Hi Howard,

The problem is I'm not really attached to ultimate realities. So why 
abandon them? I have a great deal of attachment to the conventional 
eye, but I'm not even aware of the ultimate eye. The only people who 
lust after the touch of breath are meditators who want a subtle 
experience. We might be better off meditating on money. Everyone 
wants and needs money. It does no good to say "money isn't real, 
let's focus on a micro second of sense consciousness". If 
conventional reality isn't an object of satipatthana, how do we 
abandon attachment to conventional reality?

Larry
	
42714

From: Larry <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:44pm
Subject: [dsg] Re: Commnets on the Sabba Sutta

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "agriosinski" 
<agriosinski@y...> wrote:
> 
> --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote:
> > Hi Agrios,
> > 
> > There is a little controversy about whether 'dhamma ayatana' 
> includes
> > concepts even though concepts are included in 'dhamma arammana'. 
The
> > 'Guide' in CMA p.287 says they are not included, but Note 9 
SNIV,24 
> says
> > dhamma arammana are included in dhamma ayatana. B. Bodhi wrote 
both
> > notes from commentaries. 
> > 
> > Sarah might have something to say about this. She brought it up a 
> couple
> > of years ago.
> > 
> > Larry
> 
> Thanks Larry,
> this idea of being included or not, apply only if you create
> some sort of list, right?
> Otherwise there is no point doing it, as there is just one Dhamma
> at the time.
> 
> metta,
> Agrios

Hi Agrios,

Right, a list is a concept, ayatanas is a concept, and Sabba Sutta is 
a concept. However, there isn't just one dhamma at a time. Several 
cetasikas arise with one consciousness at a time and abhidhamma says 
the object of consciousness also arises with sense consciousness or 
immediately preceding a mind-door process. But this also is a 
concept. 

Larry


42715

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 11:13am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Comments on the Sabba Sutta/TG & Jon

 	
Hi, Larry -

In a message dated 2/25/05 6:39:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... 
writes:

> Hi Howard,
> 
> The problem is I'm not really attached to ultimate realities. So why 
> abandon them? I have a great deal of attachment to the conventional 
> eye, but I'm not even aware of the ultimate eye. The only people who 
> lust after the touch of breath are meditators who want a subtle 
> experience. We might be better off meditating on money. Everyone 
> wants and needs money. It does no good to say "money isn't real, 
> let's focus on a micro second of sense consciousness". If 
> conventional reality isn't an object of satipatthana, how do we 
> abandon attachment to conventional reality?
> 
> 
======================
Here's my take, Larry:
1) You *are* attached to paramattha dhammas, as are all of us. It is 
pleasant sensations and the ceasing of unpleasant sensations that we actually 
crave, and these sensations are paramattha dhammas. We think we are attached to 
conventional objects, but it is really pleasant and unpleasant vedana that we 
are attached to. That fundamental attachment is released by means of the 
entire program of cultivation taught by the Buddha, leading to liberating wisdom.
2) We abandon attachment to conventional reality in two steps: a) 
Coming to see that it is illusory, largely by vipassana bhavana, enabling us to 
see through our concepts to the realities that are their basis, and b) coming to 
see the true, triune nature of those underlying realities, and these steps, 
together, enable us to see our world of convention as mere stories superimposed 
on phantoms, and thus unworthy of being held onto.

With metta,
Howard

P.S. Thanks for the spelling correction in the subject line! ;-)

/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)  



42716

From: agriosinski <agriosinski@y...> 
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:36pm
Subject: [dsg] Re: Commnets on the Sabba Sutta

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" <LBIDD@w...> wrote:
[..]> 
> Right, a list is a concept, ayatanas is a concept, and Sabba Sutta 
is 
> a concept. However, there isn't just one dhamma at a time. Several 
> cetasikas arise with one consciousness at a time and abhidhamma 
says 
> the object of consciousness also arises with sense consciousness or 
> immediately preceding a mind-door process. But this also is a 
> concept. 
> 

Hi Larry,
when I said "one dhamma" I meant one cluster of namarupa.
I don't think dhamma is a concept since I can't actually form 
any idea about any dhamma arrising. 
I can speculate "about it" or "around it" but this are just my
mind doing its thinking and ego taking ownership of it in quite
long and complicated processes.

But are this two processes (not one, but both of them among others):
1. mind creating ideas
2. ego forming its ownership 
a concept?

Is this "rambling of conditions" a concept in your opinion?

metta,
Agrios



42717

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 7:36pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Comments on the Sabba Sutta/TG & Jon

 	
Howard: "Here's my take, Larry: 
              1) You *are* attached to
paramattha dhammas, as are all of us. It is pleasant sensations and the
ceasing of unpleasant sensations that we actually crave, and these
sensations are paramattha dhammas. We think we are attached to
conventional objects, but it is really pleasant and unpleasant vedana
that we are attached to. That fundamental attachment is released by
means of the entire program of cultivation taught by the Buddha, leading
to liberating wisdom. 
              2) We abandon attachment to
conventional reality in two steps: a) Coming to see that it is illusory,
largely by vipassana bhavana, enabling us to see through our concepts to
the realities that are their basis, and b) coming to see the true,
triune nature of those underlying realities, and these steps, together,
enable us to see our world of convention as mere stories superimposed on
phantoms, and thus unworthy of being held onto."

Hi Howard,

If I am only attached to feeling then I'm not attached to the eye and
don't need to abandon it.

Looking at the experience of being attached to the conventional eye, I
would say I regard it as a machine and I'm mostly attached to its
perfect functionality. Pleasant feeling is a factor as an accompaniment
to attachment. I like perfect functionality and pleasant feeling comes
along with that liking. 'Perfect' is of course relative to my
experience.

In this cluster of suttas regarding the all the ultimate eye is to be
abandoned by dispassionate direct knowledge which leads, eventually, to
full understanding. With full understanding goes abandonment. Or
abandonment by seeing the eye as not I or mine. Or by seeing that the
eye is "burning with the fire of lust, with the fire of hatred, with the
fire of delusion; burning with birth, aging, and death; with sorrow,
lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair." 

If panna is the only means of cognizing the ultimate eye, then the
ultimate eye cannot be an object of desire. But the conventional eye can
be and is an object of desire. However, direct knowledge of the
conventional eye is likely to lead to fascinating science and more
attachment to 'perfect functionality'. But the other means of
abandonment, "not I or mine" or the painfulness of attachment, would
seem to me to be perfectly applicable to this conventional eye.

Larry
	
42718

From: Tep Sastri <tepyawa@m...> 
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:08pm
Subject: Re: Eight Conditions for the Arising of Panna

 	
Hi Hugo -

It is nice to see your reply and I am going to respond to it as effectively 
as possible. If there is one thing I try to avoid in on-line discussion, it is 
the clumsy in-line dialoguing: it branches out rapidly and becomes 
harder to track later on. On the other hand, summarizing the main 
points of a given message and putting them in focus by listing seems 
easier for me to respond to the whole message without having to use 
the "in-line dialoguing". 

Here are your main points :

1. The moment one decides to start with Sila, it will make Sila not the 
first step. So the Sila-Samadhi-Panna path should not be "read that 
literally and in an strict sequence".

2. The 3 components (Sila, Samadhi, and Panna) are interrelated. "Or 
according to your experience can you develop them one by one and 
isolated? How?" 

3. To understand what is wholesome, you need a clear mind. But a 
clear mind is based on morality and virtue. And "behaving morally and 
with virtue will 'prevent' you from doing something that you may feel 
remorseful about in the future creating chaos in your mind". 

4. The argument in 3. is your support of the thesis stated in 2. above.

5. The following is the practice you would take in order to develop Sila, 
Samadhi, and Panna simultaneously :

"You don't have to gather anything at the beginning, you start with
whatever you have, but you need to understand what you have, how it 
works, what is that that you can "control" (note the quotes), and what is 
that you can't, and when you tweak this what happens with that."

6. You assume that Tep thinks of the 3 components as "three 
independent, unrelated objects that need to be manipulated/gathered 
by another independent and unrelated object".

I know that your assumption in # 6 is incorrect, because I don't think like 
that. And because of this misunderstanding, the question in item #2 is 
irrelavant. How can Sila, Samadhi and Panna be isolated? -- it does 
not make sense. Even the objects that are kept flying in the air by a 
skillful juggler are not rigidly isolated; they are coordinated by the 
skillful mind-hand coordination such that the task is smoothly carried 
out momemt to moment. The objects even look like they flow through 
the air, following one another.

As to your point # 1, it is nitpicking. Everything we do, deciding to follow 
the Five Precepts, for example, is conditioned by intention and other 
cetasikas. The fact that Sila is not the first step is not the issue; just like 
it doesn't matter whether chicken is first or egg is first. The issue is 
what comes after one has solid Sila as a supporting condition for 
higher Samadhi and higher Panna. Then Panna can support even 
higher Sila and higher Samadhi. 

The Buddha said that the three good conducts (bodily, verbally and 
mentally) fulfilled the four foundations of mindfulness, and that restraint 
of the sense faculties (Samvara Sila) fulfilled the three good conducts. 
Of course, you have to have both understanding (if your brain is not 
dead and you have a normal functioning mind) and some 
concentration (in addition to other cetasikas) in order to practice the 
Samvara Sila. The main issue underlying the sutta here is that Sila is 
the supporting condition for good conducts which, in turn, leads to 
mindfulness. 

Nothing here is as rigid as your points above seem to indicate.

The last paragraph of your dialogue contains the most important fact 
that we should also discuss : "The Buddha encourages somebody to 
develop one first and then the others, because for that specific person 
at that specific time that was the right approach while in another, the 
Buddha encourages some other person to develop a different quality". 
This is the point we can use, for example, to explain why Phra Ajaan 
Lee (who was a successful samatha-vipassana meditator) 
emphasized starting with samadhi, the middle "pilings" in the river for 
making the bridge across from the near shore to the far shore. I think 
the near-shore pilings correspond to perfect Sila; the middle pilings 
correspond to samma-Samadhi; the far-shore pilings correspond to 
the lokuttara Panna that destroys all asavas. When the bridge is 
completed it corresponds to crossing over the samsara (perpetual 
rebirth). The "far-shore" is another name of Nibbana in some suttas. 
Therefore, the bridge builder must be on the near shore at the 
beginning (with no pilings built yet). 

My understanding of his thought model is that you have to build more 
pilings from the near-shore pilings into the middle of the river, and the 
middle pilings must be firmly built before they can be connected to the 
far shore. Since you cannot reach the far-shore without using the bridge 
itself to reach across the river, you cannot do the far-shore pilings until 
the middle part is completed. But I don't think his thought model (simile) 
was meant to be rigid like that. He perhaps wanted us just to get the 
idea about the importance of concentration. 

In fact, in any practical situations in the world (building a house; stocks 
investing; mountain hiking, etc.) there are several procedures for 
people to choose for accomplishing the same goal. However, it is 
clear that Ajaan Lee's model is not the same as your main point #3 and 
that his Panna is not just "worldly wisdom" -- because that is not 
enough to penetrate the Noble Truths. 


Warm regards, always


Tep

======
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo <eklektik@g...> 
wrote:
> Hello Tep,
> 
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 02:21:09 -0000, Tep Sastri <tepyawa@m...> wrote:
> > T: Right, you have to start from something; you cannot add 0 to 0 
and
> > expect something nonzero as the result.
> 
> Agree.
> 
(snipped)
> 
> 
> Greetings,
> -- 
> Hugo
	
42719

From: htootintnaing <htootintnaing@y...> 
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:12pm
Subject: Dhamma Thread (269)

 	
Dear Dhamma Friends,

As we are in human realm or manussa bhumi the possible cittas in us 
are maximum of 80 cittas out of 89 cittas in total. This is because 9 
cittas never ever arise in human beings including Sammasambuddhas. 
These 9 cittas are

5 rupavipaka cittas or 5 fine materila resultant consciousness and 4 
arupavipaka cittas or 4 non-materila resultant consciousness. These 9 
cittas cannot arise in human beings. This is also true in devas of 
kama 6 bhumis or 6 deva realms and all 4 apaya bhumis or all 4 woeful 
planes of existence.

Because these 9 cittas are bhavanga cittas in their respective realms 
of rupa brahmas and arupa brahmas while they are living as brahmas. 
These 9 cittas also do the job of linking or patisandhi or rebirth-
consciousness and when these brahma dies they serve as cuti citta or 
dying-consciousness. So they never arise in human beings.

So there are maximum of 80 cittas. When human beings do not have any 
rupa jhanas and arupa jhanas then extra 18 cittas cannot arise in 
human beings when they have not achieved rupa jhanas and arupa 
jhanas. So there are 62 cittas. 

Again hasituppada citta which is ahetuka kiriya citta is a citta of 
arahats. So it does not arise in ordinary people like us. So there 
are 61 cittas left. 8 mahakiriya cittas are also cittas of arahats. 
So there left 53 cittas.

8 lokuttara cittas are supramundane consciousness and they arise at 
very specific time when vipassana becomes very matured and beings are 
perfected. So there left 45 cittas for people like us.

These 45 cittas have been explained in one of previous posts. To re-
mention

a) 12 akusala cittas ( 8 lobha, 2 dosa, 2 moha )
b) 7 ahetuka akusala-vipaka cittas ( 5 sense-consciousness,receiving
consciousness, investigating consciousness)
c) 8 ahetuka kusala-vipaka cittas ( as in akusala-vipaka plus
1 extra investigating consciousness with happiness)
d) 2 ahetuka kiriya cittas ( 5-door-adverter and mind-door-adverter)
e) 8 mahakusala cittas
f) 8 maha-vipaka cittas
-----
45 cittas

But once someone achieve 1st jhana it becomes possible that 1st jhana 
rupakusala citta can arise in him. So there will be 46 cittas. If he 
achieve all 5 rupa jhana 50 cittas can arise in him. If he attains 
further 4 arupa jhana 54 cittas can arise in him.

If he develops sotapatti magga citta, at that time of sotapatti magga 
citta arising 55 cittas are maximal for him. Later sotapatti magga 
citta never arises again. But sotapatti phala citta can arise 
instead. So that sotapam who attains all 5 rupa jhanas and all 4 
arupa jhana may have maximum of 55 cittas.

If he further develops sakadagami magga nana, then sotapatti phala 
can no more arise and the maximal number will be 55 at sakadagami 
magga kala and after that sakadagami phala cittas can arise in him 
but the number of cittas will be 55 in maximum. This goes the same at 
the exact time when arahatta magga citta arise.

As soon as arahatta magga citta arises there happen changes in 
possibility of cittas arising. Why? Because he becomes an arahat.

So

a) 0 akusala citta (12 akusala cittas never arise in him [arahat])
b) 7 ahetuka akusala-vipaka cittas (can still arise)
c) 8 ahetuka kusala-vipaka cittas (can still arise),these 15 are 
vipaka cittas
d) 3 ahetuka kiriya cittas ( 1 extra citta called hasituppada citta)
e) 8 maha-vipaka cittas
f) 8 mahakiriya cittas (8 mahakusala cittas never arise again)
g) 5 rupakiriya cittas (5 rupakusala cittas/5 rupa jhana kusala not)
h) 4 arupakiriya cittas (4 arupakusala cittas no more arise again)
i) 1 arahatta phala citta
-----
44 cittas can arise in a human arahat

So

a) simple puthujana can have 45 total cittas
b) jhanalabhi puthujana can have 46 to 54 cittas depending on jhanas
c) non-arahat ariyas can have 46 cittas
d) non-arahat ariyas with jhanas can have 47 to 55 cittas
e) arahat jhanalabhis can have 44 cittas
f) simple arahats can have 35 cittas in total

May you all be free from suffering.

With Unlimited Metta, 

Htoo Naing

PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome. If there is 
unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these 
posts on Dhamma Thread.
	
42720

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:51pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Comments on the Sabba Sutta

 	
Agrios: "Hi Larry, 
when I said "one dhamma" I meant one cluster of namarupa. I don't think
dhamma is a concept since I can't actually form any idea about any
dhamma arising. 
I can speculate "about it" or "around it" but this are just my mind
doing its thinking and ego taking ownership of it in quite long and
complicated processes. 
But are this two processes (not one, but both of them among others): 
1. mind creating ideas 
2. ego forming its ownership
a concept? 
Is this "rambling of conditions" a concept in your opinion?"

Hi Agrios,

Idea is a concept and ownership is an idea but the energy behind
ownership is attachment and attachment is a reality. In a bizarre sort
of way attachment makes "my ideas" a reality according to abhidhamma,
the reality of wrong view (ditthi). 

Aside from the basic unsatisfactoriness of attachment, I think the heart
of the matter is an identity issue. We have had long, complicated
discussions on whether identity is reality or concept because of sanna's
role in creating identity. Basically identity is an equation, this =
that, identity means identical. And identity is part of reality, even if
it is a concept. 

So I think what we have to do is see the extremely elusive nature of
identity, one might even say the non-nature of identity ('non-nature' in
the sense of no characteristic at all). Identity is not an object of
desire if seen that it has no characteristic in itself, as half of an
equation. What is 'I'? What is 'money'? 

We can't find the whole equation because there is only one object per
consciousness. Many dhammas arise together but they are all focused on
one object. Many realities arise but there is no perceivable oneness to
them. We have to conceptualize to make the many into one, or else just
focus on one of the many. 

Identity is a huge part of reality relationally, but in itself it's
nothing. Does this lead to the end of desire? Don't know.

As for the "rambling of conditions", I haven't gotten to that yet. Maybe
later.

Larry
	
42721

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:53pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Comments on the Sabba Sutta/TG & Jon

 	
Hi, Larry -

In a message dated 2/25/05 10:36:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... 
writes:

> 
> Hi Howard,
> 
> If I am only attached to feeling then I'm not attached to the eye and
> don't need to abandon it.
> 
----------------------------------------
Howard:
The attachment to eye and eye objects etc is indirect. Contact leads 
to vedana, and the vedana that is craved (or whose absence is craved) derives 
from the object of consciousness, and, derivatively, that object is attached 
to. Ultimately, tanha and upadana arise from vedana, but that vedana is 
back-referenced to what led to it. The baby has good feelings from the touch of his 
mother, and derivatively is attached to the touch and to his mother, but 
directly the attachment is to the good feelings.
--------------------------------------

> 
> Looking at the experience of being attached to the conventional eye, I
> would say I regard it as a machine and I'm mostly attached to its
> perfect functionality. Pleasant feeling is a factor as an accompaniment
> to attachment. I like perfect functionality and pleasant feeling comes
> along with that liking. 'Perfect' is of course relative to my
> experience.
> 
> In this cluster of suttas regarding the all the ultimate eye is to be
> abandoned by dispassionate direct knowledge which leads, eventually, to
> full understanding. With full understanding goes abandonment. Or
> abandonment by seeing the eye as not I or mine. Or by seeing that the
> eye is "burning with the fire of lust, with the fire of hatred, with the
> fire of delusion; burning with birth, aging, and death; with sorrow,
> lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair." 
> 
> If panna is the only means of cognizing the ultimate eye, then the
> ultimate eye cannot be an object of desire. But the conventional eye can
> be and is an object of desire. However, direct knowledge of the
> conventional eye is likely to lead to fascinating science and more
> attachment to 'perfect functionality'. But the other means of
> abandonment, "not I or mine" or the painfulness of attachment, would
> seem to me to be perfectly applicable to this conventional eye.
-----------------------------------------
Howard:
The real objects of desire and aversion are vedana, and the real 
object of attachment is sukkha vedana and the cessation of dukkha vedana, and 
derivatively, through thought, through papan~ca, we become attached to the 
conditions that lead to them or that seem to lead to them.
---------------------------------------

> 
> 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)  



42722

From: Jonothan Abbott <jsabbott@n...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 0:32am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation

 	
Hugo

I know you are anxious to wrap this thread up ;-)), but I cannot let it 
finish on such a 'shocking' note for you.

>>We can make generalisations about these contrasting situations, but i
>>personally don't think there is a lot of value in thinking we should be
>>doing X instead of Y.
>> 
>>
>
>This is really shocking and I can't "fit it" inside the Buddhist
>philosophy,
>

OK, let me put it a little differently.

The Buddha encouraged the development of kusala of all kinds, and at all 
times. I'm sure there's no disagreement between us on this. So I'm not 
saying anything that I see as being contrary to that.

Now kusala is a mind-state. An action is kusala only if the 
accompanying mind-state is kusala; but 'doing a kusala act' does not 
mean the accompanying mind-state will be kusala.

What are the circumstances that make a kusala mind-state more likely to 
occur? Well, there is no handy 'general formula' for this. The reason 
is that each of us has different accumulated tendencies for the 
different kinds of kusala. A situation that may be an occasion for 
kusala for you may be an occasion for dosa for me, and vice versa.

Thus even if we spent all day every day studying the texts or discussing 
dhamma or reflecting on any of the subjects of samatha, or 'doing 
kusala' of whatever different kind throughout the day, that does not 
mean that there would be 'more kusala' than if we spent less time doing 
those things. Kusala may arise in a 'social' situation as much as in a 
solitary situation; in fact for some people there may by more akusala in 
a solitary situation than in a social situation -- it all depends on 
individual accumulations.

So while 'more kusala' is always better, 'doing X' does not always mean 
more kusala. 

This is particularly important when it comes to the development of 
insight. Insight is the highest form of kusala. It is a kind of kusala 
that can be developed only during the time of a Buddha's teaching, such 
as now. The development of insight is not a matter of 'more kusala, less 
akusala' in the sense that we tend to think of that. Insight is direct 
understanding of the true nature of a presently arising dhamma. Whether 
we are doing X or Y, the dhammas are the same, so the choice to be made 
is not a crucial as you suggest.

Besides, if we have the idea that 'doing Y' is likely to involve less 
kusala, more aksuala, that is surely going to mean (a) regret at the 
fact that we find ourselves doing Y (and regret is akusala) and (b) less 
likelihood of seeing the opportunity for kusala of different kinds in 
the situation. As you said in your last post in this thread, even if we 
find ourselves doing something we would not ourself choose to do (a 
family commitment, for example), there can still be kusala.

Here is another 'shocker' for you to consider, Hugo: We need to be 
careful about adopting 'more kusala' as a mantra. Why do I say that? 
Well, it has to do with the difference between truly appreciating the 
value of kusala (which is a condition for its development) and thinking 
that we should have more kusala (which is not). In the case of kusala 
of the kind that is insight, appreciation of its value means seeing the 
danger or disadvantage in this round of existence, and the urgency of 
moving towards escape from that. And this is something that, because of 
our ignorance and wrong view, truly occurs only infrequently. For 
example, it is not something that occurs at any significant level just 
by reciting the relevant passages from the texts (not that I am 
downplaying the importance of this particular recollection).

So, trying to summarise here, I suppose one of our differences lies in 
the question of how easily kusala can be developed. I think it's 
something that requires very special conditions to occur, and is not 
just a matter of doing more of X and less of Y (if only it were that 
easy ;-)).

Another difference between us may be our perceptions of the relative 
importance of kusala of the level of insight in particular. Perhaps I 
should put that another way and say, the relative seriousness of 
ignorance and wrong view, as compared to all other forms of akusala, as 
hindrances to the development of the path.

Hoping that this lessens the shock of my earlier post somewhat ;-)).

Jon
	
42723

From: htootintnaing <htootintnaing@y...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 3:50am
Subject: Dhamma Thread (270)

 	
Dear Dhamma Friends,

In a human being depending on their status there are six groups of 
people.

a) simple puthujana can have 45 total cittas
b) jhanalabhi puthujana can have 46 to 54 cittas depending on jhanas
c) non-arahat ariyas can have 46 cittas
d) non-arahat ariyas with jhanas can have 47 to 55 cittas
e) arahat jhanalabhis can have 44 cittas
f) simple arahats can have 35 cittas in total

This is summary and these cittas are maximal for each group. So there 
are possibilities that some cittas may not arise even in the possible 
group.

Example, I believe most of us including me will be group a). So 45 
alternatives of mind states or 45 cittas will be arising and falling 
away one after another.

But there may be reductions. If someone becomes deaf which is not an 
inborn defect there do not arise 2 sota-vinnana cittas in him. These 
2 sota-vinnana cittas or 2 hearing-consciousness or 2 ear-
consciousness are resultant consciousness, one from past kusala 
action and another from past akusala action. So he will have 43 
cittas.

If he further loses eye-sights or becomes blind there will be further 
reduction and 2 cakkhu-vinnana cittas or 2 seeing-consciousness or 2 
eye-consciousness will not arise in him. So he will have 41 cittas.

If he loses smell then further reduction makes 39 cittas and if 
tastes are lost then 37 cittas will be left for him. Counting of 
these cittas or mind states or mental states or states of mind is not 
much important. But among these 45 cittas of us what matter is 
formations.

There are 12 akusala cittas. These are kama-formations. These are 
mental-formations. These are creation of new kamma. The creator is 
nowhere but there in volition or cetana in each of these mental 
formations.

Other formations are 8 mahakusala cittas. While we cannot still 
develop magga nana, we will have to continue these 8 mahakusala 
cittas as long as possible while we are avoiding 12 akusala cittas.

This seems a bit technical. If conventionally say, we have to avoid 
anything evil. So for a start fulfil 5 precepts and keep them 
stronger and stronger.

May you all be free from suffering.

With Unlimited Metta, 

Htoo Naing

PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome. If there is 
unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these 
posts on Dhamma Thread.
	
42724

From: abhidhammika <suanluzaw@b...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 5:21am
Subject: Taking Precetpts In light of Abhidhamma (Was Re: Personlessness Teachings...)

 	
Dear Nina, Howard, Tonia, Sarah, Christine, Jonothan, Ken H, Robert 
K, Mike, and all

How are you?

Nina wrote:

"I am joining Howard, much appreciated. It would be very inspiring 
if you could elaborate in your own way one or more conditions."

Thank you, Nina and Howard, for your appreciative input. As Nina 
requested, I will elaborate the links between conditions and 
precepts.

As you know, there are four chief conditions (adhipatipaccayaa) on 
which a healthy efficacious consciousness may stand for its 
emergence.

They are wish, diligence, consciousness, and wisdom as the four 
chief conditions (Section 3, Paccayaniddeso, Pa.t.thaana Pali.)

A common form of a healthy efficacious consciousness refers to what 
Dhammasanganii calls kaamaavacarakusalacittam, a sensuous 
efficacious healthy consciousness. The relevant meanings of kusala 
include healthiness, blamelessness, and productiveness of good 
results. Some authors may translate the term "kusala" as "moral, or 
wholesome". I touched on these aspects as we are discussing the 
nature of precepts (siila) in the context of the Buddha's teachings 
in general and Pa.t.taana in particular.

Now, supposed that a kusala consciousness arose due to a very strong 
wish, then Pa.t.thaana expresses that phenomenon in terms that the 
wish chief is the condition for that kusala consciousness by way of 
a chief condition (adhipatipaccayena).

Sometimes, a kusala consciousness arises via significant diligence 
as a chief condition, or sometimes through considerable wisdom as a 
chief condition.

Needless to say, wish, diligence and wisdom are mental associates 
(cetasikas).

When one of those three mental associates is not a chief condition 
for the arising of a particular kusala consciousness, that very 
consciousness becomes a chief condition for its emergence and for 
the simultaneous emergences of kusala mental associates. 

The three chief conditions excepting wisdom are applicable to the 
arising of an efficacious unhealthy consciosness as well. The wisdom 
chief condition applies to only the arising of a kusala 
consciousness.

Now, the links between keeping precepts and chief conditions can be 
exposed as follows.

Supposed that a Buddhist was having a very strong wish to drink 
alcohol. And, she knew that this alcoholic behavior was made 
possible by an unhealthy efficacious consciousness, in this case, 
the consciousness having the wish chief condition 
(Chandaadhipatipaccayo). 

How would she handle the above situation by using Abhidhamma 
Pa.t.thaana methods? As her mind is having a strong wish as a chief 
condition on that occasion, her wish chief for the arising of a 
kusala consciousness is absent. Her immediate task is to reduce the 
present alcoholic wish. There are three more chief conditions 
available for that goal. They are diligence chief, the consciousness 
chief, and the wisdom chief. For the time being, the consciousness 
cannot be a chief condition as her mind is still struggling with an 
alcoholic wish. That is to say, her mental events are alternating as 
kusala events and as akusala events. 

So the most appropriate chief conditions for reducing and removing 
the alcoholic wish would be wisdom chief and diligence chief on that 
occasion.

On most situations, the detailed analytical functions of wisdom 
would prevail and overcome the alcoholic wish.

Tonia wrote: 

"I do believe, however, that we can take a vow (if one so chooses) 
to do one's very best to keep the precepts. Again, I'm a beginner, 
but this is the way I've felt about any religious 'law' - one should 
not be forced to take a vow one knows one can't keep, but one should 
make every effort to avoid breaking that 'law' if one agrees with 
the reasoning behind the law."

The above writing of Tonia showed that she would use wisdom chief 
condition (Viimamsaadhipatipaccayo) when she was about to break a 
precept. 

On other situations, diligence chief condition is the way to go. 
When she makes diligence as a chief condition, she would make every 
effort to abstain from drinking alcohol. Making effort includes the 
act of not going to a liquor store.

With regards,

Suan


--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom 
<vangorko@x> wrote:

Dear Suan, 
"I am joining Howard, much appreciated. It would be very inspiring 
if you could elaborate in your own way one or more conditions."


Thank you,
Nina.
op 17-02-2005 17:08 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...:

Hi, Suan (and all) -

Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu!!!
In a message dated 2/17/05 10:16:23 AM Eastern Standard Time,
suanluzaw@b... writes:

Pa.t.thaana, the seventh book of Abhidhamma Pitaka, teaches the
following seven among the twenty-four causes: adhipatipaccayo,
aasevanapaccayo, kammapaccayo, aahaarapaccayo, indriyapaccayo,
jhaanapaccayo, maggapaccayo. These seven causes directly relate to
the habit formation of healthy actions or unhealthy actions one way
or another.
	

42726

From: Jonothan Abbott <jsabbott@n...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 5:53am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II)

 	
Hi, Howard

> I think I should explain why said that I find your position "not very 
>far from my own understanding," rather than "the same as my understanding."
> I think there may be a difference in attitude. I sense, though I could 
>well be wrong, that you believe in a stronger degree of independence between 
>a rupa and the awareness of the rupa than I. 
>

Rupas are those dhammas that *do not experience an object*. Rupas are 
not characterised by virtue of their *being experienced by namas*. (Of 
course it is true that rupas can only be experienced when they are the 
object of nama, but that is not a distinguishing factor of a rupa. Other 
namas, and concepts too, are object of consciousness.)

All dhammas arise, subsist and fall away. As regards the rupa that is 
the present sense-door object, that arising is nowhere said to be 
dependent on, or related to, the present sense-door consciousness of 
which is the object.

On the contrary, the texts seem to indicate, that the arising of the 
sense-door consciousness is dependent on (among other things) there 
being an appropriate rupa that has already arisen. See the passage from 
SN 35:93 cited by TG in his recent post to you:

“Monks, consciousness comes to be in dependence on a dyad. And how,
monks, does consciousness come to be in dependence on a dyad? *In 
dependence on
eye and forms there arises eye-consciousness.* ...
“The meeting, the encounter, the occurrence of these three things is
called eye-contact. ...
[The Buddha proceeds to analyze the ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness,
tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness in the 
same
manner and finishes with...]
“It is in such a way, monks, that consciousness comes to be in
dependence on a dyad.”
(Connected Discourses of the Buddha, vol. 2, pg. 1172)

>(My perspective is summed up by 
>"There is no awareness that is not awareness of some content, and there is no 
>content that is not the content of a state of awareness.")
> 
>

This is a puzzling statement.

If by 'content' you mean 'that which can be object of consciousness', 
then that would be a nama, or a rupa, or a concept. However, of these, 
only concept is *necessarily* object of consciousness.

If on the other hand by 'content' you mean 'that which is actually (and 
currently) object of consciousness', then the statement is a trite one 
('All object of consciousness is the object of some consciousness').

> To analogize, I picture you as seeing two people walking along 
>sidewalks on opposite sides of a street, each under his own control, but with their 
>steps and other movements coordinated in such a way as to be perfectly aligned 
>in all respects, like two expert mimes. One person is vi~n~nana and the other 
>arammana. 
> I, on the other hand, picture the situation as a person walking along 
>a sidewalk alongside a mirrored store front, with the person and his/her 
>reflection perfectly synchronized. Of the person and the reflection, one of them is 
>vi~n~nana and the other arammana. (BTW, I suspect that this metaphorical view 
>may be shared by Larry. Taking the "person" as primary, I would think that he 
>would see the person as vi~n~nana and the reflection as arammana, whereas I 
>would see the person as arammana and the reflection as vi~n~nana.)
> 
>

Well I have difficulty making this analogy 'work' at all, but that aside 
I do not see the significance of the difference between the 2 models 
(that is, in the first one, the 2 people's steps and movements being 
'coordinated in such a way as to be perfectly aligned in all respects', 
while in the second one a single person with a mirrored image). Could 
you explain this a little further, please. Thanks.

>With metta phor you, [;-)
>Howard
> 
>

Ouch!! ;-)))

Jon


42727

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 1:32am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II)

 	
Hi, Jon -

In a message dated 2/26/05 9:01:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
jsabbott@n... writes:

> 
> Hi, Howard
> 
> > I think I should explain why said that I find your position "not very 
> >far from my own understanding," rather than "the same as my understanding."
> > I think there may be a difference in attitude. I sense, though I could 
> >well be wrong, that you believe in a stronger degree of independence 
> between 
> >a rupa and the awareness of the rupa than I. 
> >
> 
> Rupas are those dhammas that *do not experience an object*. Rupas are 
> not characterised by virtue of their *being experienced by namas*. (Of 
> course it is true that rupas can only be experienced when they are the 
> object of nama, but that is not a distinguishing factor of a rupa. Other 
> namas, and concepts too, are object of consciousness.)

---------------------------------------
Howard:
Yes. I know that namas are "knowing operations" and rupas are not. And 
I understand that all dhammas may be objects of consciousness.
----------------------------------------

> 
> All dhammas arise, subsist and fall away. As regards the rupa that is 
> the present sense-door object, that arising is nowhere said to be 
> dependent on, or related to, the present sense-door consciousness of 
> which is the object.
> 
---------------------------------------
Howard:
There is said to be a mutual dependence between vi~n~nana and namarupa 
(in the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta). Also, as a specific example, I do not see 
how a bodily sensation exists apart from the awareness of it. There is no 
unexperienced itch.
----------------------------------------

> 
> On the contrary, the texts seem to indicate, that the arising of the 
> sense-door consciousness is dependent on (among other things) there 
> being an appropriate rupa that has already arisen. See the passage from 
> SN 35:93 cited by TG in his recent post to you:
> 
> “Monks, consciousness comes to be in dependence on a dyad. And how,
> monks, does consciousness come to be in dependence on a dyad? *In 
> dependence on
> eye and forms there arises eye-consciousness.* ...
> “The meeting, the encounter, the occurrence of these three things is
> called eye-contact. ...
> [The Buddha proceeds to analyze the ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness,
> tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness in the 
> same
> manner and finishes with...]
> “It is in such a way, monks, that consciousness comes to be in
> dependence on a dyad.”
> (Connected Discourses of the Buddha, vol. 2, pg. 1172)
> 
-----------------------------------------
Howard:
I see no reason to presume a temporal precedence relation here. The 
quoted material is perfectly compatible with a synchronous relation. The visual 
consciousness depends on eye and form, but that dependency need not be a 
temporal one. There are plenty of examples of asymmetric, synchronous dependencies. 
(The idea is: Whenever there are A and B, there is also C.)
-------------------------------------

> 
> >(My perspective is summed up by 
> >"There is no awareness that is not awareness of some content, and there is 
> no 
> >content that is not the content of a state of awareness.")
> > 
> >
> 
> This is a puzzling statement.
> 
------------------------------------
Howard:
I presume you mean that you are puzzled by it.
------------------------------------

> 
> If by 'content' you mean 'that which can be object of consciousness', 
> then that would be a nama, or a rupa, or a concept. However, of these, 
> only concept is *necessarily* object of consciousness.
> 
------------------------------------
Howard:
We disagree. I do not assume the existence of what is not experienced, 
precisely because it cannot be experientially verified or falsified. But you 
know that, Jon. So why should you be puzzled?
------------------------------------

> 
> If on the other hand by 'content' you mean 'that which is actually (and 
> currently) object of consciousness', then the statement is a trite one 
> ('All object of consciousness is the object of some consciousness').
> 
> > To analogize, I picture you as seeing two people walking along 
> >sidewalks on opposite sides of a street, each under his own control, but 
> with their 
> >steps and other movements coordinated in such a way as to be perfectly 
> aligned 
> >in all respects, like two expert mimes. One person is vi~n~nana and the 
> other 
> >arammana. 
> > I, on the other hand, picture the situation as a person walking along 
> >a sidewalk alongside a mirrored store front, with the person and his/her 
> >reflection perfectly synchronized. Of the person and the reflection, one of 
> them is 
> >vi~n~nana and the other arammana. (BTW, I suspect that this metaphorical 
> view 
> >may be shared by Larry. Taking the "person" as primary, I would think that 
> he 
> >would see the person as vi~n~nana and the reflection as arammana, whereas I 
> 
> >would see the person as arammana and the reflection as vi~n~nana.)
> > 
> >
> 
> Well I have difficulty making this analogy 'work' at all, but that aside 
> I do not see the significance of the difference between the 2 models 
> (that is, in the first one, the 2 people's steps and movements being 
> 'coordinated in such a way as to be perfectly aligned in all respects', 
> while in the second one a single person with a mirrored image). Could 
> you explain this a little further, please. Thanks.
> 
---------------------------------
Howard:
Sorry. I'm afraid I cannot. The metaphors were my best shot.
----------------------------------

> 
> >With metta phor you, [;-)
> >Howard
> > 
> >
> 
> Ouch!! ;-)))
> 
> Jon
> 
=====================
With metta,
Howard

/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)  



42728

From: Jonothan Abbott <jsabbott@n...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:30am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Descriptive training from The Buddha, support for my "experiments"

 	
Hi, Hugo

>"'Verbal conduct is of two sorts, I tell you, deva-king: to be pursued
>& not to be pursued.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was
>it said? When one knows of verbal conduct, 'As I pursue this verbal
>conduct, unskillful mental qualities increase, and skillful mental
>qualities decline,' that sort of verbal conduct is not to be pursued.
>When one knows of verbal conduct, 'As I pursue this verbal conduct,
>unskillful mental qualities decline, and skillful mental qualities
>increase,' that sort of verbal conduct is to be pursued. 'Verbal
>conduct is of two sorts, I tell you, deva-king: to be pursued & not to
>be pursued.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said."
>
>
>It talks about observing ones own behavior to find out which conduct
>should be pursued.
>
>My "experiments" are about a human who practices by setting up some
>situations where this human can observe if mental qualities decline or
>increase then decide which conducts should be pursued and which should
>not.
> 
>

Thanks for explaining this. I get it now.

I know your experiments are well-intentioned and earnestly carried out, 
but my question would be whether the Buddha was here talking about an 
observed improvement in behaviour, especially in a short-term context, 
of the kind you described. Is such kind of improvement *necessarily* 
the result of the development of insight, or can it also result from 
other strategies (kusala of kinds other than insight, or even not kusala 
at all)?

I think this brings us back to a subject we have touched on before, 
namely, what are the indicators of the successful development of 
insight. Any thoughts on that?

Jon


42729

From: agriosinski <agriosinski@y...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:42am
Subject: [dsg] Re: Comments on the Sabba Sutta

 	
Hi Larry (and ALL :)

Concept or ownership can only arise when there are certain set
of conditions. Conditioned patterns of thinking lead to certain
conclusions. Identifying with this process leads to strong belief
in "me in this reality". Then there are attachments and whatever...
But thinking is just thinking.
This is no mind doing its thinking, these are just conditions leading to
belief in self existence. I don't think identity is something
steady like equation. There are many processes making any possible
use from conditions. There are processes making self identity from
anything available. Sometime we belive in being "like this" and just
second later we think "we are just opposite".
Depending on conditions, we are identifying with certain set of 
processes.

In Sabba Sutta there are listed All starting points for this whole
bunch of processes. This mind has tendency (and we identify with it)
to separate one thing and jump into it, dive into it, stick to it.

But in this sutta all 12 are listed in one cluster.

It seems, when you take all 12 of them and throw them on 12 nidanas,
we have whole picture of what starts as a personal feeling toward
what's perceived. 
Let me try more time around:
It can only be perceived by this ALL (6 doors), 
to generate this fatal feeling (personal likening, not liking or neither)
in a certain round of conditions (12 nidanas), 
to create what we want as our world with air, earth, space, consciousness. 

That's at least my understanding of this sutta :)

metta,
Agrios
	
42730

From: Jonothan Abbott <jsabbott@n...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:46am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Tep & Sukinder I

 	
Hi, Hugo

>What about:
>
>http://accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp4-14.html
>
>He should train, always mindful,
>to subdue any craving inside him.
>Whatever truth he may know,
> within or without,
>he shouldn't get entrenched
>in connection with it,
>[...]
>"One shouldn't be careless with his eyes,
>should close his ears to village-talk,
>shouldn't hunger for flavors,
>or view anything in the world
> as mine.
>[...]
>When gaining food & drink,
> staples & cloth,
> he should not make a hoard.
>Nor should he be upset
>when receiving no gains.
>[...]
>Not making much of sleep,
>ardent, given to wakefulness,
>he should abandon sloth, deception,
> laughter, sports,
> fornication, & all that goes with it;
>should not practice charms,
> interpret physical marks, dreams,
> the stars, animal cries;
>should not be devoted to
> practicing medicine or inducing fertility.
>[...]
>shouldn't buy or sell
>or revile anyone anywhere;
>shouldn't linger in villages,
>or flatter people in hopes of gains.
>
>
>The whole sutta is about exactly what you shouldn't do.
> 
>
>>In short, I think 'training oneself' is a reference to the actual
>>development of insight (i.e., moments of awareness and understanding),
>>rather than to the means by which insight is developed (i.e., some form
>>of 'practice').
>> 
>>
>
>Do you still think like your above paragraph?
> 
>

My short answer: Yes, see the very important words 'always mindful' 
right at the beginning of the sutta.

To elaborate a little, the specific acts that are mentioned here are 
rules of conduct for monks, helping them to live the monk's life better, 
and so to not 'backslide' to the lay life. This is a case of something 
that is appropriate for the specific audience, although lay people can 
also learn useful things from this too.

For lay people, the path to 'subduing craving' is also one of 
mindfulness, but does not involve the same list of avoidances as are 
given for monks.

Of course, even for monks the passage must be understood as talking 
about occasions of kusala, and not just like the trained dog who can do 
all the tricks (a good analogy of yours, I thought ;-))

Jon
	
42731

From: htootintnaing <htootintnaing@y...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 7:08am
Subject: Dhamma Thread (271)

 	
Dear Dhamma Friends,

Dhamma Threads go on into deepest aspects of what exactly are 
happening, what exactly exist, what exactly do not exist. Current 
station that Dhamma Thread takes is 'vithi-vimutta' or 'procession-
freed states' and they are planes of existence.

In planes of existence there are 31 realms in total. Beings in these 
31 realms start with rebirth-consciousness or linking-consciousness 
or patisandhi-citta. They end their lives when dying-consciousness or 
life-ending-consciousness or cuti-cittas arise.

Bhava means life. Anga means 'limb' or 'part' or 'constituent'. 
Bhavanga means 'life-constituent' or limb of life or part of life or 
life itself. Bhavanga cittas or life-continuing consciousness have to 
arise when the time is not for rebirth and not for death while 
consciousness are process-freed. This means that bhavanga cittas are 
not in the process of consciousness called 'vithi vara'.

So far nearly all about citta in human realm has been discussed. The 
fewest possible cittas in a human being life is 3 cittas. These 3 
cittas are

1. his rebirth consciousness [will also serve as bhavanga & cuti]
2. mind-door-adverting consciousness [checking life at conception]
3. one of 8 attachment-based consciousness [liking of current life]

He will be born with number 1. This is followed by this number 1 as 
bhavanga citta. And life-checking procession arises and mind-door-
adverter which is mano-dvara-avajjana-citta arises and it is followed 
by 7 successive javana cittas of lobha muula citta which is only one 
of 8 lobha cittas. Then bhavanga cittas follow.

As I said minimal possible cittas, there are no other procession of 
consciousness and he stays the whole life with bhavanga cittas. Near 
dying there arises old kamma which is katatta kamma [done long long 
ago in far previous past lives]. Because there was no kamma in this 
current life except the 1st procession, which again is not kamma-
patha dhamma.

That old kamma is taken up by number 2 or mano-dvara-avajjana-citta 
and this is followed by 5 successive javana cittas of lobha and then 
he ends with cuti citta, which is number one citta. This is 
consideration on minimal possible cittas in a human life.

Is that possible?

There is no procession of consciousness with the only exception of 
the 1st vithi vara and the last marana-asanna-javana vithi vara.

If so can that life be called as a human being?

Yes.

The Buddha preached that manussa-hood or human life is very rare 
opportunity. This is very true. Once beings descend down to 4 woeful 
planes they will there be for immeasurable time. See animals. One has 
to be a prey or a hunter and both.

What is possible is that the manussa life that I said above with only 
3 cittas is very immature conception. Not every fertilized egg or 
zygote is successfully embedded in the mother's womb. Frequently 
abort as a natural process.

May you all be free from suffering.

With Unlimited Metta, 

Htoo Naing

PS: Any comments are welcome and any queries are welcome. If there is 
unclarity of any meaning, please just give a reply to any of these 
posts on Dhamma Thread.



42732

From: Larry <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:02am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Comments on the Sabba Sutta/TG & Jon

 	
Hi Howard,

If feeling were really and ultimately an object of desire there would 
be no abandonment of feeling and no end of desire. For that reason 
the object of desire is always conventional. When feeling is the 
object of desire it is the concept of feeling. 

I agree we need to investigate ultimate realities in order to see 
directly that they are not ultimately desirable, but we also need to 
investigate the object of desire in order to see that it is merely 
conventional. It isn't enough to reason that a tree (or money) 
doesn't actually arise. We need to see that directly and completely 
in order that this view becomes a basic orientation, rather than the 
occasional experience or reasoning. 

We need to abandon conventionalities. That is what we are grasping. 

Larry
	
42733

From: Illusion <artupayam@h...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:27am
Subject: Realization: Sitting for My Final Exam

 	
"In the school's examination hall, I was poring over the last paragraph of my essay paper. There is half an hour to go, before we have to lay our pens down. The essay is finished. But as usual, I know it can be improved. These 30 minutes, however, feel like all the time in the world... much more than needed for me to brush up this essay. I lean back and relax for a while. 

A few minutes later, I'm upright again, reading the essay, taking it from the top. I find some grammar mistakes and make corrections. I spruce up some expressions and add a line or two here and there. With the version 2 complete, I reread the essay. Once again I find myself touching up - which means I should reread again to double-check. Being a perfectionist, I would usually do this till I'm totally satisfied with every word and line. In fact, I might do this up the the very last minute... Anyway, 20 minutes left. 

The "nth" time I'm rereading the essay, I realise I have only 15 minutes left. That was when I discovered that a major shift in the storyline would greatly enhance the essay. Should I risk making amendments? There might not be enough time. What the heck... let's do it!... 10 minutes left... I find myself panicking, breaking into a cold sweat. I think I've gone too far now - I have to complete this new version... I just have too. Or do I really? This essay will either be the best work in my life, or the worst. Just give me some time... Yes, I'm going to make it... No, I might not... Maybe I can! 4 minutes to go... 3, 2, 1... The bell rings. Time's up."
____________________________________________________________________________
It's a lot like life, isn't it? No... this IS the story of our lives. How we make endless revisions of it, how we sometimes mess it up when we think we are improving it, how we become complacent sometimes, thinking we have too much time, before we regret. Yet we should still make as many revisions of our lives as long as we are alive - for a life without changing for the better is a stagnant pointless one. What's crucial is which parts of your life you are changing. Are you only changing to bigger houses, cars and career titles, or to a kinder and wiser person? Shouldn't we be less attached to endless amassing of our material assets, and focus more on building our spiritual assets of wisdom and merits instead? Afterall, only the latter follow us beyond this life.

We lose our sense of time at times as we live. The speed of life sometimes seems to accelerate, at other times slowing to a crawl. But be it fast or slow, whether you like it or not, life will end. Ours is a race against time to live fulfilling lives, to be able to leave life gladly when we have to. On our deathbeds we will face our final exam. If we pass well, we get reborn in a better life. If we fare averagely or not so well, was life then lived in vain? When we pass with flying colors, we break free of the cycle of life and death entirely. Because I do not know when are our final moments, may we visualise ourselves to be taking our final exams now, which means that every little thing we do or not do matters.


Life will always present us exactly what we need to learn. The very things you can't get over, out of attachment, aversion and delusion are those which you should learn to. Every little spate of unhappiness is a test. And death of course, is the final exam, for this life at least. Will you face death with fear or confidence, regret or contentment? How about preparing to die well now by learning to live well now? Are you thinking of last minute revision cramming for the your final exam? How would you know when are the last minutes and whether those would be ample time? Will you be able to let go when you have no choice? Or will you make endless more revisions of life and death by being reborn? Well, it's your life. Live well!

[]\/[]aya []Dutra {ô_ô}

"I am nothing but the constituents of the clinging aggregates that is subject to change and unsatisfaction."


42734

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 3:33am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Comments on the Sabba Sutta/TG & Jon

 	
Hi, Larry -

In a message dated 2/26/05 11:03:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... 
writes:

> Hi Howard,
> 
> If feeling were really and ultimately an object of desire there would 
> be no abandonment of feeling and no end of desire.
> 
--------------------------------------
Howard:
I don't know what you mean by "ultimately". We crave pleasant feelings 
now as ignorant worldlings. Desire is not inherent. It is adventitious.
--------------------------------------
For that reason > 
> the object of desire is always conventional. When feeling is the 
> object of desire it is the concept of feeling. 
------------------------------------
Howard:
Well, I suppose that any projecting into the future involves thinking. 
Anyway, the reaction of craving is a sankharic one, and no doubt thinking is 
involved. But vedana is the basis for the craving.
--------------------------------

> 
> I agree we need to investigate ultimate realities in order to see 
> directly that they are not ultimately desirable, but we also need to 
> investigate the object of desire in order to see that it is merely 
> conventional.
> 
-------------------------------------
Howard:
Sure. But that is done by seeing what *actually* arises, and that only 
that is to be found. Steps a) and b) are required.
-----------------------------------
It isn't enough to reason that a tree (or money) > 
> doesn't actually arise. We need to see that directly and completely 
> in order that this view becomes a basic orientation, rather than the 
> occasional experience or reasoning. 
----------------------------------
Howard:
I certainly agree.
---------------------------------

> 
> We need to abandon conventionalities. That is what we are grasping. 
> 
-------------------------------
Howard:
You seem to be saying that avijja lies only in conceptualization. I'm 
not sure that is so. I believe that all the links of D.O. are infected by 
avijja. (But I do agree that ignorance-bound conceptualization is a major factor.)
-------------------------------

> 
> 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)  


42735

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 4:33am
Subject: Rupa and Vedana: the Perspective of S.N. Goenka

 	
Hi, all -

The five-khandha analysis is an analysis of the empirical person into 
a collection of five heaps of phenomena, the heaps of rupa, vedana, sa~n~na, 
sankhara, and vi~n~nana. 
If hardness is a rupa, is the hardness of, say, a table part of the 
rupakkhandha of a person? Or is it a rupa not part of that rupakkhandha? Also, 
what is the sensation of hardness? Is that another rupa that *is* part of the 
rupakkhandha, and which arises when there is contact with "external" hardness. 
Also, as to the "external" hardness, since it is not permanent, there must be 
a repeated arising and ceasing of such hardnesses in a realm of rupas. What 
occasions the coming together the "external" rupas with the "internal" 
vi~n~nana? These are typically unaddressed questions, it seems to me.
S.N. Goenka takes the point of view that rupas are "out there on there 
own," that from time to time vi~n~nana contacts a rupa via a sense door, and 
the result of that contact is vedana, where by "vedana" he does not mean 
pleasantness, unpleasantness, or affective neutrality, but, instead, means 
sensations, each of which is either pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. Thus, from his 
perspective, rupas are non-experiential, fleeting phenomena each of which may 
or may not be experienced. When they are experienced, i.e., when contact with 
a rupa occurs, a corresponding sense-door sensation arises, and that internal 
sensation is what vedana is. It seems to me that once one takes rupas to be 
external phenomena different from internal sensations, then unless one 
identifies vedanas with sensations, as Goenka does, there is nowhere that sensations 
fit in. So, I see Goenka's approach as coherent and plausible, but in principle 
unverifiable and unfalsifiable, as the existence of rupas "on there own" is 
unknowable. Now, one might say that pa~n~na could know them. But pa~n~na does 
not exist apart from vi~n~nana, and thus when pa~n~na would know those rupas, so 
would vi~n~nana.
Another perspective, the one which I take, is that rupas are the 
sensations known through body door, eye door, ear door, and nose door, plus a 
couple physical sensations known only through mind door instead of body door. That 
is, rupas are what Goenka calls "vedanas". And vedanas are the operations of 
"tasting" rupas according to their inherent affective flavor: pleasant, 
unpleasant, or neutral.

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)  


42736

From: Tep Sastri <tepyawa@m...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 10:28am
Subject: Re: Rupa and Vedana: the Perspective of S.N. Goenka

 	
Hi Howard -

Thank you for raising interesting (and unique) questions about rupa 
and vedana, and for presenting two different perspectives (Goenka's 
and your own) of rupa and vedana. I am interested in your point of view 
that is stated as follows:

Howard: "Another perspective, the one which I take, is that rupas are 
the sensations known through body door, eye door, ear door, and 
nose door, plus a couple physical sensations known only through 
mind door instead of body door. That is, rupas are what Goenka 
calls 'vedanas'. And vedanas are the operations of 'tasting' rupas 
according to their inherent affective flavor: pleasant, unpleasant, or 
neutral".

How are such "sensations" through the five doors different from 
perception of external rupa? 

Would this perspective give any advantages over the Goenka's point 
of view? For instance, would it help you in the contemplation of feeling 
(vedananupassana)?


Kindest regards,


Tep

May your persistence be aroused and not lax; your mindfulness 
established and not confused; your body calm and not aroused;
your mind centered and unified.
==========

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote:
> Hi, all -
> 
> The five-khandha analysis is an analysis of the empirical person 
into a collection of five heaps of phenomena, the heaps of rupa, 
vedana, sa~n~na, sankhara, and vi~n~nana. 
> If hardness is a rupa, is the hardness of, say, a table part of the 
> rupakkhandha of a person? Or is it a rupa not part of that 
rupakkhandha? Also, what is the sensation of hardness? Is that 
another rupa that *is* part of the rupakkhandha, and which arises when 
there is contact with "external" hardness. 
> Also, as to the "external" hardness, since it is not permanent, there 
must be a repeated arising and ceasing of such hardnesses in a 
realm of rupas. What occasions the coming together the "external" 
rupas with the "internal" vi~n~nana? These are typically unaddressed 
questions, it seems to me.
> S.N. Goenka takes the point of view that rupas are "out there on 
there own," that from time to time vi~n~nana contacts a rupa via a 
sense door, and the result of that contact is vedana, where 
by "vedana" he does not mean pleasantness, unpleasantness, or 
affective neutrality, but, instead, means sensations, each of which is 
either pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. Thus, from his perspective, 
rupas are non-experiential, fleeting phenomena each of which may 
> or may not be experienced. When they are experienced, i.e., when 
contact with a rupa occurs, a corresponding sense-door sensation 
arises, and that internal sensation is what vedana is. It seems to me 
that once one takes rupas to be external phenomena different from 
internal sensations, then unless one identifies vedanas with 
sensations, as Goenka does, there is nowhere that sensations 
> fit in. So, I see Goenka's approach as coherent and plausible, but in 
principle unverifiable and unfalsifiable, as the existence of rupas "on 
there own" is unknowable. Now, one might say that pa~n~na could 
know them. But pa~n~na does not exist apart from vi~n~nana, and 
thus when pa~n~na would know those rupas, so would vi~n~nana.
> Another perspective, the one which I take, is that rupas are the 
> sensations known through body door, eye door, ear door, and nose 
door, plus a couple physical sensations known only through mind door 
instead of body door. That is, rupas are what Goenka calls "vedanas". 
And vedanas are the operations of "tasting" rupas according to their 
inherent affective flavor: pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral.
> 
> With metta,
> Howard
> 


42737

From: Tep Sastri <tepyawa@m...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 10:50am
Subject: [dsg] Re: Eight Conditions for the Arising of Panna/ Vera Sutta

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott 
<sarahprocterabbott@y...> wrote:
> ….(snipped) 

> S: I believe that higher sila has to be developed by everyone 
regardless of whether one is a bhikkhu or lay person as you say. 
However, only the sotapanna has perfected higher sila – it is the sila 
which is developed with samma ditthi (right understanding) of the 
eightfold path only. In other words, bhikkhus may appear to follow the 
Patimokkha perfectly, but without the high development of 
satipatthana, there cannot be the attainment of higher sila that lay 
people such as Visakkha attained before she had a large number of 
children, grand-children and led such a busy life as a lay devotee. 
> 
> 
> Metta,
> 
> Sarah
> 
> =====================

Hi Sarah -

I am glad that you talked about lay-person and Stream-entry. There 
are several suttas about Sotapatti, for example you may have done 
some research at AccesstoInsight already:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html#s

In my opinion, the one sutta that is most specific about what lay-
persons should do in order to become Sotapanna, is AN X.92.

"When, for a disciple of the noble ones, five forms of fear & animosity 
are stilled; when he is endowed with the four factors of stream entry; 
and when, through discernment, he has rightly seen & rightly ferreted 
out the noble method, then if he wants he may state about himself: 'Hell 
is ended; animal wombs are ended; the state of the hungry shades is 
ended; states of deprivation, destitution, the bad bourns are ended! I 
am a stream-winner, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, 
headed for self-awakening!' " [ AN X.92 : Vera Sutta.]

What is your thought?


Kindest regards,


Tep

May your persistence be aroused and not lax; your mindfulness 
established and not confused; your body calm and not aroused;
your mind centered and unified.
=======
	
42738

From: <TGrand458@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:18am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II)

 	
In a message dated 2/26/2005 6:01:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
jsabbott@n... writes:
Rupas are those dhammas that *do not experience an object*. Rupas are 
not characterised by virtue of their *being experienced by namas*. (Of 
course it is true that rupas can only be experienced when they are the 
object of nama, but that is not a distinguishing factor of a rupa. Other 
namas, and concepts too, are object of consciousness.)

All dhammas arise, subsist and fall away. As regards the rupa that is 
the present sense-door object, that arising is nowhere said to be 
dependent on, or related to, the present sense-door consciousness of 
which is the object.

Hi Jon, (Howard)

I just thought I'd butt in and say that I completely agree with your 
assessment in this post Jon. The Buddha simply does not approach the issue or speak 
of it in the terms Howard wants to see it.

While I think Howard is very admirably trying to see conditionality as 
directly as possible, I think his approach excludes much of the overall breadth that 
the Buddha's teachings speak to.

TG



42739

From: nina <vangorko@x...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 11:21am
Subject: Larry's question

 	
Hi Larry,

Q. Larry: in English faith and belief are very similar, is saddha the
kusala version of ditthi?

N: Faith can be blind faith in a person, in a teacher who proclaims wrong
view. A person who listens may cling to wrong view because of his faith
which is not wholesome in this case.
Saddha is faith or confidence in what is wholesome. It can also be
confidence in right understanding, sammaa-di.t.thi.
Nina.
	
42740

From: nina <vangorko@x...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 11:21am
Subject: Visuddhimagga XIV, 140 and Tiika.

 	
Visuddhimagga XIV, 140 and Tiika.

Intro.
Saddhaa, confidence or faith, is a sobhana cetasika arising with each
sobhana citta. It is confidence in the benefit of kusala. Without saddhaa
one cannot apply oneself to daana, siila or bhaavanaa.

Text Vis. 140. (ix) By its means they have faith (saddahanti), or it itself
is the
having of faith, or it is just the act of having faith (saddahana), thus it
is faith (saddhaa).

N: The Tiika explains that the accompanying dhammas are conditioned by the
predominant influence of confidence. When there is such condition it is said
in conventional language (vohaaro) that a person has confidence.

Text Vis.: Its characteristic is having faith, or its characteristic is
trusting. 

N: As to the characteristic of having faith, the Tiika adds that it is
confidence in an object worthy of confidence ((saddheyyavatthuno).
This will be further explained with reference to the proximate cause.

Text Vis.: Its function is to clarify, like a water-clearing gem, or its
function is to
enter into, like the setting out across a flood (cf. Sn. 184).

N: The Expositor (I, Part IV, Chapter I, 119) states about saddha:
<... It has purifying or aspiring as its characteristic. As the
water-purifying gem of the universal monarch thrown into water causes
solids, alluvia, waterweeds and mud to subside and makes the water clear,
transparent and undisturbed, so faith arising discards the hindrances,
causes the corruptions to subside, purifies the mind and makes it
undisturbed: the mind being purified, the aspirant of noble family gives
gifts, observes the precepts, performs the duties of "uposatha" and
commences bhaavanaa.>
As to the function of entering into, like the setting out across a flood,
the Expositor explains this as the characteristic of "aspiring", by means of
a simile. A crowd standing on both banks of a great river full of
crocodiles, monsters, sharks and ogres, is afraid to cross over. A hero
crosses the river and repels the dangerous animals with his sword, and leads
the crowd in crossing over.
The Tiika explains that entering into (pakkhandana.m) is entering into the
object because of decision. Because of confidence one is decisive as to the
performing of kusala.

Text Vis.: It is manifested as non-fogginess,

N: The Tiika explains that it removes impurity of the accompanying dhammas,
or that its function is the purifying of a person, and thus, its function is
purifying (pasaadana).
In Pali the term pasaada that is used here means both clearness and
confidence. 

Text Vis.: or it is manifested as decision.

N: The Tiika explains lack of confidence that is akusala as faithlessness
when there are occasions for confidence, and as wrong decision
(micchaadhimutti). Whereas the opposite of faithlessness is decision,
resolution that is pure. The Tiika states that this is not the same as
adhimokkha, determination, that is among the Œwhat-so-evers¹ or
supplementary factors, yevapannakas, mentioned in the list of dhammas in the
Dhammasangani. Here, the term resolution (adhimutti) is used to describe the
manifestation of faith or confidence in wholesomeness. The determination or
resolution that is among the what-so-evers can arise with cittas of the four
jaatis. 
As we have seen, the what-so-evers are: zeal (desire), resolution, attention
(bringing to mind), specific neutrality.

Vis. text: Its proximate cause is something to have faith in.

N: The Tiika explains: the Triple Gem, kamma and its fruit are objects of
confidence.
As understanding develops, confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the
Sangha grows. When one develops right understanding and reaches stages of
insight, there is direct understanding of kamma and vipaaka and one becomes
firmly convinced of the truth that kamma brings its appropriate result.

Text Vis: or its proximate cause is the things beginning with hearing the
Good Dhamma (saddhamma) that constitute the factors of stream-entry.[63]

Note 63 taken from the Tiika: The four factors of stream entry (see S.v,347)
are waiting on good men, hearing the Good Dhamma, wise attention, and
practice in accordance with the Dhamma. Again they are: absolute confidence
in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha, and possession of noble virtue
(S.v,343).

N: The sotaapanna has unshakable confidence in the Triple Gem, and he is
endowed with ariyan virtue. He cannot transgress the five precepts and he
cannot commit akusala kamma that produces an unhappy rebirth.

Text Vis.: It should be regarded as a hand [because it takes hold of
profitable things], as wealth (Sn. 182), and as seed (Sn. 77).
N: It is like wealth because it supports the accomplishment of all that is
beneficial. It is like a seed because it leads to the deathless, nibbaana;
as the Tiika explains, the deathlessness (amata) is its fruit.
****
Confidence is an indriya, a controlling faculty. It governs the accompanying
dhammas, citta and cetasikas, in its quality of purifying and of confiding
in kusala. It overcomes lack of confidence in kusala, without confidence
kusala citta and its accompanying cetasikas could not arise. The Atthasalini
(I, Part IV, Chapter I, 119) states: <From the overcoming of lack of faith,
faith is a controlling faculty in the sense of predominance, or in its
characteristic of decision it exercises lordship (over associated states).>

N: The Expositor, in the same passage, also states that confidence is the
forerunner of all kinds of kusala. When we see the benefit of kusala we
apply ourselves with confidence to whatever type of kusala there is an
opportunity for. 
As we have seen, the four factors of stream entry (see S.v,347) are waiting
on good men, hearing the Good Dhamma, wise attention, and practice in
accordance with the Dhamma are a proximate cause for confidence. Thus,
confidence in the Dhamma begins with association with the right friend and
listening to the Dhamma. When we understand that the Path is the development
of understanding of the reality appearing at the present moment, our
confidence in the Buddha¹s teaching of satipa.t.thaana grows.

***
Nina.
	
42741

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:50am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rupa and Vedana: the Perspective of S.N. Goenka

 	
Hi, Tep -

In a message dated 2/26/05 1:29:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, tepyawa@m... 
writes:

> Hi Howard -
> 
> Thank you for raising interesting (and unique) questions about rupa 
> and vedana, and for presenting two different perspectives (Goenka's 
> and your own) of rupa and vedana. I am interested in your point of view 
> that is stated as follows:
> 
> Howard: "Another perspective, the one which I take, is that rupas are 
> the sensations known through body door, eye door, ear door, and 
> nose door, plus a couple physical sensations known only through 
> mind door instead of body door. That is, rupas are what Goenka 
> calls 'vedanas'. And vedanas are the operations of 'tasting' rupas 
> according to their inherent affective flavor: pleasant, unpleasant, or 
> neutral".
> 
> How are such "sensations" through the five doors different from 
> perception of external rupa? 
> 
-----------------------------------
Howard:
That depends on what you mean by "perception". If you mean sa~n~na, 
well, that is the operation of recognition. I don't think that recognizing a 
hardness sensation as a hardness sensation is the same as the sensation itself.
----------------------------------

> 
> Would this perspective give any advantages over the Goenka's point 
> of view? For instance, would it help you in the contemplation of feeling 
> (vedananupassana)?
> 
--------------------------------------
Howard:
A pragmatic advantage? None that I can think of off the top of my 
head. The theoretical advantage is that it avoids accepting unknowables into one's 
ontology.
------------------------------------

> 
> 
> Kindest regards,
> 
> 
> Tep
> 
> 
=======================
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)  


42742

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:52am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II)

 	
Hi, TG -

In a message dated 2/26/05 2:19:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
TGrand458@a... writes:

> Hi Jon, (Howard)
> 
> I just thought I'd butt in and say that I completely agree with your 
> assessment in this post Jon. The Buddha simply does not approach the issue 
> or speak 
> of it in the terms Howard wants to see it.
> 
> While I think Howard is very admirably trying to see conditionality as 
> directly as possible, I think his approach excludes much of the overall 
> breadth that 
> the Buddha's teachings speak to.
> 
> TG
> 
==================
Understood. :-)

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)  


42743

From: <TGrand458@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:57am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II)

 	
Hi Howard and Jon


In a message dated 2/26/2005 6:33:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
upasaka@a... writes:


> Jon: 
> All dhammas arise, subsist and fall away. As regards the rupa that is 
> the present sense-door object, that arising is nowhere said to be 
> dependent on, or related to, the present sense-door consciousness of 
> which is the object.
> 
---------------------------------------
Howard:
There is said to be a mutual dependence between vi~n~nana and namarupa 
(in the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta). Also, as a specific example, I do not see 
how a bodily sensation exists apart from the awareness of it. There is no 
unexperienced itch.
----------------------------------------

TG: An itch is aready a Nama so the analogy does not hold. Howard, you have 
this idea that bodily sensation is rupa. It is not. Sensation of any kind 
is already a Nama. It is the body, not a bodily sensation, that can exists 
apart from Nama. Otherwise, while we were unconscious state of dreaming, the 
body would disappear. It does not.


> 
> On the contrary, the texts seem to indicate, that the arising of the 
> sense-door consciousness is dependent on (among other things) there 
> being an appropriate rupa that has already arisen. See the passage from 
> SN 35:93 cited by TG in his recent post to you:
> 
> “Monks, consciousness comes to be in dependence on a dyad. And how,
> monks, does consciousness come to be in dependence on a dyad? *In 
> dependence on
> eye and forms there arises eye-consciousness.* ...
> “The meeting, the encounter, the occurrence of these three things is
> called eye-contact. ...
> [The Buddha proceeds to analyze the ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness,
> tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness in the 
> same
> manner and finishes with...]
> “It is in such a way, monks, that consciousness comes to be in
> dependence on a dyad.�
> (Connected Discourses of the Buddha, vol. 2, pg. 1172)
> 
-----------------------------------------
Howard:
I see no reason to presume a temporal precedence relation here. The 
quoted material is perfectly compatible with a synchronous relation. The 
visual 
consciousness depends on eye and form, but that dependency need not be a 
temporal one. There are plenty of examples of asymmetric, synchronous 
dependencies. 
(The idea is: Whenever there are A and B, there is also C.)
-------------------------------------

TG: Note Connected Discourses of the Buddha, vol 2, pg. 1171 -- 1172. Two 
Suttas on "Dyads." The first merely lists the dyad of eye and forms, ear and 
sounds, etc. The second suttas says that "consciousness comes to be in 
dependence on a dyad." To me its clear that these suttas are setting out a 
structural relationship as to how consciousness arises. 

Althought mental factors and consciousness mutually arise in dependence on 
the dyad, the dyad does not mutually arise in dependence on consciousness.


> 
> >(My perspective is summed up by 
> >"There is no awareness that is not awareness of some content, and there is 
> no 
> >content that is not the content of a state of awareness.")
> > 
> >
> 
> This is a puzzling statement.
> 
------------------------------------
TG: Awareness is dependent on content. However, centent is not dependent 
on awareness. I.E., Nama is dependent on Rupa, but Rupa is not dependent on 
Nama. 

If Howard, you wish to consider this an assumption, so be it. But be very 
clear that it must be concluded, by your reasoning, that the 4 Great Nikayas are 
loaded with the Buddha assuming. He very often speaks based on principles 
and not on direct experience. He speaks about physical states that alter in 
relation to each other. He speaks about the future of impermanent, suffering, 
no-self relations. He speaks about future physical states altering without 
association to consciousness. Such as the disappearing of oceans, etc.

Anyway, this discussion is spending too much time analyzing the arrow instead 
of pulling it out. Whatever concept we have about the world is ultimately 
wrong. (Although some are much wronger than others.) ;-) As long as we set up 
a foundation/model that can increase awareness of impermanence, suffering, 
and no-self; and at the same not adhere to that foundation/model, we will be 
doing something right.

TG


42744

From: Tep Sastri <tepyawa@m...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 0:06pm
Subject: [dsg] Re: Rupa and Vedana: the Perspective of S.N. Goenka

 	
--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote:
> Hi, Tep -
> 
(snipped)

> > Tep: 
> > How are such "sensations" through the five doors different from 
> > perception of external rupa? 
> > 
> -----------------------------------
> Howard:
> That depends on what you mean by "perception". If you mean 
sa~n~na, 
> well, that is the operation of recognition. I don't think that recognizing a 
> hardness sensation as a hardness sensation is the same as the 
sensation itself.
> ----------------------------------
> 

Hi Howard -

There is a relationship between perceptions and sensations during 
breath meditation, according to Thanissaro Bhikkhu. I can extend his 
concepts to find relationships between rupa and perception of the rupa.

"In the beginning, when you first notice the power of perception, you 
can easily feel overwhelmed by how pervasive it is. Suppose you're 
focusing on the breath. There comes a point when you begin to 
wonder whether you're focusing on the breath itself or on your idea of 
the breath. ... ... You have to treat your experience of the breath, not as 
an end in itself, but as a tool for understanding the role of perception in 
creating suffering and stress. " From "De-perception", 
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/deperception.ht
ml

In the same token, you might not be focusing on the rupa itself, but 
rather on "your idea of the rupa". Further, you have to treat your 
experience of the rupa, not as an end in itself, "but as a tool for 
understanding the role of perception in creating suffering and stress". 


Warm personal regards,


Tep 

=========
	
42745

From: <TGrand458@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 7:22am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa and Vedana: the Perspective of S.N. Goenka

 	
Hi Howard, All

I'm not aware of the Buddha ever talking about feeling "hardness." Did he? 
(Well, maybe in the Vinaya. ;-) ) Seems to me the discussion has veered off 
of Buddhism and on to philosophy. Its almost irresistible.

At any rate, Goenka's position, as described by Howard below, seems most 
reasonable to me and in accordance to the way the Suttas present the matter. 
Howard's position seems completely foreign to me when stacked up against the 
Suttas. However I think they both drive toward the conclusion that insight into 
impermanence, suffering, and no-self is what they are after and in that way 
maybe they will both be successful.

TG


In a message dated 2/26/2005 9:34:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
upasaka@a... writes:
Hi, all -

The five-khandha analysis is an analysis of the empirical person into 
a collection of five heaps of phenomena, the heaps of rupa, vedana, sa~n~na, 
sankhara, and vi~n~nana. 
If hardness is a rupa, is the hardness of, say, a table part of the 
rupakkhandha of a person? Or is it a rupa not part of that rupakkhandha? 
Also, 
what is the sensation of hardness? Is that another rupa that *is* part of the 
rupakkhandha, and which arises when there is contact with "external" 
hardness. 
Also, as to the "external" hardness, since it is not permanent, there must be 
a repeated arising and ceasing of such hardnesses in a realm of rupas. What 
occasions the coming together the "external" rupas with the "internal" 
vi~n~nana? These are typically unaddressed questions, it seems to me.
S.N. Goenka takes the point of view that rupas are "out there on there 
own," that from time to time vi~n~nana contacts a rupa via a sense door, and 
the result of that contact is vedana, where by "vedana" he does not mean 
pleasantness, unpleasantness, or affective neutrality, but, instead, means 
sensations, each of which is either pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. Thus, 
from his 
perspective, rupas are non-experiential, fleeting phenomena each of which 
may 
or may not be experienced. When they are experienced, i.e., when contact with 
a rupa occurs, a corresponding sense-door sensation arises, and that internal 
sensation is what vedana is. It seems to me that once one takes rupas to be 
external phenomena different from internal sensations, then unless one 
identifies vedanas with sensations, as Goenka does, there is nowhere that 
sensations 
fit in. So, I see Goenka's approach as coherent and plausible, but in 
principle 
unverifiable and unfalsifiable, as the existence of rupas "on there own" is 
unknowable. Now, one might say that pa~n~na could know them. But pa~n~na does 
not exist apart from vi~n~nana, and thus when pa~n~na would know those rupas, 
so 
would vi~n~nana.
Another perspective, the one which I take, is that rupas are the 
sensations known through body door, eye door, ear door, and nose door, plus a 
couple physical sensations known only through mind door instead of body door. 
That 
is, rupas are what Goenka calls "vedanas". And vedanas are the operations of 
"tasting" rupas according to their inherent affective flavor: pleasant, 
unpleasant, or neutral.

With metta,
Howard


42746

From: robmoult <rob.moult@j...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 0:27pm
Subject: Tsunami Experience from a Buddhist Perspective

 	
Hi All,

I will be introducing a twist into my Sunday morning Abhidhamma 
class. During the first Sunday of each month, there will not be a 
formal Abhidhamma lesson but rather a discussion of various topics 
(selected the previous week). Here is one of next week's topics; I 
would like to collect feedback / impressions from the group.

The following article was written by U. Mapa and appeared in the 
31st January issue of "The Island" (A Sri Lankan Newspaper).

<start article>

"The Tsunami experience from a Buddhist perspective provides that 
the law of nature is equal to all and no Divine hand can save anyone 
from Samsaric suffering"

While the ferocious Tsunami tides shattered the concrete structures, 
tossed fishing trawlers, buses and railway carriages like balloons 
in the hands of children, the Buddha statues that were hit by the 
mighty waves remained undamaged. This somewhat unusual happening, 
interpreted by some as a miracle, is being over-publicised perhaps, 
to highlight the power of the Dhamma.

True spirit of Dhamma 
=====================
What if someone picks up a damaged Buddha statue from the Tsunami 
affected area that has been washed off? Will it diminish the 
sanctity of the Buddha Dhamma?

No, it is not the intelligent Buddhists who would be carried away by 
miracles. The Buddha himself condemned the performance of miracles 
to win confidence and for propagation of his teachings. The Buddha 
was once living in the city of Nalanda when one householder's son 
named Kevadda went to Him and said, "Lord, Nalanda is successful, 
populous, prosperous and follows your Dhamma. Wouldn't it be nice if 
you could appoint a monk with supernatural powers capable of 
performing miracles, so that the folk of Nalanda may venerate you 
even more?" The Buddha declined at once to accede to Kevadda's 
request.

He said "Kevadda, I do not teach the Dhamma to monks in that way. 
But yes, some monks do work miracles to impress the masses." The 
Buddha who too was capable of performing such miracles, including 
the twin miracles of simultaneously causing the appearance of jets 
of water and fire from his body, said, if miracles are displayed in 
order to impress people, the monk then becomes a magician. The 
Buddha regarded such display of miracles by monks as a source of 
shame, humiliation and disgust. Of course the Buddha praised and 
approved one single miracle: the miracle of instructing people, in 
brief or in detail, to guide them on the path of Dhamma.

We must therefore approach these so-called 'miracles' and natural 
disasters from a purely Buddhist perspective. The Tsunami we 
witnessed last December was yet another natural hazard; millions of 
which we have experienced and suffered in our Samsaric sojourn.

Tragedy for all 
===============
For us, who are proclaimed Buddhists, the recent devastation caused 
by the Tsunami should be a fitting event for wise consideration - 
for the application of Yoniso Manasikara. Not only the poor, but 
even the rich who travelled thousands of miles from other countries 
to spend their holidays were robbed of their lives and their loved 
ones. Many of them may have taken all possible precautions like 
medical checks and health insurance before they left their 
motherlands; perhaps they had come to spend a relaxed holiday as a 
means to live a healthier and longer life. They were caught up in a 
situation which they would never have dreamed of. But this is the 
reality of Samsara. 

The Tsunami eloquently demonstrated to us the fleeting and elusive 
nature of that 'state' which all of us yearn for the so 
called 'state of happiness' which we seek in a pervading state of 
unhappiness. This is an aberration caused by not seeing things in 
the correct perspective (yatha bhutha nana). We always see pleasant 
in the unpleasant, permanence in the impermanent and a self in the 
non-self in other words, it is our eternal (wrong) belief: that we 
have 'mastery' over phenomena. Even in the highest realm of 
existence - say, the Brahma world - this is the stark reality. That 
is, everything is fleeting and elusive.

Avijja
======
It is our Avijja (not knowing reality in terms of the Dhamma) that 
keeps us always yearning for this fleeting nature. Many examples are 
given in the texts to illustrate the point: like the crab that 
joyfully plays in the pot of water until it's boiled; like the 
grasshopper that is attracted by the glow of the flame. The problem 
with us is that we cannot, rather we do not like to take the trouble 
to, even conceptually understand the Samsaric danger. Our 
consciousness which is so much caught up in the aberrations referred 
to above, will do every trick to prevent us from pondering over 
matters that would eventually get ourselves disenchanted with the 
nature of existence through realisation.

To the young, the mind will prompt "don't be in a hurry, there's 
still time for you, just enjoy life", to the old it will 
whisper "why have a pessimistic outlook, just be your normal self 
and enjoy life". However the Tsunamis and other agents of nature 
that bring you sorrow and sadness will not patiently wait until you 
wear the safety belt. 

Law of nature
=============
No wonder the Buddha gave up practising under his initial meditation 
masters; Alara Kalama and Uddakrama Putta. For their goal ended in 
the formless Brahma realms which are conditioned. 

Whatever existence or thing that arises which is dependent on 
conditions is subject to cessation. This is the most fundamental law 
that the Buddha realized (yan kinchi samudaya Dhammam sabbantham 
niridha Dhammam).

This law of nature is equally applicable anywhere in the universe or 
multiverse, in all thirty one realms at all times. This nature of 
things (Dhammatha) is the cause for dukka (sorrow). That is why the 
Buddha compared "existence" in any form - be it as a human being or 
a saint or a brahma - to human excreta; no matter whether the 
quantity is little or big, it stinks! The Buddha, realising the 
futility of following the path of the two meditation gurus resolved 
for Himself, to find the path that leads to deliverance from the 
conditioned existence. And, by re-discovering the 'Ancient Path' 
which the Buddhas previous to the Buddha Gothama had tread namely, 
the Noble Eightfold Path, and treading along it, he attained the 
goal He desired: Nibbana.

So while we help those affected to overcome their traumatic 
experience and untold suffering, let us take it from the Tsunami 
experience a sound lesson and make the best out of the situation 
following the path that Patachara who underwent a similar experience.
No amount of miracles can save us from the Samsaric suffering, 
unless we ourselves tread the path of Dhamma wisely. Even Venerable 
Maha Mogallana, one of the Buddha's chief disciples who was 
acclaimed by the Buddha as the foremost in performing miracles among 
his disciples, was beaten to death (as a result of a previous kamma) 
by hired criminals.

<end article>

Comments? Feedback?

Metta,
Rob M :-)
	
42747

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:06am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II)

 	
Hi, TG (and Jon) -

In a message dated 2/26/05 2:58:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
TGrand458@a... writes:

> 
> Hi Howard and Jon
> 
> 
> In a message dated 2/26/2005 6:33:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
> upasaka@a... writes:
> 
> 
> >Jon: 
> >All dhammas arise, subsist and fall away. As regards the rupa that is 
> >the present sense-door object, that arising is nowhere said to be 
> >dependent on, or related to, the present sense-door consciousness of 
> >which is the object.
> >
> ---------------------------------------
> Howard:
> There is said to be a mutual dependence between vi~n~nana and namarupa 
> (in the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta). Also, as a specific example, I do not see 
> how a bodily sensation exists apart from the awareness of it. There is no 
> unexperienced itch.
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> TG: An itch is aready a Nama so the analogy does not hold. Howard, you 
> have 
> this idea that bodily sensation is rupa. It is not. Sensation of any kind 
> is already a Nama. It is the body, not a bodily sensation, that can exists 
> apart from Nama. Otherwise, while we were unconscious state of dreaming, 
> the 
> body would disappear. It does not.
> 
------------------------------------------
Howard:
Excellent - I hate ambiguity! ;-)) We completely disagree. An itch, 
IMO, is not nama at all. An itch doesn't know anything.
--------------------------------------------

> 
> 
> >
> >On the contrary, the texts seem to indicate, that the arising of the 
> >sense-door consciousness is dependent on (among other things) there 
> >being an appropriate rupa that has already arisen. See the passage from 
> >SN 35:93 cited by TG in his recent post to you:
> >
> >“Monks, consciousness comes to be in dependence on a dyad. And how,
> >monks, does consciousness come to be in dependence on a dyad? *In 
> >dependence on
> >eye and forms there arises eye-consciousness.* ...
> >“The meeting, the encounter, the occurrence of these three things is
> >called eye-contact. ...
> >[The Buddha proceeds to analyze the ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness,
> >tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness in the 
> >same
> >manner and finishes with...]
> >“It is in such a way, monks, that consciousness comes to be in
> >dependence on a dyad.�
> >(Connected Discourses of the Buddha, vol. 2, pg. 1172)
> >
> -----------------------------------------
> Howard:
> I see no reason to presume a temporal precedence relation here. The 
> quoted material is perfectly compatible with a synchronous relation. The 
> visual 
> consciousness depends on eye and form, but that dependency need not be a 
> temporal one. There are plenty of examples of asymmetric, synchronous 
> dependencies. 
> (The idea is: Whenever there are A and B, there is also C.)
> -------------------------------------
> 
> TG: Note Connected Discourses of the Buddha, vol 2, pg. 1171 -- 1172. Two 
> Suttas on "Dyads." The first merely lists the dyad of eye and forms, ear 
> and 
> sounds, etc. The second suttas says that "consciousness comes to be in 
> dependence on a dyad." To me its clear that these suttas are setting out a 
> structural relationship as to how consciousness arises. 
> 
---------------------------------------
Howard:
Structural - yes. Temporal - not necessarily.
--------------------------------------

> 
> Althought mental factors and consciousness mutually arise in dependence on 
> the dyad, the dyad does not mutually arise in dependence on consciousness.
> 
---------------------------------------
Howard:
According to the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta, there is mutual dependence.
-------------------------------------

> 
> 
> >
> >>(My perspective is summed up by 
> >>"There is no awareness that is not awareness of some content, and there is 
> 
> >no 
> >>content that is not the content of a state of awareness.")
> >>
> >>
> >
> >This is a puzzling statement.
> >
> ------------------------------------
> TG: Awareness is dependent on content. However, centent is not dependent 
> on awareness. I.E., Nama is dependent on Rupa, but Rupa is not dependent on 
> 
> Nama. 
> 
> If Howard, you wish to consider this an assumption, so be it. But be very 
> clear that it must be concluded, by your reasoning, that the 4 Great Nikayas 
> are 
> loaded with the Buddha assuming. He very often speaks based on principles 
> and not on direct experience. He speaks about physical states that alter in 
> 
> relation to each other. He speaks about the future of impermanent, 
> suffering, 
> no-self relations. He speaks about future physical states altering without 
> association to consciousness. Such as the disappearing of oceans, etc.
> 
> Anyway, this discussion is spending too much time analyzing the arrow 
> instead 
> of pulling it out. Whatever concept we have about the world is ultimately 
> wrong.
> 
--------------------------------
Howard:
I agree.
----------------------------------
(Although some are much wronger than others.) ;-)
--------------------------------
Howard:
I *definitely* agree! ;-))
--------------------------------
As long as we set up > 
> a foundation/model that can increase awareness of impermanence, suffering, 
> and no-self; and at the same not adhere to that foundation/model, we will be 
> 
> doing something right.
> 
> 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./Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  (From the Diamond Sutra)Â  


42748

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:10am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa and Vedana: the Perspective of S.N. Goenka

 	
Hi, TG -

In a message dated 2/26/05 3:23:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
TGrand458@a... writes:

> Hi Howard, All
> 
> I'm not aware of the Buddha ever talking about feeling "hardness." Did he? 
> 
> (Well, maybe in the Vinaya. ;-) ) Seems to me the discussion has veered 
> off 
> of Buddhism and on to philosophy. Its almost irresistible.
> 
> At any rate, Goenka's position, as described by Howard below, seems most 
> reasonable to me and in accordance to the way the Suttas present the matter. 
> 
> Howard's position seems completely foreign to me when stacked up against the 
> 
> Suttas. However I think they both drive toward the conclusion that insight 
> into 
> impermanence, suffering, and no-self is what they are after and in that way 
> maybe they will both be successful.
> 
> TG
> 
======================
We agree that insight into the tilakkhana is of primary importance.

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)  


42749

From: Charles DaCosta <dacostas@P...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:13am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha said: That's how .......Hugo

 	
Hi,

If Buddhism is getting too confusing, deep, or contradictory, then:
Sometimes it is just better to look for the most simplistic meanings/interpretations first, then expand to the more "^.^" later. By simple, I mean something that you can actually try. When you are comfortable with them, it becomes easier to understand the deeper ones. So think of what is the most useful now as appose to "what it really means."

Take "Emptiness," for example: 
a.. In Tibetan circles, this has a very deep and profound meaning. It relates to: 1) the "great illusion;" 2) Ultimate reality; etc... 
b.. In other Mahayana circles, its meaning relates more to a state of mind: 1) glimpses of Nirvana; 2) periods of no thought (imaginings, and feelings (judging)); periods of analysis without feelings, where you see things as they are without attachments (feelings); etc... 
c.. In Theravadan circles it relates more to the concept of no essence or soul, nothing that can be owned or controlled completely; the compounded-ness of things.

When talking to beginners, I like to limit its meaning to the mind being clear of feelings, emotions, daydreaming, etc... A mind that is ready to learn something totally new, so you must put all your prejudices (prejudgments) aside and be "open" to new possibilities.

I always ask: "When is a cup most useful; when it's empty, full, or any where in-between?" If you think of your mind operating like the cup, then ... And yes sooner or later you will desire more, but get this practice down first (a mind ready to learn).


CharlesD


----- Original Message ----- 
From: gazita2002 
To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, 25 February, 2005 12:36
Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha said: That's how .......Hugo


Hello Hugo, Sarah and other friends,

...
Azita: Sarah's right I think, Hugo. Many of us do go thro the 
frustrations again and again, because 'we' want something. 'we' want 
to understand and we cant make it happen :-( 
I have heard that it takes much patience to develop some 
understanding of the Buddhas teaching. We have to listen and study 
the teachings, contemplate what we hear and study and - I guess this 
is where I'm at - realising that no amount of desire for results will 
aid the development of understanding - and also realising that maybe 
in this life we will never really understand. Maybe there aren't ever 
going to be the right conditions in this existence - who knows.
We all want to hear comforting words, but I don't think the 
reality is very comforting :-( IMHO
	
42750

From: <TGrand458@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:53am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II)

 	
Hi Howard

Here we go again...

In a message dated 2/26/2005 2:08:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
upasaka@a... writes:
Hi, TG (and Jon) -

In a message dated 2/26/05 2:58:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
TGrand458@a... writes:

> 
> Hi Howard and Jon
> 
> 
> In a message dated 2/26/2005 6:33:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
> upasaka@a... writes:
> 
> 
> >Jon: 
> >All dhammas arise, subsist and fall away. As regards the rupa that is 
> >the present sense-door object, that arising is nowhere said to be 
> >dependent on, or related to, the present sense-door consciousness of 
> >which is the object.
> >
> ---------------------------------------
> Howard:
> There is said to be a mutual dependence between vi~n~nana and namarupa 
> (in the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta). Also, as a specific example, I do not see 
> how a bodily sensation exists apart from the awareness of it. There is no 
> unexperienced itch.
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> TG: An itch is aready a Nama so the analogy does not hold. Howard, you 
> have 
> this idea that bodily sensation is rupa. It is not. Sensation of any kind 
> is already a Nama. It is the body, not a bodily sensation, that can exists 
> apart from Nama. Otherwise, while we were unconscious state of dreaming, 
> the 
> body would disappear. It does not.
> 
------------------------------------------
Howard:
Excellent - I hate ambiguity! ;-)) We completely disagree. An itch, 
IMO, is not nama at all. An itch doesn't know anything.
--------------------------------------------

TG: Do feelings know anything? Does consciousness know anything? (Cause I 
thought it was bare awareness.) If any of these Nama's know anything...I 
would think an itch equally qualifies. An itch would, with that viewpoint, know 
that it itches.


> 
> 
> >
> >On the contrary, the texts seem to indicate, that the arising of the 
> >sense-door consciousness is dependent on (among other things) there 
> >being an appropriate rupa that has already arisen. See the passage from 
> >SN 35:93 cited by TG in his recent post to you:
> >
> >“Monks, consciousness comes to be in dependence on a dyad. And how,
> >monks, does consciousness come to be in dependence on a dyad? *In 
> >dependence on
> >eye and forms there arises eye-consciousness.* ...
> >“The meeting, the encounter, the occurrence of these three things is
> >called eye-contact. ...
> >[The Buddha proceeds to analyze the ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness,
> >tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness in the 
> >same
> >manner and finishes with...]
> >“It is in such a way, monks, that consciousness comes to be in
> >dependence on a dyad.�
> >(Connected Discourses of the Buddha, vol. 2, pg. 1172)
> >
> -----------------------------------------
> Howard:
> I see no reason to presume a temporal precedence relation here. The 
> quoted material is perfectly compatible with a synchronous relation. The 
> visual 
> consciousness depends on eye and form, but that dependency need not be a 
> temporal one. There are plenty of examples of asymmetric, synchronous 
> dependencies. 
> (The idea is: Whenever there are A and B, there is also C.)
> -------------------------------------
> 
> TG: Note Connected Discourses of the Buddha, vol 2, pg. 1171 -- 1172. Two 
> Suttas on "Dyads." The first merely lists the dyad of eye and forms, ear 
> and 
> sounds, etc. The second suttas says that "consciousness comes to be in 
> dependence on a dyad." To me its clear that these suttas are setting out a 
> structural relationship as to how consciousness arises. 
> 
---------------------------------------
Howard:
Structural - yes. Temporal - not necessarily.
--------------------------------------

TG: Question ... Do you think that when conditions came together to form the 
planet Earth that it was in conjunction with consciousness, or that rupa was 
acting on "its own," or do you disagree with that type of analysis with the 
formation of planets, stars, etc.?


> 
> Althought mental factors and consciousness mutually arise in dependence on 
> the dyad, the dyad does not mutually arise in dependence on consciousness.
> 
---------------------------------------
Howard:
According to the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta, there is mutual dependence.
-------------------------------------
TG: There is mutual dependence for consciousness. Not necessarily for rupa.



> 
> 
> >
> >>(My perspective is summed up by 
> >>"There is no awareness that is not awareness of some content, and there 
is 
> 
> >no 
> >>content that is not the content of a state of awareness.")
> >>
> >>
> >
> >This is a puzzling statement.
> >
> ------------------------------------
> TG: Awareness is dependent on content. However, centent is not dependent 
> on awareness. I.E., Nama is dependent on Rupa, but Rupa is not dependent 
on 
> 
> Nama. 
> 
> If Howard, you wish to consider this an assumption, so be it. But be very 
> clear that it must be concluded, by your reasoning, that the 4 Great 
Nikayas 
> are 
> loaded with the Buddha assuming. He very often speaks based on principles 
> and not on direct experience. He speaks about physical states that alter 
in 
> 
> relation to each other. He speaks about the future of impermanent, 
> suffering, 
> no-self relations. He speaks about future physical states altering without 
> association to consciousness. Such as the disappearing of oceans, etc.
> 
> Anyway, this discussion is spending too much time analyzing the arrow 
> instead 
> of pulling it out. Whatever concept we have about the world is ultimately 
> wrong.
> 
--------------------------------
Howard:
I agree.
----------------------------------
(Although some are much wronger than others.) ;-)
--------------------------------
Howard:
I *definitely* agree! ;-))
--------------------------------
As long as we set up > 
> a foundation/model that can increase awareness of impermanence, suffering, 
> and no-self; and at the same not adhere to that foundation/model, we will 
be 
> 
> doing something right.
> 
> TG
> 
========================
With metta,
Howard
TG


42751

From: <TGrand458@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 10:24am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II)

 	
Hi Howard

How above this often repeated Sutta passage...

“This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four great 
elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled rice and 
porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to 
dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported by it and 
bound up with it.�
(The Buddha . . . Middle Length Discourse of the Buddha, pg. 642, The Greater 
Discourse to Sakuludayin, Mahasakuludayi Sutta, #77) 

Note: Consciousness is supported by the Four Great Elements. The Four Great 
Elements are nowhere to my knowledge said, in the Suttas, to be supported by 
consciousness in an ontological sense.

TG



42752

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 10:43am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II)

 	
Hi, TG -

In a message dated 2/26/05 5:54:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
TGrand458@a... writes:

> TG: Do feelings know anything? Does consciousness know anything? 
-----------------------------------
Howard:
Yes and yes. These are kinds of knowing.
-----------------------------------
(Cause I > 
> thought it was bare awareness.)
---------------------------------
Howard:
You thought *what* was bare awareness? Vi~n~nana? Vi~n~nana is the 
awareness of the an object. It is the experiential presence of an object.
-------------------------------
If any of these Nama's know anything...I > 
> would think an itch equally qualifies. An itch would, with that viewpoint, 
> know 
> that it itches.
> 
---------------------------------
Howard:
An itch doesn't experience. It is experirenced. 
===================
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)  



42753

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 10:50am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II)

 	
Hi, TG -

In a message dated 2/26/05 5:54:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
TGrand458@a... writes:

> 
> TG: Question ... Do you think that when conditions came together to form 
> the 
> planet Earth that it was in conjunction with consciousness, or that rupa was 
> 
> acting on "its own," or do you disagree with that type of analysis with the 
> formation of planets, stars, etc.?
> 
------------------------------------
Howard: 
There are just too many presuppositions underlying the foregoing for 
me to reply. 
-------------------------------------

> 
> 
> >
> >Althought mental factors and consciousness mutually arise in dependence on 
> >the dyad, the dyad does not mutually arise in dependence on consciousness.
> >
> ---------------------------------------
> Howard:
> According to the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta, there is mutual dependence.
> -------------------------------------
> TG: There is mutual dependence for consciousness. Not necessarily for 
> rupa.
> 
-------------------------------------------
Howard:
I don't understand this. That sutta presents vi~n~nana and namarupa as 
dependent on each other. That is what I mean by mutual dependence. I don't 
know what you are intending by the expression, but I cannot understand what you 
ahve said above.
----------------------------------------

> 
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>(My perspective is summed up by 
> >>>"There is no awareness that is not awareness of some content, and there 
> is 
> >
> >>no 
> >>>content that is not the content of a state of awareness.")
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>This is a puzzling statement.
> >>
> >------------------------------------
> >TG: Awareness is dependent on content. However, centent is not dependent 
> 
> >on awareness. I.E., Nama is dependent on Rupa, but Rupa is not dependent 
> on 
> >
> >Nama. 
> >
> >If Howard, you wish to consider this an assumption, so be it. But be very 
> >clear that it must be concluded, by your reasoning, that the 4 Great 
> Nikayas 
> >are 
> >loaded with the Buddha assuming. He very often speaks based on principles 
> >and not on direct experience. He speaks about physical states that alter 
> in 
> >
> >relation to each other. He speaks about the future of impermanent, 
> >suffering, 
> >no-self relations. He speaks about future physical states altering without 
> 
> >association to consciousness. Such as the disappearing of oceans, etc.
> >
> >Anyway, this discussion is spending too much time analyzing the arrow 
> >instead 
> >of pulling it out. Whatever concept we have about the world is ultimately 
> >wrong.
> >
> --------------------------------
> Howard:
> I agree.
> ----------------------------------
> (Although some are much wronger than others.) ;-)
> --------------------------------
> Howard:
> I *definitely* agree! ;-))
> --------------------------------
> As long as we set up >
> >a foundation/model that can increase awareness of impermanence, suffering, 
> >and no-self; and at the same not adhere to that foundation/model, we will 
> be 
> >
> >doing something right.
> >
> >TG
> >
> ========================
> With metta,
> Howard
> 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)  


42754

From: gazita2002 <gazita2002@y...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 3:54pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha said: That's how .......Hugo

 	
Hello Hugo,

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Hugo <eklektik@g...> wrote:
> Hello Azita,
> 
> >Many of us do go thro the
> > frustrations again and again, because 'we' want something. 'we' 
want
> > to understand and we cant make it happen :-(
> 
> I agree.
> 
> It is simple logic, frustration arises because whatever you want to
> happen doesn't happen.

Azita: so you agree that there is frustration, and that 'you' 
experience this frustration?

> > I have heard that it takes much patience to develop some
> > understanding of the Buddhas teaching.
> 
> It takes the patience of whom?
> 
> Who develops this understanding?

Azita: then just as easily as there is the frustration, then there 
can be patience, and understanding, but no who.

> > We have to listen and study
> > the teachings, contemplate what we hear and study
> 
> Are you saying that we have to do something specific and on purpose?
> 
> Who contemplates, who hears, who studies?

Azita: Hugo, can you accept that for you and I, for anyone, to 
communicate we have to use conventional language? For me to say the 
above another way is difficult, bec I must use our conventional way 
of speaking. 
Yes, I am saying do something specific, with the understanding 
that there is no 'I' who is doing. There is the intention to do, but 
where is the'me' in that intention? I'm not intention, intention is 
not me.
Hearing is not 'me' but there is hearing. There are these 
realities which arise for a very brief moment and then fall away 
again. Where is the 'me' in these very brief moments? 
> 
........snip......
> I don't want to hear any specific kind of words, I just want to know
> "The Truth".

Azita: IMO we have to hear the words to eventually know the truth.
> 
> If I were looking for comforting words, I would have gone to a
> religion that offers comfort by praying or by believing that some
> entity will save us as long as we love it.

> Azita, do you realize the contradiction of your line of thinking?

Hopefully, Hugo, some of what I've written above may clarify this, 
or maybe it won't!


> Azita, do you have a self?, do you cling to it?

No, in reality I don't have a self, but I often cling to that non-
existent self :-( 

Patience, courage and good cheer, - without a self -
Azita.
	
42755

From: mnease <mlnease@z...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 4:26pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Tsunami Experience from a Buddhist Perspective

 	
Hi Rob,

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "robmoult" <rob.moult@j...>
To: <dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 12:27 PM
Subject: [dsg] Tsunami Experience from a Buddhist Perspective


> ...by re-discovering the 'Ancient Path'
> which the Buddhas previous to the Buddha Gothama had tread namely,
> the Noble Eightfold Path, and treading along it, he attained the
> goal He desired: Nibbana.

> Comments? Feedback?

I liked the article in general, thanks. A question about the snippet above,
though--the reference to the Path as something the Buddha trod along to
attain the goal. This doesn't seem consistent to me with the idea of the
Path as something that arises for a moment at each stage of awakening--and
with no one on the Path. Do you find these two interpretations compatible?
Do you think that the texts sometimes refer to conventions or concepts
('right livelihood' referring to holding a harmless job, e.g.) sometimes and
to paramattha dhammas at others? Or that the former is just a common
misconception?

Thanks in advance.

mike



42756

From: <TGrand458@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 11:30am
Subject: Four Great Elements as Foundation / Howard

 	
Hi Howard

A couple of more passages supporting the four great elements as a 
foundation...

“eye… ear… nose… tongue… body… mind; are derived from the Four Great 
Elements...�
(The Path of Discrimination, (PD), Patisambhidamagga) treatise 1, paragraphs 
371-377)

“…any object whatsoever – that is of the Four Great Elements or derived from 
them.�
(The Buddha . . . Gradual Sayings, vol. V, pg. 224) 

TG


42757

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 11:41am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Four Great Elements as Foundation / Howard

 	
Hi, TG -


In a message dated 2/26/05 7:30:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
TGrand458@a... writes:

> 
> “eye… ear… nose… tongue… body… mind; are derived from the Four Great 
> Elements...�
> (The Path of Discrimination, (PD), Patisambhidamagga) treatise 1, paragraphs 
> 
> 371-377)
> 
========================
That is very strange! It ceratinly is contrary to the Abhidhamma 
perspective of distinction between nama and rupa. Any Abhidhammikas here have a 
comment on this?

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./Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  (From the Diamond Sutra)Â  


42758

From: <TGrand458@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 11:43am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Four Great Elements as Foundation / Howard

 	
Hi Howard

Got to reiterate this quote under this heading as well...


“This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four great 
elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled rice and 
porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to 
dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported by it and 
bound up with it.�
(The Buddha . . . Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, pg. 642, The 
Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin, Mahasakuludayi Sutta, #77) 

TG


42759

From: Charles DaCosta <dacostas@P...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 0:14pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation

 	
Mind, Body (action), Speech

These three elements are covered in all of the Buddha's teachings (they teach how to think, act, and speak) All.

The Buddha's knowledge is about just that, knowing how to think, act, and speak.

Charles
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Jonothan Abbott 
Hugo

I know you are anxious to wrap this thread up ;-)), but I cannot let it 
finish on such a 'shocking' note for you.

>>We can make generalisations about these contrasting situations, but i
>>personally don't think there is a lot of value in thinking we should be
>>doing X instead of Y.
>This is really shocking and I can't "fit it" inside the Buddhist
>philosophy,
>
OK, let me put it a little differently.

The Buddha encouraged the development of kusala of all kinds, and at all 
times. I'm sure there's no disagreement between us on this. So I'm not 
saying anything that I see as being contrary to that.

Now kusala is a mind-state. An action is kusala only if the 
accompanying mind-state is kusala; but 'doing a kusala act' does not 
mean the accompanying mind-state will be kusala.

<.....>


42760

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:37pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Four Great Elements as Foundation / Howard

 	
Hi, TG -

In a message dated 2/26/05 7:45:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
TGrand458@a... writes:

> Got to reiterate this quote under this heading as well...
> 
> 
> “This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four great 
> elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled rice 
> and 
> porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to 
> dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported 
> by it and 
> bound up with it.�
> (The Buddha . . . Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, pg. 642, The 
> Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin, Mahasakuludayi Sutta, #77) 
> 
> TG
> 
=========================
Yes, very conventional expression, like much of what the Buddha said. 

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./Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  (From the Diamond Sutra)Â  


42761

From: <TGrand458@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:50pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Four Great Elements as Foundation / Howard

 	
Hi Howard

One more for the road...

“…just as heat is generated and fire is produced from the conjunction and 
friction of two fire-sticks, but when the sticks are separated and laid aside 
the resultant heat ceases and subsides; so too, these three feelings are born of 
contact, rooted in contact, with contact as their source and condition. In 
dependence on the appropriate contacts the corresponding feelings arise; with 
the cessation of the appropriate contacts the corresponding feelings cease.�
(The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 2, pg. 1270)

Based on this analogy, the fire-sticks, which obviously preceed the heat, 
generate heat when they come into contact. The analogy is directly applied to 
feelings, i.e., consciousness arising in dependence on the appropriate contacts. 
The analogy would present a temporal structure.

TG


42762

From: <TGrand458@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:53pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Four Great Elements as Foundation / Howard

 	
Hi Howard

In a message dated 2/26/2005 7:39:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
upasaka@a... writes:
Yes, very conventional expression, like much of what the Buddha said. 

With metta,
Howard

Whoops...what did I say a week ago... something like... "Those who can't 
understand it, start writing it off as "conventional." I didn't say that 
referring to you...but you sort of walked into it. ;-)

TG


42763

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:58pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Four Great Elements as Foundation / Howard

 	
Hi, TG -

In a message dated 2/26/05 10:52:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
TGrand458@a... writes:

> Hi Howard
> 
> One more for the road...
> 
> “…just as heat is generated and fire is produced from the conjunction and 
> friction of two fire-sticks, but when the sticks are separated and laid 
> aside 
> the resultant heat ceases and subsides; so too, these three feelings are 
> born of 
> contact, rooted in contact, with contact as their source and condition. In 
> dependence on the appropriate contacts the corresponding feelings arise; 
> with 
> the cessation of the appropriate contacts the corresponding feelings cease.�
> (The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 2, pg. 1270)
> 
> Based on this analogy, the fire-sticks, which obviously preceed the heat, 
> generate heat when they come into contact. The analogy is directly applied 
> to 
> feelings, i.e., consciousness arising in dependence on the appropriate 
> contacts. 
> The analogy would present a temporal structure.
> 
> TG
> 
========================
I've always understood feeling to follow *after* contact, as you say. 
Abhidhamma doesn't accept that, I believe, but that is my understanding of the 
suttas. So it seems we agree on this.

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./Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  (From the Diamond Sutra)Â  


42764

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 3:01pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Four Great Elements as Foundation / Howard

 	
Hi, TG -

In a message dated 2/26/05 10:53:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
TGrand458@a... writes:

> Whoops...what did I say a week ago... something like... "Those who can't 
> understand it, start writing it off as "conventional." I didn't say that 
> referring to you...but you sort of walked into it. ;-)
> 
=====================
The Buddha talked about self and selves all the time. So, I guess you 
believe he was an atta kind of guy, huh? ;-))

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)  


42765

From: Hugo <eklektik@g...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:22pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Eight Conditions for the Arising of Panna

 	
Hello Tep,

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:08:37 -0000, Tep Sastri <tepyawa@m...> wrote:
> It is nice to see your reply and I am going to respond to it as effectively
> as possible. If there is one thing I try to avoid in on-line discussion, it is
> the clumsy in-line dialoguing: it branches out rapidly and becomes
> harder to track later on.

I find it the opposite, I hope you don't mind if I keep doing the
"in-line" thing as it is easier on my typing.

> On the other hand, summarizing the main
> points of a given message and putting them in focus by listing seems
> easier for me to respond to the whole message without having to use
> the "in-line dialoguing".

The problem with summarizing is that there is the danger of changing
the meaning the original poster wanted to express, or to even miss it
completely.

One specific example is how you summarize my thoughts in your item #3:

> 3. To understand what is wholesome, you need a clear mind. But a
> clear mind is based on morality and virtue. And "behaving morally and
> with virtue will 'prevent' you from doing something that you may feel
> remorseful about in the future creating chaos in your mind".

It says "But a clear mind is based on morality and virtue", this
sounds too categorical to me, here is what I said:

Original paragraph:
If you want to understand what is wholesome and what is not, you need
to have a "clear" mind (or as clear as you can), if you want to be
able to practice in order to "clean your mind" behaving according to
morality and virtue will definitely lead you to places and situations
where you can do it, also behaving moraly and with virtue will
"prevent" you from doing something that you may feel remorseful about
in the future creating chaos in your mind.
End original paragraph.

Why I don't like the way you summarized?

Because it is too categorical, why?

Because I think that somebody without good morality and virtue can
have a clear mind, maybe only during his/her meditation session but
still it will be a "clear mind".

I will address your other points in a different message.

Greetings,
-- 
Hugo
	
42766

From: Hugo <eklektik@g...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:38pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Eight Conditions for the Arising of Panna

 	
Hello Tep, 

Continuing my first reply, 


On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 04:08:37 -0000, Tep Sastri <tepyawa@m...> wrote:
> 6. You assume that Tep thinks of the 3 components as "three
> independent, unrelated objects that need to be manipulated/gathered
> by another independent and unrelated object".
> 
> I know that your assumption in # 6 is incorrect, because I don't think like
> that.

Ok, I stand corrected then, thanks for clarifying.

> And because of this misunderstanding, the question in item #2 is
> irrelavant. How can Sila, Samadhi and Panna be isolated? -- it does
> not make sense.

Yes, that's what I thought.

> As to your point # 1, it is nitpicking. Everything we do, deciding to follow
> the Five Precepts, for example, is conditioned by intention and other
> cetasikas. The fact that Sila is not the first step is not the issue; just like
> it doesn't matter whether chicken is first or egg is first. The issue is
> what comes after one has solid Sila as a supporting condition for
> higher Samadhi and higher Panna. Then Panna can support even
> higher Sila and higher Samadhi.

Ah!, sorry, then my whole reply is off target!

You are talking about AFTER one has SOLID Sila, I definitely was NOT
addressing that at all, I am talking at the level I am now, which is a
human who doesn't have "solid sila", neither "higher Samadhi" nor
"higher Pa~n~na".

I am not sure if it is worth it to answer your reply because you were
talking at one level and I was talking at another, and that is enough
to tell us that we will have differences and there will be no way to
resolve them, we are better starting from scratch and forgetting about
this thread. :-)

Given the fact that you took time to explain all of this I will at
least tell you something about it.

> The Buddha said that the three good conducts (bodily, verbally and
> mentally) fulfilled the four foundations of mindfulness, and that restraint
> of the sense faculties (Samvara Sila) fulfilled the three good conducts.
> Of course, you have to have both understanding (if your brain is not
> dead and you have a normal functioning mind) and some
> concentration (in addition to other cetasikas) in order to practice the
> Samvara Sila. The main issue underlying the sutta here is that Sila is
> the supporting condition for good conducts which, in turn, leads to
> mindfulness.
> 
> Nothing here is as rigid as your points above seem to indicate.

As I said let's not compare what you said to what I said, we are
talking about different levels.

> However, it is
> clear that Ajaan Lee's model is not the same as your main point #3 and
> that his Panna is not just "worldly wisdom" -- because that is not
> enough to penetrate the Noble Truths.

:-)

When I talked about "worldly wisdom" I was talking about whatever I
was able to "obtain", I was talking about me, not about what Ajaan Lee
was talking about. In other words, I am claiming that if I did get
something it was only worldly wisdom.

This is what I said:

Original paragraphs:
At least that's how I would interpret what I have experienced, now
have I REALLY developed Sila, Pañña and Samadhi?, I can't tell you for
sure, I just think I have.

Note, when I say Pañña I mean worldly wisdom, I haven't penetrated
anything other than a few of my gross defilements, but they were easy
targets (i.e. they were big).
End of original paragraphs.


Greetings,
-- 
Hugo
	
42767

From: Hugo <eklektik@g...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:55pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Descriptive training from The Buddha, support for my "experiments"

 	
Hello Jon,


Hugo:
> >My "experiments" are about a human who practices by setting up some
> >situations where this human can observe if mental qualities decline or
> >increase then decide which conducts should be pursued and which should
> >not.

Jon:
> Thanks for explaining this. I get it now.
> 
> I know your experiments are well-intentioned and earnestly carried out,
> but my question would be whether the Buddha was here talking about an
> observed improvement in behaviour, especially in a short-term context,
> of the kind you described. Is such kind of improvement *necessarily*
> the result of the development of insight, or can it also result from
> other strategies (kusala of kinds other than insight, or even not kusala
> at all)?

I don't know, but I think all of them are valid options and we can't
discard any of them, so I agree, it is not *necessarily* but it could
be.

Also, it could be that the initial result is a result of one of the
options but the long term result is the result of a different option.

Anyway, if at least this sutta is prescribing and not describing, then
we can stop categorically saying that the Buddha only described and
not prescribed, right? And this is the issue I am bringing about in
this thread not any of the other questions you asked.

In other words, the issue is if The Buddha encouraged people to do
some specific things or if he was just describing. And if one of this
specific things was to "check" your behavior and adjust it constantly.

> I think this brings us back to a subject we have touched on before,
> namely, what are the indicators of the successful development of
> insight. Any thoughts on that?

Sorry, I won't answer that because that will make this thread deviate
from its original purpose , and I would like to conclude this first.

Thanks for your reply,
-- 
Hugo
	
42768

From: Hugo <eklektik@g...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:59pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge of the Dhamma/ Tep & Sukinder I

 	
Hello Jon,

Let's close this thread and continue on the other one about the
experiments, they are basically the same, please check the last
message I sent to that thread.

Thanks for your reply,
-- 
Hugo


42769

From: Jonothan Abbott <jsabbott@n...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:58pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Proliferations of Perceptions and Memories

 	
Hi, TG

>J: To my knowledge, the Abhidhamma talks about 
>'remembering' but not about 'memories'.
>
>I think the idea of 'memories' may be one of those cultural things that 
>is not found at all times and in all societies. Does that sound feasible?
> 
>
>

>TG: Not to me. I can't think of any cultures or societies that don't have 
>the idea of memory. I think some of the more intellegent animals can remember 
>without have the idea about memories; and THAT may have been true for 
>primative humans in the stone age or more primative days, but today I don't think so.
> 
>

Well I'm distinguishing between the idea of memory, as in remembering, 
and the idea of memories, as in things remembered. I wasn't suggesting 
there are cultures or societies that don't have the idea of memory. But 
I don't see why the idea of remembering without the idea of memories 
should be considered something to be associated with primitive societies 
only.

>J: On the other hand, 'remembering' could be seen as just a form of 
>thinking about the past, where previous experiences are recalled.
> 
>
>

>TG: This is what it would seem like to me. Previous experiences being 
>recalled is the remembering. But what is being recalled are the memories or more 
>accurately... the sense impressions/residue left over from past experiences.
> 
>

Well, we just don't know. But when we recall something purely 
conceptual, such as '2 plus 2 equals 4', I think it's possible that what 
is being recalled is the previous thinking that had the same concepts as 
object, rather than the concepts themselves as such.

>TG: But I was under the impression that you didn't think thinking existed? All 
>of this has to do with thinking. 
>

Actually, I have said all along that thinking (the mental act) is real 
but the things thought of (i.e., the object of thinking, thoughts) are not.

I find it helpful to observe this distinction between thinking and 
thoughts, although neither has a direct equivalent in the Pali as far as 
I am aware. What we call 'thinking' would I believe be a kind of 
consciousness (vinnana or citta or mano), while 'thoughts' would be 
included in the general class of concepts that are among the 'objects of 
consciousness'.

In the English translations, thinking and thoughts are used to translate 
a variety of different Pali terms. 'Thinking' in particular is often 
met as the translation for the mental factors (cetasikas) vitakka and 
vicara or the path factor samma sankappa (which is identified with the 
cetasika vitakka). But sometimes 'thoughts' is used to translate 
vitakka also (as we came across recently in the passage you quoted 
regarding the hindrances).

>TG: Now I'm wondering, what will you think up 
>next? ;-)
> 
>

Well I seem to have managed to find one or two things ;-))

Jon
	
42770

From: Jonothan Abbott <jsabbott@n...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:07pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Proliferations of Perceptions and Memories

 	
Hi, Howard

>Howard:
> Sure. I agree. These markings or marked experiential traces that are 
>accumulated (or passed along) are what *could* be called memories, or memory 
>traces, or memory wisps, or some such thing. I don't know their exact nature but 
>only think that such must exist, a point on which we seem to agree.
> 
>

My understanding would be that it is the moments of thinking 
consciousness, and/or the associated mental factors, that are 
accumulated, rather than the thoughts as such.

>Howard:
> Perhaps there is more detail somewhere in a book of the Abhidhamma or 
>the commentaries.
> 
>

I'd very much like to come across it if there is, but I suspect there 
isn't (perhaps because it just wasn't an issue?).

Jon
	
42771

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 4:26pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Proliferations of Perceptions and Memories

 	
Hi, Jon -

In a message dated 2/27/05 12:14:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
jsabbott@n... writes:

> Hi, Howard
> 
> >Howard:
> > Sure. I agree. These markings or marked experiential traces that are 
> >accumulated (or passed along) are what *could* be called memories, or 
> memory 
> >traces, or memory wisps, or some such thing. I don't know their exact 
> nature but 
> >only think that such must exist, a point on which we seem to agree.
> > 
> >
> 
> My understanding would be that it is the moments of thinking 
> consciousness, and/or the associated mental factors, that are 
> accumulated, rather than the thoughts as such.
> 
> 
=====================
Well, I don't care much what the items passed along are called. But 
something must be passed along, because remembering is a sankharic operation (or 
a sequence of operations) that works on *something*.

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)  


42772

From: Hugo <eklektik@g...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:29pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation

 	
Hello Jon,

> OK, let me put it a little differently.

Excellent, excellent, and more than excellent!!!!!

I offer my respects to you, I think you put it beautifully and I agree 100%.

I will extract some of the key parts.

> Now kusala is a mind-state. An action is kusala only if the
> accompanying mind-state is kusala; but 'doing a kusala act' does not
> mean the accompanying mind-state will be kusala.

I agree.

> Thus even if we spent all day every day studying the texts or discussing
> dhamma or reflecting on any of the subjects of samatha, or 'doing
> kusala' of whatever different kind throughout the day, that does not
> mean that there would be 'more kusala' than if we spent less time doing
> those things.

I agree.

> Kusala may arise in a 'social' situation as much as in a
> solitary situation; in fact for some people there may by more akusala in
> a solitary situation than in a social situation -- it all depends on
> individual accumulations.

I agree.


> So while 'more kusala' is always better, 'doing X' does not always mean
> more kusala.

I agree.

> This is particularly important when it comes to the development of
> insight. Insight is the highest form of kusala. It is a kind of kusala
> that can be developed only during the time of a Buddha's teaching, such
> as now. The development of insight is not a matter of 'more kusala, less
> akusala' in the sense that we tend to think of that. 

> Insight is direct
> understanding of the true nature of a presently arising dhamma. Whether
> we are doing X or Y, the dhammas are the same, so the choice to be made
> is not a crucial as you suggest.

I agree, little correction, I don't suggest that it is crucial all the time.

It all depends on your level of "development", for people just
"starting" it is crucial, once they understand all this, it is less
crucial or even not necessary.

I "raised all this fuss" because of the categorical statement that it
is NEVER necessary for ANYBODY.

I have always maintained the idea that everybody needs something
different, simply because they start the path at different points and
with different "equipment".

Yes, everybody can learn how to ride a bike without supporting wheels,
but some of us will fall down and break our knees or get bruises or
whatever, so for those like me, it is better to use supporting wheels
and eventually remove them. Others will ride it almost from the first
time, so they don't need any supporting wheels, but I don't think it
is good to say that nobody needs supporting wheels. Also I
acknowledge that some might get attached to the supporting wheels and
won't want to get rid of them, but there is also the risk for those
"macho" guys who even though they need the supporting wheels they
won't take them.


There is an anecdote from Ajaan Fuang Jotiko, a Thai Forest monk
"heavy" into meditation:

"One woman who practiced meditation with Ajaan Fuang came to feel that
she had split into two people: one person acting, and one watching.
She felt this way both while sitting in meditation and while se wasn't
--to the point where she didn't feel like sitting in meditation at
all, because she felt that sitting and not sitting were in no way
different. She asked him about this, and he told her, 'If you don't
want to, you don't have to sit. Just keep this sense of ''the
watcher'' going at all times. Sitting with your eyes closed is simply
and external convention. Just keep watching. When the mind and the
body become separate like this, the body can't press on the mind. If
the body presses on the mind, the mind will have to be under the
influence of what goes on the body".

Also in my minimal experience, I can tell that I definitely agree with
that, because now I can "monitor" my mind while engaged in some other
activities.


> Besides, if we have the idea that 'doing Y' is likely to involve less
> kusala,

It doesn't depend on the specific activity you are doing, it depends
on your mindfulness at the time of performing the activity and of
course your tendencies and conditions.


> So, trying to summarise here, I suppose one of our differences lies in
> the question of how easily kusala can be developed. I think it's
> something that requires very special conditions to occur, and is not
> just a matter of doing more of X and less of Y (if only it were that
> easy ;-)).

No, actually those are not our differences, as I explained above.

The difference is just to categorically say or imply that some
specific practices are NOT helpful at all for ANYBODY, NEVER.

And at least for me, I still need my meditation sessions and my little
experiments.

So, if you promise with your right hand over the Tipitaka that you
will never make such a categorical statement I will put my sword in
its scabbard. :-P

I really appreciate the time you took in replying and I really admire
the way you put it in this reply.

Now I can leave DSG in peace. :-)

(yes we still have that thread about the experiments going, but I hope
we can end that one as happy as this one).

Greetings,
-- 
Hugo
	
42773

From: Jonothan Abbott <jsabbott@n...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 10:13pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Eight Conditions for the Arising of Panna

 	
Hi, Tep

Thanks for these observations, with which I broadly agree ;-))

>>For lay-follower and monk alike, the development of insight is 
>>paramount, and supports the keeping of the respective sila,
>>and the sila in turn supports the further development of insight.
>> 
>>
>
>I think it is perfection of Sila that come first (it is the qualification of 
>Sotapanna) then the perfection of insight.understanding (Panna) that 
>comes last (it is the qualification of the Arahat).
>
>"For the stream-enterer is called 'perfected in the kind of virtue'; and 
>likewise the once-returner. But the non-returner is called 'perfected in 
>concentration'. And the Arahat is called 'perfected in understanding' 
>(see A.i, 233). VM I, 14.
> 
>

I of course have no disagreement with this quote (although I don't think 
it calls into question what I wrote in my earlier post). As I see it:

- Yes, the *perfection* of sila comes before the *perfection* of the 
other 2. Sila is perfected (i.e., at the stage of sotapanna) before 
concentration is perfected (by the anagami) and before panna is 
perfected (by the arahant).

- But this is as to the order of *attainment*. In terms of 
*development*, there is no specified order as between sila, samadhi and 
panna.

- Obviously, the perfection of sila (sotapatti magga) requires the 
development of insight to the level of sotapatti magga, and the 
perfection of samadhi likewise its corresponding level of insight. So 
it is not a case of develop one first, then another. We are born into 
this life with previous accumulations of all 3 kinds of kusala, so all 3 
should be further developed. 

Even assuming that there must be some degree of coordination between the 
3, how does one know which is 'ahead' of the other 2 by virtue of our 
previously accumulated kusala? I think the answer is that we can't 
know, and that we shouldn't assume it is one or other of them. But more 
importantly, I think it is better not to hold to the idea that the 
development of one must precede that of the others, since that would be 
an obstacle to the development of those others.

What is clear from the texts is that rebirth into life as a human being 
is a rare occurrence to be treasured, and far rarer still is for that 
rebirth to occur at a time when the teaching of insight development is 
present in the world.

So should we not make the most of this rarest of opportunities? Sila, 
samadhi and panna, in no particular order, each according to the 
opportunites that occur. ;-)).

Jon
	
42774

From: <TGrand458@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 5:43pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Four Great Elements as Foundation / Howard

 	
In a message dated 2/26/2005 8:02:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
upasaka@a... writes:
The Buddha talked about self and selves all the time. So, I guess you 
believe he was an atta kind of guy, huh? ;-))

With metta,
Howard
Hi Howard

The only time that I recal the Buddha ever mentioning the term "conventional" 
was in regard to language. I never recal him mentioning a "conventional 
reality."

The Buddha (Suttas) made it clear exactly what was meant when he used terms 
like self, or you, or me. These terms are simply easier than saying -- "the 
five aggregates that a deluded mind takes to be itself and that thinks it is a 
me and that that aggregates which it takes to be a you, but actually thinks its 
a me, when it really is just 5 aggregates, etc., etc., etc."

So far including the "Dyad quotes" I've posted 5 Suttas that that heavily 
suggest or outright demonstrate a temporal relationship between rupa and nama 
with rupa being the supporting and preceding factor. Just something to think 
about.

I've kind of felt obligated because you laid out Goenka's position, which 
follows the Suttas pattern IMO, to be somewhat radical. Obviously I feel its the 
other way around and am just laying down some supporting material from the 
Suttas...which I feel has not been rebutted in any meaningful way as of yet. If 
it can be however, I'll be glad to rethink my position.

TG


42775

From: <TGrand458@a...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 5:59pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Proliferations of Perceptions and Memories

 	
Hi Jon


In a message dated 2/26/2005 9:05:25 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
jsabbott@n... writes:
Well I'm distinguishing between the idea of memory, as in remembering, 
and the idea of memories, as in things remembered. I wasn't suggesting 
there are cultures or societies that don't have the idea of memory. But 
I don't see why the idea of remembering without the idea of memories 
should be considered something to be associated with primitive societies 
only.

TG: I can't follow you here. I think I need about 15 more IQ points and a 
better nights sleep to try. ;-)


>J: On the other hand, 'remembering' could be seen as just a form of 
>thinking about the past, where previous experiences are recalled.
> 
>
>

>TG: This is what it would seem like to me. Previous experiences being 
>recalled is the remembering. But what is being recalled are the memories or 
more 
>accurately... the sense impressions/residue left over from past experiences.
> 
>

Well, we just don't know. But when we recall something purely 
conceptual, such as '2 plus 2 equals 4', I think it's possible that what 
is being recalled is the previous thinking that had the same concepts as 
object, rather than the concepts themselves as such.

TG: Another toughy, but I'd just say that thoughts and memories are the same 
things and they echo past experiences. I think that partly agrees with what 
you are saying.


>TG: But I was under the impression that you didn't think thinking existed? 
All 
>of this has to do with thinking. 
>

Actually, I have said all along that thinking (the mental act) is real 
but the things thought of (i.e., the object of thinking, thoughts) are not.

TG: I don't think anything that can be experienced isn't real.


I find it helpful to observe this distinction between thinking and 
thoughts, although neither has a direct equivalent in the Pali as far as 
I am aware. What we call 'thinking' would I believe be a kind of 
consciousness (vinnana or citta or mano), while 'thoughts' would be 
included in the general class of concepts that are among the 'objects of 
consciousness'.

In the English translations, thinking and thoughts are used to translate 
a variety of different Pali terms. 'Thinking' in particular is often 
met as the translation for the mental factors (cetasikas) vitakka and 
vicara or the path factor samma sankappa (which is identified with the 
cetasika vitakka). But sometimes 'thoughts' is used to translate 
vitakka also (as we came across recently in the passage you quoted 
regarding the hindrances).

TG: Nyanatiloka has vitakka-vicara as "thought-conception and Discursive 
thinking."

I belive B. Bodhi, Nanamoli, and the PTS translation all talk about thought 
regarding the first and second jhana. Does this make thought or thinking or 
conception seem any more real?


>TG: Now I'm wondering, what will you think up 
>next? ;-)
> 
>

Well I seem to have managed to find one or two things ;-))

Jon
TG


42776

From: Jonothan Abbott <jsabbott@n...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 11:05pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II)

 	
Hi, Howard

>>Yes, I know that is what you say, but I think you are overlooking the 
>>implication of the model you have described. You say that the 
>>experienced sense-door dhamma ('felt hardness') is not the direct 
>>experience of the impingement on the sense-door (in this case, on the 
>>body-sense) from which it is somehow derived. Now, if the impingement 
>>is not itself directly experienced, then it is inferred or assumed. And 
>>what, according to your model, is it that impinges on the sense-door 
>>(and from which the 'felt hardness' is derived)? Whatever that is, it 
>>is not directly expereinced either.
>>
>> 
>>
>=====================
> Here you make a very good point, Jon.
>

Thanks, Howard, but I'm not sure your answer that follows has really 
addressed my questions. I hope you don't mind if I try again.

You have said that the experienced sense-door dhamma ('felt hardness') 
is not the direct experience of the impingement on the sense-door (in 
this case, on the body-sense) from which the felt hardness is somehow 
derived. My questions are:
1/ If the impingement from which the 'felt hardness' is derived is not 
itself experienced, is it not therefore assumed by you?
2/ On what basis (logical deduction, direct experience, reading of the 
texts, etc.) do you not allow the possibility that the experienced 
hardness (your 'felt hardness') is the hardness that impinges on the 
body-door (i.e., instead of being 'derived from' that hardness/impingement)?

>You presume a realm of rupas and 
>a realm of namas which get together at times. In your understanding, there is 
>never a nama without an arammana, often rupic, with which I agree, but there 
>are plenty of times at which there are rupas without any namas aware of them - 
>unexperienced rupas. It is this later position that I say is unknowable, and 
>I pay no attention to such unverifiable things. 
>

Hmm, I think the 'realm of inexperienced rupas' is not so much a 
presumption found in my posts as a non-existent bogey-man ;-)). My only 
question in this present thread (starting from your comment about 
paramattha dhammas existing only as object of experience) has been the 
basis on which you assert that the arising of the presently experenced 
rupa must have exactly coincided with (rather than may have marginally 
preceded) the arising of the consciousness of which it is the object. I 
don't think you've offered an answer on that as yet.

>When I speak of a rupa, I mean 
>a physical experience - a specific instance of content of consciousness. 
>Rupas in my sense, by their very nature, never occur except as content of 
>experience.
>

You may of course define rupa to mean only whatever is currently 
experienced, if you wish, but that still leaves open the question of the 
arising of that rupa, since an arising need not necessarily coincide 
with being object of experience.

And if you do so define it, what then is the significance of a statement 
to the effect that 'there is no content without consciousness', since 
that is merely stating the obvious based on the given definition?

>Accordingly, my sense of "contact" is not that of separate, self-existent 
>entities coming together. Instead it is the co-occurrence or co-arising of 
>three conceptually-separated events: sense-door opening/activation, experiential 
>content, awareness.
> 
>

Here you are conflating the questions of arising and becoming object of 
experience. Things can co-occur without having co-arisen.

(Another question: What in terms of paramattha dhammas do you mean by 
'sense-door opening/activation'?)

Jon
	
42777

From: Jonothan Abbott <jsabbott@n...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 11:26pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Attaining release through discernment (pañña-vimutti)

 	
Hi, Tep

>I like the last paragraph of Hugo's excerpt from Phra Ajaan Lee 
>Dhammadharo's article (Phra Ajaan Lee was Thanissaro Bhikkhu's 
>dhamma teacher's dhamma teacher). It shows that virtue is the first 
>point on the path and that you cannot start at the last point 
>(discernment) and stay there, hoping that the other two (virtue and 
>concentration) will be taken cared of because your "right 
>understanding" will pull them along, and whole path will be perfected.
>

I agree with what you say here, and in fact I prefer your version to 
Ajaan Lee's ;-)).

My only comment would be that the lack of a particular level of sila 
development does not however mean that there cannot be also a some 
degree of development of insight, since while the two are mutually 
dependent it is not a case of so much of one first and then so much of 
the other.

The fact that we talk here so much more about insight than about sila is 
a reflection partly of the extreme complexity of the subject matter and 
partly of the relative importance of the two, both in terms of rarity of 
availability and in terms of the value of a single moment of arising.

>The point is : how could the right understanding be developed without 
>the other two as its support? 
>

Yes, but we do not start this life from a 'zero base'. We have already 
developed sila, samadhi and panna in previous lives, and we do not need 
to first ask ourselves which is more developed relative to the others.

We can pursue the development of all 3 at the same time, as the occasion 
presents ;-)).

Jon
	
42778

From: Jonothan Abbott <jsabbott@n...> 
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 11:58pm
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II)

 	
Hi again, Howard

Just a quick clarification of something I said in my last post to you.

>>Accordingly, my sense of "contact" is not that of separate, self-existent 
>>entities coming together. Instead it is the co-occurrence or co-arising of 
>>three conceptually-separated events: sense-door opening/activation, experiential 
>>content, awareness.
>> 
>>
>
>Here you are conflating the questions of arising and becoming object of 
>experience. Things can co-occur without having co-arisen.
> 
>

This last sentence should have read,
'Things can co-occur without their moments of arising having exactly 
coincided'.

Jon
	
42779

From:   kelvin_lwin <kelvin_lwin@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 0:28am
Subject: [dsg] Re: Predominant roots? Sarah

 	
Hi Sarah,

I was hoping Ashin Dhammanando will reply first but I'll combine 
the points you raised into this reply. 

> > On the other hand, if he has not yet received such a prediction, 
then
> > he might well advance to anuloma, so bringing his bodhisatta 
career to
> > a premature end. Indeed any number of things might be the cause
> > of a fledgling bodhisatta abandoning this path. 
> S: Whether this ever happens, I have no idea. It seems rather 
unlikely to
> me and I don't recall any references of this happening, do you?

Kel: I think you'll recall the different level of aspirations 
a "fledgling" bhodisatta makes. First it's a just a thought, then 
it's a mental aspiration then it moves to verbal aspiration. Before 
Buddha Dipankara, why weren't the Buddhas able to give a niyata 
despite aspirations made in front of them? I think it's simply at 
that time he hasn't accumulated enough to have a sure destiny. So 
technically shouldn't be called a Bodhisatta until after a niyata. 
Before then he's just like any puthujjana, so the same rules will 
apply with no guarantee to stay on the path.

> >Dh: As for a disciple, I'm not sure I understand what you're 
saying. Do
> > you mean that all who reach sankhaarupekkha will become 
sotaapannas in
> > the same life unless they meet with sudden death?
> S: For `ordinary' disciples, I would have expected this, because 
the
> realization of the ti-lakkhana of all conditioned dhammas has been
> accomplished and it is the knowledge which leads to attainment of 
nibbana.
> However, like the example of the crow looking for land, I can see 
that no
> time frames are given and it may just have been some mis-guided
> speculation on my part. No reason at all why it should be the same 
life.
Kel: I think this is similar to your original argument that I was 
trying to refute. There is no guarantee despite attainment of 
sankharupekkha for magga. That's why there's anuloma, which is 
actually the point of no-return. If the crow stops looking, 
eventually one can slide back down (perhaps after long time). But 
bottom line is there is nothing to stop that process for an ordinary 
disciple/person. To me niyata is like an "early stream-entry", 
these particular people have enough accumulated to have a sure 
outcome. Even Devadatta must've done some good to have a niyata for 
a pacceka-Buddha even though in all the stories he has to play the 
bad guy.
The monks offered this up this way to think about it. 
Sankarupekkha is like upacara panna for magga (they also confirmed 
dvihetuka can reach this) like upacara samadhi before appana 
samadhi. Upacara would be yaava with implication of not having 
obtained the next step: magga or appana. Vithi for sankarupekkha 
would just be upekkha maha-kusala with panna. So it has the same 
relations and function as all the other javanas or accumulations. 

> S: On the other hand, we know that all disciples need to hear the 
teachings
> again in a new life in order to become enlightened. It would be
> interesting that if say, Sariputta, had attained sankhaarupekkha, 
that he
> still needed to hear the Truths again, however briefly, but as we 
know,
> one cannot become enlightened in realms where there is no chance of
> hearing the teachings..
Kel: Again I think your model makes nanas to be permanent somehow 
when they act the same as other kammas. We know only magga cittas 
permanently change the cetasikas and hence cittas. Simple fact is 
birth is a shocking event and we forget. Hence they need to hear it 
again. Even the Buddhas have to rediscover it anew in the last life.

> S: It also raises a question for me about a recent thread we had 
here on the
> understanding of impermanence and dukkha that could be attained 
under
> other dispensations. I'm thinking out loud. 
Kel: As Ledi sayadaw wrote, Pacceka-Buddhas got the seed of 
anatta Bhavana in a Buddha's sasana and it grows full blown in the 
last life. I think it's also clear by 31 realms how people's 
understanding of anicca/dukkha led to practices that ended up in 
those realms and very much still in samsara. 4th arupa realm for 
example, recognized sanna was the cause but couldn't quite eliminate 
it. Rupa-only realm people knew the mind was the cause so were able 
to eliminate it only to leave attachment to rupa. 

> I also don't recall ever having heard/read any reference to loss 
of stages
> of insight as Kel and his teachers have indicated. I do appreciate
> however, that one has to hear the teachings again for insights to 
be
> `revived'. 
Kel: I think the model is pretty well supported by viewing it as 
a maha-kusala. The insights don't have any special permanency or 
super dormant states other than the way all 5 middle javanas are 
accumulated.

> > Dh: So, I don't think there's any doubt that at least in Aacariya
> > Dhammapaala's view Saariputta (and many others) had reached
> > sankhaarupekkha~naa.na while disciples of former Buddhas. 
> ….
> S: this is all very interesting and here other great elders 
including
> Ananda are listed too. Do you understand that this means Ananda 
had this
> same stage of insight `revived' when he listened to the Buddha?
Kel: All the great disciples need to have done it to have enough 
paramis to become "great" I think and Ashin Ananda is certainly 
one. Ashin Anuruddha got his abhinnas as soon as he heard Buddha 
but not arahatship. So maybe he spent more time in samatha and not 
vipassana, just joking.

> S: Perhaps instead of saying `ankharupekkha insight is re-
obtained', we can say it is `revivived' or
> `re-ignited', having lain dormant? 
Kel: As I said above, it makes more sense to be re-obtained due 
to past accumulations since it's a familiar station they can get 
back to quickly.

> S: there isn't a `going up and down', but it can lie
> dormant for a very long time, e.g. in woeful planes or without any 
revival
> from hearing the teachings again. Please ask your teacher 
Kel: Same as every other middle 5 javanas. They'll lie dormant 
until they have a chance to give resultant.

> > Kel: Once that reaches 
> > full maturity, the crow will find land. Thus the more on can 
dwell 
> > and strike out the search from sankarupekkha, the better one's 
> > chance of finding nibbana. 
> ….
> S: It may be just your language, but it does sound very much like 
a self
> doing things here, Kel. Also, I still have no idea of the 
relevance of
> this side-thread (fascinating though it may be) to any of our 
original
> discussion. I'd be glad if you'd spell out the relevance for me.
Kel: I mention it only as a function of how one arrives at magga 
via anuloma. Repeated attainment of sankarupekkha nana only 
increases one's chance of succeeding, it doesn't guarantee in any 
way. I don't see a self as it's just the probability of success 
that I was referring to. I was mostly trying to convey the fluid 
model of nanas instead of the fixed one you seem to have.

- kel
	
42780

From:   kelvin_lwin <kelvin_lwin@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 1:33am
Subject: [dsg] Re: Predominant roots?

 	
Hi Sarah,

> Back to our main thread.
Here we go again, though I warn you I might drop this thread 
soon :)

> S: Are you
> suggesting that there cannot be any awareness of say dosa until 
all gross
> lobha has been eradicated or subdued? And then are you suggesting 
there
> cannot be any awareness of any subtle lobha until all dosa has been
> completely eradicated? There is so much lobha and dosa arising in 
a day.
> Can there not be the development of awareness of both?
Kel: I think my general model is all gross must be clear for the 
subtle to be even perceived to have a chance to be eliminated. And 
a sotapanna is when all the gross states are gone for good. I guess 
we can be technical of what is gone completely and what is merely 
reduced but it's prolly unnecessary. 

> S: "Here, o bhikhus, a bhikkhu understands the consciousness with 
lust, as
> with lust; the consciousness without lust;…..with hate;…..with
> ignorance;…..without ignorance;…….the shrunken state;…..the 
distracted
> state
Kel: He never really referred to intensity anywhere did he? But 
at least it's clear to me gross comes first.

> > Kel: It's an objective assessment of situations without any 
> > connection with atta. There's no denying the influence of 
situation 
> > on any non-arahats. Now if we no longer need to differentiate 
> > between situations then great. But for most people, there are 
more 
> > suitable environments for cultivating.
> S: In terms of paramattha dhammas, what are situations? What are 
the
> dhammas when one's giving an objective assessment about 
situations? Can
> there be awareness at these times?
Kel: I never said there has to be assessment when one's in the 
situation. I'm only talking about relative suitability as a 
theortical discussion on DSG. Didn't say it's a kind of 
contemplation, only said objectivity will differ for normal people 
given an environment.

> S: I believe your position is that one particular object, such as 
vedana,
> can be selected and understood. As a result of such selection, 
development
> of awareness and understanding, then all dhammas will be known 
too. My
> position is that the Buddha never suggested that only one object 
of dhamma
> should be known and that there are 4 satipatthanas, 5 khandhas, 6 
internal
> and external ayatanas to be known. Further, there is no self to 
say, no
> choice about what object will appear to the javana cittas at any 
given
> time. If it's vedana and there happens to be awareness, fine. If 
not, by
> your selection, no chance of awareness arising. What about, seeing,
> hearing and so on? They all have characteristics which can be 
known. 
Kel: Going back to sufficiency versus necessity here, round and 
round. Atapi sampajano satima, as long as the object can accomplish 
that then I don't see anything wrong. Vedana is a universal 
cetasika so it certainly fits the bill in my book. You can't show 
me any instance where vedana isn't available as the object. And 
many a times we said tilakkhana is of importance so I still fail to 
see the necessity of all dhammas when they all have the same 
characteristics. One or many objects makes no difference as long as 
it's the same level of panna. He also gave 40 subjects of 
meditation but you'll just tell me that's for samatha/jhana. 

> > > S: Past memories or stories cannot be `known' because they
> > > are not paramattha dhammas. 
> > Kel: Are they not mind-door objects? Is there not a citta at 
the 
> > time one is experiencing these memories or stories? Seems to be 
as 
> > much paramattha dhammas here to observe as much as any other 
time.
> ….
> S: past memories or stories are dhammaaramma.na but not 
dhammaanupassanaa
> or dhammaayatana. Yes, there are cittas at these times and the 
cittas can
> be the objects of awareness (cittaanupassanaa), but not the 
concepts. This
> is the same point Jon, TG and Howard ... As Htoo
Kel: I never said to contemplate on concepts, just that there are 
mind-door objects. There can also be vedanupassana at this time. 
Dhammanupassana of the associated emotions, conventially speaking, 
with those stories. I've seen the discussions or at least the ones 
since I joined. The danger of concepts is the mind can get "swept 
away" or get immersed fast. With proper detachment though, they 
aren't a problem.

> > Kel: This is just your usual position restated. The desire 
is 
> > not important as much as the cultivation or training to do it. 
> > Vedana cetasika is universal and it's easy to maintain awarness 
of 
> > it continuously. This is what most vedanaupassana meditation 
> > techniques are based on. 
> ….
> S: I agree (about `most venadnupassana meditation techniques'). 
However, I
> don't think you'll find any references to it in the teachings. How 
can
> there be `easy to maintain awareness' when a) javana cittas are not
> continuous, b) sense door javana cittas take sense objects only 
and c)
> mind door javanas take any kind of paramattha dhamma or concept as 
object
> according pakatu-upanissaya paccaya (natural decisive support 
condition)
> and other conditions, but not by one's will or intention. Who 
knows what
> lies dormant from previous lifetimes – great insights or 
overwhelming
> kilesa or what?
Kel: a) yes they aren't. b) mano or kaya doors work directly, 
others are accompanied by vedana c) one's accumulation of observing 
vedana and attenuating that skill .. Certainly both insight and 
kilesa lie dormant simply because we're humans in Buddha sasana. 
Both of them not free of vedana. 

> > being able to focus on something is anatta, otherwise anyone can 
> S: Yes, all dhammas are anatta. The skill of an accomplished 
burglar is
> anatta and as Htoo often points out, jhana factors can be kusala or
> akusala. Being able to focus on an object (a concept) has nothing 
to do
> with understanding dhammas as anatta.
Kel: Jhana citta is kusala, the factors maybe involved in akusala 
also. It's still a useful and necessary up to a degree to be able 
to focus on an object. Once the mind is able to focus, it can do 
pannatti as well as paramattha, so what. That's just being able to 
see, not understanding. You can show me Thai words, I can see them 
but I sure don't know what it's saying.

> >Then using that skill to isolate some object, deep 
> > panna can arose because experience is pure without interference.
> S: I'm sorry, Kel, but this makes no sense to me. You're welcome to
> elaborate or add any textual support to discuss further.
Kel: Until you can see something, you don't have a chance of 
understanding. Samadhi lets you see it. 

> S: For anyone, including tihetuka, I understand that *all* 
doorways have to
> be understood. If vedana were sufficient, you'd be suggesting only 
insight
> of one khandha experienced through the mind door. 
Kel: I read many times one satipatthana is sufficient since it 
covers all four anyway? 5 Khandas are a useful way to explain 
things but they're intertwined. If you don't like my cycle analog 
then I'm not imaginative enough to come up with more.

> Even at the first stage of insightm namas
> and rupas have to be clearly distinguished and sense door and mind 
door
> experiences known for what they are. All of this would be 
impossible just
> by knowing vedana. As I said, in realms without rupas, for 
example, it's
> impossible to become enlightened.
Kel: I gave you refutation before that arupa realms can become 
up to arahats for trainers. But let's leave that aside. We're in 
kamma realm where vedana cannot be experienced without both nama and 
rupa. So if you understand vedana completely then the insight is 
accomplished. I hestitate to do this for potential arguments that 
arose in certain other thread but if you have time, have a read at 
this following link. I'll warn you it's a bit long read but it's 
not really technical.

http://www.vri.dhamma.org/newsletters/nl9811.html

- kel
	
42781

From: Charles DaCosta <dacostas@P...> 
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 3:16am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha said: That's how .......Hugo

 	
Dear Hugo, Truth is relative; at least in this world. And as for the questions about "Who": please take a look in a mirror -- That is "Who." 

CharlesD

PS: You must find your-self first, before you can give up the Idea. 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Hugo 
Hello Azita,
>Many of us do go thro the
> frustrations again and again, because 'we' want something. 'we' want
> to understand and we cant make it happen :-(
I agree.
It is simple logic, frustration arises because whatever you want to
happen doesn't happen.

> I have heard that it takes much patience to develop some
> understanding of the Buddhas teaching.
It takes the patience of whom?
Who develops this understanding?

> We have to listen and study
> the teachings, contemplate what we hear and study
Are you saying that we have to do something specific and on purpose?
Who contemplates, who hears, who studies?

<....>
	
42782

From: buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 4:02am
Subject: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun

 	
Hi cosmique,

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, cosmique 
<cosmique1000@y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear Sarah & James,
> 
> 
> 
> James wrote: Interesting, there is a law of physics which applies 
to this matter: Energy is never destroyed, it is only transformed. 
The consciousness of an arahant is not like that of a wordling. As 
the Buddha said, he was deep and unfathomable like the ocean- and 
yet you speak as if you have him all figured out ;-).
> 
> 
> 
> Cosmique: Let me put my two cents in. I have been following this 
discussion since its very beginning because a nibbana-citta relation 
is my most favorite subject. <snip>

I agree with your conclusions. Thanks for sharing.

Metta,
James
	
42783

From: buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 4:25am
Subject: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun

 	
Hi Sarah,

I'm in an Internet cafe (my computer is broken) so this response 
isn't going to be very clean and trimmed.

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott 
<sarahprocterabbott@y...> wrote:
> Hi James,
> 
> --- buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> wrote: 
> > Sarah: I have no opinions/beliefs regarding A.Mun …
> > 
> > James: Well, in this case it is helpful to know if he was just 
> > hallucinating or if he was an arahant and telling the truth. It 
is 
> > relevant to this discussion. I think you are just avoiding a 
direct 
> > answer. You entered this thread so you must have an opinion one 
way 
> > or the other on the subject.
> …
> S: I have an opinion on the point about cittas and paranibbana. If 
anyone
> suggests they can communicate with the cittas of the Buddha after 
his
> paranibbana, I think it's wrong.

There. Now,that wasn't so hard was it? So,in other words, you 
believe that A. Mun was either crazy or a liar. Personally, I 
believe he was telling the truth and believe that his legacy 
deserves the greatest respect possible. 

> …
> > Sarah: I believe the texts, including the sutta I quoted, 
clearly 
> > indicate that all khandhas cease, never to arise again at 
> > paranibbana. Of course, cittas make up the vinnana khandha. Just 
as 
> > when no more fuel is added to the fire, the flames cease for 
good, 
> > so for the khandhas when no more fuel is added.
> > 
> > James: Interesting, there is a law of physics which applies to 
this 
> > matter: Energy is never destroyed, it is only transformed. The 
> > consciousness of an arahant is not like that of a wordling. As 
the 
> > Buddha said, he was deep and unfathomable like the ocean- and 
yet 
> > you speak as if you have him all figured out ;-).
> ….
> S: I believe it is the truths and his omniscience which are deep 
and
> unfathomable. In any case, the khandhas of an arahant or Buddha 
are still
> anicca, dukkha and anatta. As I said, at paranibbana, no new fuel 
for the
> khandhas to arise.

Maybe you should see the post by Cosmique. We are not really 
talking about the khandas subject to clinging, we are talking about 
the consciousness which has been freed from clinging. Nibanna isn't 
anicca, dukkha, or anatta.

> 
> We're discussing dhammas, not physics;-).

;-)) Interesting. Why don't you tell me the difference since you 
know. 

> ….
> > Sarah: There cannot be any citta communication with cittas which 
> > have been completely extinguished. 
> > 
> > James: Of course, but the point I am making is that it is quite 
> > possible that the cittas have not been extinguished but merely 
> > transformed. 
> …
> S: I don't believe there is any suggestion of this possibility in 
the
> texts.

Again, the texts don't cover everything. The Buddha clearly said as 
much with his 'leaves in the hand compared to the leaves in the 
forest' metaphor (I'm sure you know it).

> …
> >However, my larger point is that we shouldn't think we 
> > know something just from reading the suttas. That would be a 
> > significant flaw and a hindrance to practice. Life and 
experience 
> > are a lot more than what is written in the suttas.
> …
> S: <smile> no comment

Why no comment? This is the main point of this conversation! Can 
there be a realm of experience to the enlightened which isn't 
described in the texts?

> ….
> > ps. Again, you can find the biography at this link:
> > http://buddhanet.net/pdf_file/munbio_photos.pdf
> …
> S: You're welcome to post any further (short) extracts for 
discussion. I'd
> be happy to discuss any points of dhamma. I think this is more 
useful than
> `A.Mun study', `K.Sujin study' or even `James' or `Sarah' study;-).

Huh? I don't understand what you are implying. If I post any short 
extracts it would be a dhamma and an A. Mun study. I don't see how 
you can separate them. However, I probably won't anyway because my 
computer is broken and this conversation isn't getting very far.

> 
> Metta,
> 
> Sarah
> ========

Metta,
James
ps. Simon is doing great but I got another kitten about a week ago 
to keep him company and that kitten died today. Not good news. 
Haven't decided if I will get another kitten again or not.
	
42784

From: Jonothan Abbott <jsabbott@n...> 
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 5:04am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Comments on the Sabba Sutta/TG & Jon

 	
Hi, Howard

>Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.23
>Sabba Sutta
>The All
>Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
> 
>"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will 
>speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. 
>
>The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, 
>nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & 
>ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this 
>All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the 
>grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be 
>put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." 
>=========================
> My comments follow:
>
>... Some folks - I think that Jon may be one - believe that visual forms 
>are in a realm of visual forms, and flavors are in a realm of flavors. I call 
>these realms, taken together, the Realm of Lost Rupas. TG, do you buy into the 
>Realm of Lost Rupas? And if not, then do you believe there literally exists a 
>realm (the external world) of foods and flowers and trees which have 
>characteristics of flavors and odors and visual forms? Then why did not the Buddha 
>include foods and flowers and trees within the all? 
> 
>

No, I have no conception of visual forms being in a realm of visual 
forms, flavors in a realm of flavors, etc.. Sounds pretty weird to me 
;-)) (Not sure how I might have given that impression, but glad to 
have the opportunity to dispel any misapprehension.)

> What the Buddha does in this sutta, as I see it, is lay out all 
>possible experiences: forms via sense of sight, sounds via sense of hearing, flavors 
>via sense of taste, tactile sensations via bodysense, and mind objects via 
>mindsense. And he says that these experiences and their experiencing constitute 
>all that can be said to exist, because any other "all" is "beyond range" - 
>that is to say, "in principle unknowable".
> 
>

Just a further comment, based on the note to the BB translation of this 
sutta (see below).

What are described in the sutta are all dhammas (phenomena). Thus 'mind 
objects' would include all namas and rupas not included in the other 11 
parts of this 12-fold classification, but should not be read as 
including concepts (BB uses the term 'mental phenomena' here).

Jon

BB translation published as CDB, note 6 p.1399 (thanks to Christine and 
James for previous posting):
<<<<<
Spk [Commentary]:
The all (sabba) is fourfold:
(i) the all-inclusive all (sabbasabba), i.e. everything knowable, all of 
which comes into range of the Buddha's knowledge of omniscience;
(ii) the all of the sense bases (ayatanasabba), i.e. the phenomena of 
the four planes;
(iii) the all of personal identity (sakkayasabba), i.e. the phenomena of 
the three planes; and
(iv) the partial all (padesabba), i.e. the five physical sense objects.
Each of these, from (i) to (iv), has a successively narrower range than 
its predecessor. In this sutta the all of the sense bases is intended.
The four planes are the three mundane planes (see n.4) [this note gives 
'the sensuous plane, the form plane, and the formless plane'] and the 
supramundane plane (the four paths, their fruits, and Nibbana).
>>>>>>
	
42785

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 0:51am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Four Great Elements as Foundation / Howard

 	
Hi, TG -

In a message dated 2/27/05 1:44:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
TGrand458@a... writes:

> 
> In a message dated 2/26/2005 8:02:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
> upasaka@a... writes:
> The Buddha talked about self and selves all the time. So, I guess you 
> believe he was an atta kind of guy, huh? ;-))
> 
> With metta,
> Howard
> Hi Howard
> 
> The only time that I recal the Buddha ever mentioning the term 
> "conventional" 
> was in regard to language. I never recal him mentioning a "conventional 
> reality."
> 
---------------------------------------
Howard:
I don't believe I "accused" the Buddha of using the phrase 
'conventional reality'. But, in case you want my defintion, I mean "the world of 
phenomena intended by conventional speech". It consists of all those "things" such as 
people, houses, trees, and lifetimes that it is a tacit convention to commonly 
speak of.
---------------------------------------

> 
> The Buddha (Suttas) made it clear exactly what was meant when he used terms 
> like self, or you, or me. These terms are simply easier than saying -- "the 
> 
> five aggregates that a deluded mind takes to be itself and that thinks it is 
> a 
> me and that that aggregates which it takes to be a you, but actually thinks 
> its 
> a me, when it really is just 5 aggregates, etc., etc., etc."
> 
---------------------------------------
Howard:
Yers, conventional speech is a sytem of shortcuts/abbreviations 
without which we could not reasonably communicate.
---------------------------------------

> 
> So far including the "Dyad quotes" I've posted 5 Suttas that that heavily 
> suggest or outright demonstrate a temporal relationship between rupa and 
> nama 
> with rupa being the supporting and preceding factor. Just something to 
> think 
> about.
> 
> I've kind of felt obligated because you laid out Goenka's position, which 
> follows the Suttas pattern IMO, to be somewhat radical. Obviously I feel 
> its the 
> other way around and am just laying down some supporting material from the 
> Suttas...which I feel has not been rebutted in any meaningful way as of yet. 
> If 
> it can be however, I'll be glad to rethink my position.
> 
-----------------------------------------
Howard:
Actually, were I to be persuaded that a phenomenalist interpretation 
of the 
Dhamma is incorrect, I would jump at the the Goenka interpretation, as I 
think it provides the best dualistic understanding I have seen. What is radical in 
it is not that dualism, because that is certainly one longstanding 
interpretation of the Dhamma, particularly within Theravada, but his identification of 
vedana, not as the operation of affective feeling, but as sensation (in the 
sense of internal correspondent to external rupa). 
-------------------------------------------

> 
> 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)  



42786

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 1:39am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II)

 	
Hi, Jon -

In a message dated 2/27/05 2:12:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
jsabbott@n... writes:

> 
> Hi, Howard
> 
> >>Yes, I know that is what you say, but I think you are overlooking the 
> >>implication of the model you have described. You say that the 
> >>experienced sense-door dhamma ('felt hardness') is not the direct 
> >>experience of the impingement on the sense-door (in this case, on the 
> >>body-sense) from which it is somehow derived. Now, if the impingement 
> >>is not itself directly experienced, then it is inferred or assumed. And 
> >>what, according to your model, is it that impinges on the sense-door 
> >>(and from which the 'felt hardness' is derived)? Whatever that is, it 
> >>is not directly expereinced either.
> >>
> >> 
> >>
> >=====================
> > Here you make a very good point, Jon.
> >
> 
> Thanks, Howard, but I'm not sure your answer that follows has really 
> addressed my questions. I hope you don't mind if I try again.
> 
--------------------------------------
Howard:
That's fine. Actually, I should have read what you said a bit more 
carefully.
--------------------------------------

> 
> You have said that the experienced sense-door dhamma ('felt hardness') 
> is not the direct experience of the impingement on the sense-door (in 
> this case, on the body-sense) from which the felt hardness is somehow 
> derived. 
> 
------------------------------------------
Howard:
What I say is that the experienced sense-door dhamma ('felt hardness') 
is a bodily sensation, and that if there is an external hardness that meets 
an arising consciousness, that external hardness and the internal bodily 
sensation are not the same. The internal bodily sensation, is either a rupa 
different from the alleged external hardness, or is, if Goenka's understanding is 
correct, vedana.
-----------------------------------------
My questions are:> 
> 1/ If the impingement from which the 'felt hardness' is derived is not 
> itself experienced, is it not therefore assumed by you?
----------------------------------------
Howard:
I understand the impingement to be the co-arising of sense door, 
sensation, and consciousness, and I believe that co-occurrence is observed through 
the mind door. But I also can understand the alternative view of a rupa 
arising [the matter of "where" is probably a red herring], a sense door opening, 
consciousness resulting, and the three literally coming together. But the more I 
think about that scenario, the more and more complex the matters of timing and 
occurrence seem to me, and the less and less likely the scenario appears. 
That is my take on the matter. I may just not be up to the task of seeing this 
matter as it should be seen. Whatever! ;-)
-----------------------------------------

> 2/ On what basis (logical deduction, direct experience, reading of the 
> texts, etc.) do you not allow the possibility that the experienced 
> hardness (your 'felt hardness') is the hardness that impinges on the 
> body-door (i.e., instead of being 'derived from' that hardness/impingement)?

-----------------------------------------
Howard:
I *do* allow the possibility. I merely say that it is unconfirmable. 
Sensations are directly experienced. Proposed external rupas, while not at all 
absurd, are presumed to be directly experienced, but that is not known as a 
fact. I simply find great difficulties with that proposal, and I am not prepared 
to jump onto that particular bandwagon.
------------------------------------------

> 
> >You presume a realm of rupas and 
> >a realm of namas which get together at times. In your understanding, there 
> is 
> >never a nama without an arammana, often rupic, with which I agree, but 
> there 
> >are plenty of times at which there are rupas without any namas aware of 
> them - 
> >unexperienced rupas. It is this later position that I say is unknowable, 
> and 
> >I pay no attention to such unverifiable things. 
> >
> 
> Hmm, I think the 'realm of inexperienced rupas' is not so much a 
> presumption found in my posts as a non-existent bogey-man ;-)). 
> 
-------------------------------------
Howard:
Since when? I do not believe that it is your position that there are 
never unobserved, but still existent, rupas. Perhaps you don't mean that?
-------------------------------------
My only > 
> question in this present thread (starting from your comment about 
> paramattha dhammas existing only as object of experience) has been the 
> basis on which you assert that the arising of the presently experenced 
> rupa must have exactly coincided with (rather than may have marginally 
> preceded) the arising of the consciousness of which it is the object. I 
> don't think you've offered an answer on that as yet.
> 
> >When I speak of a rupa, I mean 
> >a physical experience - a specific instance of content of consciousness. 
> >Rupas in my sense, by their very nature, never occur except as content of 
> >experience.
> >
> 
> You may of course define rupa to mean only whatever is currently 
> experienced, if you wish, but that still leaves open the question of the 
> arising of that rupa, since an arising need not necessarily coincide 
> with being object of experience.
> 
---------------------------------------
Howard:
You say that I can use the definition I wish, but then you don't use 
that definition. If I talk about A while you talk about B but assume we are 
talking about the same thing, it makes for an odd conversation. ;-)
----------------------------------------


> 
> And if you do so define it, what then is the significance of a statement 
> to the effect that 'there is no content without consciousness', since 
> that is merely stating the obvious based on the given definition?
> 
> >Accordingly, my sense of "contact" is not that of separate, self-existent 
> >entities coming together. Instead it is the co-occurrence or co-arising of 
> >three conceptually-separated events: sense-door opening/activation, 
> experiential 
> >content, awareness.
> > 
> >
> 
> Here you are conflating the questions of arising and becoming object of 
> experience. Things can co-occur without having co-arisen.
> 
---------------------------------
Howard:
Yes, things can.
--------------------------------

> 
> (Another question: What in terms of paramattha dhammas do you mean by 
> 'sense-door opening/activation'?)
> 
--------------------------------
Howard:
Eye, ear, etc are not permanent. They arise and cease. The arising is 
what I mean by "sense-door opening/activation."
-----------------------------------


> 
> Jon
> 
> 
=======================
With metta,
Howard

/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble 
in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a 
phantom, and a dream./            (From the Diamond Sutra)  


42787

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 1:41am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts and Questions (II)

 	
Hi, Jon -

In a message dated 2/27/05 3:05:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
jsabbott@n... writes:

> >Here you are conflating the questions of arising and becoming object of 
> >experience. Things can co-occur without having co-arisen.
> > 
> >
> 
> This last sentence should have read,
> 'Things can co-occur without their moments of arising having exactly 
> coincided'.
> 
======================
Yes. I understood what you meant. :-)

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)  


42788

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 1:45am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun

 	
Sorry, James! :-(

With metta,
Howard

In a message dated 2/27/05 7:26:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
buddhatrue@y... writes:

> Simon is doing great but I got another kitten about a week ago 
> to keep him company and that kitten died today. Not good news. 
> Haven't decided if I will get another kitten again or not.
> 


/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)  


42789

From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@x...> 
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 6:54am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Four Great Elements as Foundation / Howard

 	
Hi Howard,
I did not follow all the threads, but I try to react here.
op 27-02-2005 01:41 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...:
> 
> In a message dated 2/26/05 7:30:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> TGrand458@a... writes:

>> ³eyeŠ earŠ noseŠ tongueŠ bodyŠ mind; are derived from the Four Great
>> Elements...²
>> (The Path of Discrimination, (PD), Patisambhidamagga) treatise 1, paragraphs
>> 
>> 371-377)
>> 
> ========================
H: That is very strange! It ceratinly is contrary to the Abhidhamma
> perspective of distinction between nama and rupa. Any Abhidhammikas here have
> a 
> comment on this?
N: I see another text in § 371-377: defining internally: vatthu naanatta
ñaa.na: vatthu or base, but this is not only rupa, also mind-base or naama.
How does he difine dhammas (transl as ideas) inernally?... We could instead
of vatthu also say: aayatanas. The inward aayatanas. The sense-bases and the
mind-base.
The next para: defining externally. "Understanding of defining externally is
knowledge of difference in the domains [N: gocara, objective field] (of the
physical bases)."
Good reminder: visible object is different from sound.
Nina.
	
42790

From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@x...> 
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 6:54am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Four Great Elements as Foundation / Howard

 	
op 27-02-2005 04:58 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...:

> I've always understood feeling to follow *after* contact, as you say.
> Abhidhamma doesn't accept that, I believe, but that is my understanding of the
> suttas. So it seems we agree on this.
N: Suppose there is one kind of phassa accompanying citta that contacts (but
not in the physical sense) visible object, this must be accompanied by
feeling, since each citta is accompanied by contact and feeling. Next
moment: other contact, other feeling. That last feeling is different from
the previous one that has gone completely, together with the citta. If you
think: feeling follows after contact, it seems that contact can last. But
there is no time. 
Nina.
	
42791

From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@x...> 
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 6:54am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Taking Precetpts In light of Abhidhamma (Was Re: Personlessness Teachings...)

 	
Dear Suan,
thank you very much for your clear explanation of adhipati-paccaya in daily
life. 
When paññaa is the adhipati, an example could be: she understands the danger
of accumulating ever more the tendency to alcohol. When she is aware of
lobha as only a conditioned nama, not self, there is sati that guards the
six doors. 
It is beneficial to know that abstention is a conditioned dhamma, non-self.
It also helps to remember that the liking of alcohol is a conditioned
dhamma, non-self. Then it will be less of an obsession and this also helps
to begin to take less alcohol, quite naturally.
The other adhipati of diligence or viriya, energy, is also a conditioned
dhamma. If one forgets this, one will take energy or diligence for my
energy. Or one may believe that one has to force oneself to abstain, but,
though this may seem to work for some time, in the long run it will not be
effective. 
Suan, you mentioned other paccayas, but I threw away old posts because I had
too many.
We could go into these as well.
Nina. 
op 26-02-2005 14:21 schreef abhidhammika op suanluzaw@b...:
> As you know, there are four chief conditions (adhipatipaccayaa) on
> which a healthy efficacious consciousness may stand for its
> emergence.
> 
> They are wish, diligence, consciousness, and wisdom as the four
> chief conditions (Section 3, Paccayaniddeso, Pa.t.thaana Pali.)


42792

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:05am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Four Great Elements as Foundation / Howard

 	
Hi, Nina -

In a message dated 2/27/05 9:57:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
vangorko@x... writes:

> 
> Hi Howard,
> I did not follow all the threads, but I try to react here.
> op 27-02-2005 01:41 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...:
> >
> >In a message dated 2/26/05 7:30:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> >TGrand458@a... writes:
> 
> >>³eyeŠ earŠ noseŠ tongueŠ bodyŠ mind; are derived from the Four Great
> >>Elements...²
> >>(The Path of Discrimination, (PD), Patisambhidamagga) treatise 1, 
> paragraphs
> >>
> >>371-377)
> >>
> >========================
> H: That is very strange! It ceratinly is contrary to the Abhidhamma
> >perspective of distinction between nama and rupa. Any Abhidhammikas here 
> have
> >a 
> >comment on this?
> N: I see another text in § 371-377: defining internally: vatthu naanatta
> ñaa.na: vatthu or base, but this is not only rupa, also mind-base or naama.
> How does he difine dhammas (transl as ideas) inernally?... We could instead
> of vatthu also say: aayatanas. The inward aayatanas. The sense-bases and the
> mind-base.
> The next para: defining externally. "Understanding of defining externally is
> knowledge of difference in the domains [N: gocara, objective field] (of the
> physical bases)."
> Good reminder: visible object is different from sound.
> Nina. 
> 
> 
========================
I think I may have been unclear. What I find strange is the assertion 
that mind is derived from the 4 great elements!

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./Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  Â  (From the Diamond Sutra)Â  


42793

From: <upasaka@a...> 
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:11am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Four Great Elements as Foundation / Howard

 	
Hi, Nina -

In a message dated 2/27/05 9:58:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
vangorko@x... writes:

> op 27-02-2005 04:58 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...:
> 
> >I've always understood feeling to follow *after* contact, as you say.
> >Abhidhamma doesn't accept that, I believe, but that is my understanding of 
> the
> >suttas. So it seems we agree on this.
> N: Suppose there is one kind of phassa accompanying citta that contacts (but
> not in the physical sense) visible object, this must be accompanied by
> feeling, since each citta is accompanied by contact and feeling. Next
> moment: other contact, other feeling. That last feeling is different from
> the previous one that has gone completely, together with the citta. If you
> think: feeling follows after contact, it seems that contact can last. But
> there is no time. 
> Nina. 
> 
======================
I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that the contact of one 
mindstate conditions the feeling of a subsequent mindstate, so that there is 
feeling in every mindstate, but the feeling of a mindstate is conditioned not by 
the current contact, but by the contact ot the previous mindstate? That would 
sit well with me. In fact it is something that has occurred to me. But perhaps 
you mean something else?

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)  


42794

From: Matthew Miller <bupleurum@y...> 
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:27am
Subject: What exactly do people mean when they speak of the self?

 	
I thought this might be of interest to some here.

This is an excerpt from a lecture by the prominent Indian
neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran. He asks, from a neuroscience point
of view, what do we mean when we speak of the "self"? Interestingly,
several neuroscientists like Ramachandran have arrived at the theory
of anatta (no-self). This seems to follow from the recognition that
the mind *is* the brain, that there is no separate "mind-stuff" and
"body-stuff." I would argue that anatta only really makes sense in
this context. Any form of mind/body dualist thinking will be plagued
with problems (e.g. how could a mind that is 100% mental affect a
body
that is 100% physical?) and no matter how subtly you try to elaborate
a theory of mind/body dualism, it will always contain the seed of an
idea of an immaterial "soul."

V.S. Ramachandran, from his 2004 Reith Lecture 5: "Neuroscience - the
New Philosophy" (the full lecture is available at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/lecture5.shtml) :

***

What exactly do people mean when they speak of the self? Its defining
characteristics are fourfold. First of all, continuity. You've a
sense
of time, a sense of past, a sense of future. There seems to be a
thread running through your personality, through your mind. Second,
closely related is the idea of unity or coherence of self. In spite
of
the diversity of sensory experiences, memories, beliefs and thoughts,
you experience yourself as one person, as a unity.

So there's continuity, there's unity. And then there's the sense of
embodiment or ownership - yourself as anchored to your body. And
fourth is a sense of agency, what we call free will, your sense of
being in charge of your own destiny. I moved my finger. Now as we've
seen in my lectures so far, these different aspects of self can be
differentially disturbed in brain disease, which leads me to believe
that the self really isn't one thing, but many. Just like love or
happiness, we have one word but it's actually lumping together many
different phenomena. For example, if I stimulate your right parietal
cortex with an electrode (you're conscious and awake) you will
momentarily feel that you are floating near the ceiling watching your
own body down below. You have an out-of-the-body experience. The
embodiment of self is abandoned. One of the axiomatic foundations of
your Self is temporarily abandoned. And this is true of each of those
aspects of self I was talking about. They can be selectively affected
in brain disease.

Keeping this in mind, I see three ways in which the problem of self
might be tackled by neuroscience. First, maybe the problem of self is
a straightforward empirical problem. Maybe there is a single, very
elegant, Pythagorean Aha! solution to the problem, just like DNA
base-pairing was a solution to the riddle of heredity. I think this
is unlikely, but I could be wrong.

Second, given my earlier remarks about the self, the notion of the
self as being defined by a set of attributes - embodiment, agency,
unity, continuity - maybe we will succeed in explaining each of these
attributes individually in terms of what's going on in the brain.
Then the problem of what is the self will vanish or recede into the
background.

Third, maybe the solution to the problem of the self won't be a
straightforward empirical one. It may instead require a radical shift
in perspective, the sort of thing that Einstein did when he rejected
the assumption that things can move at arbitrarily high velocities.
When we finally achieve such a shift in perspective, we may be in for
a big surprise and find that the answer was staring at us all along.
I don't want to sound like a New Age guru, but there are curious
parallels between this idea and the Hindu philosophical view that
there is no essential difference between self and others or that the
self is an illusion.

Now I have no clue what the solution to the problem of self is, what
the shift in perspective might be. If I did I would dash off a paper
to Nature today, and overnight I'd be the most famous scientist
alive. But just for fun let me have a crack at it, at what the
solution might look like.

Our brains were essentially model-making machines. We need to
construct useful, virtual reality simulations of the world that we
can
act on. Within the simulation, we need also to construct models of
other people's minds because we're intensely social creatures, us
primates. We need to do this so we can predict their behaviour. We
are, after all, the Machiavellian primate. For example, you want to
know was what he did a wilful action. In that case he might repeat
it.
Or was it involuntary, in which case it's quite benign. Indeed
evolution may have given us the skill even before self-awareness
emerged in the brain. But then once this mechanism is in place, you
can also apply it to the particular creature who happens to occupy
this particular body, called "me".

At a very rudimentary level this is what happens each time a new-born
baby mimics your behaviour. Stick your tongue out next time you see a
newborn baby and the baby will stick its tongue out, mimicking your
behaviour, instantly dissolving the boundary, the arbitrary barrier
between self and others. And we even know that this is carried out by
a specific group of neurons in the brain, in your frontal lobes,
called the mirror neurons. The bonus from this might be
self-awareness.


42795

From: Tep Sastri <tepyawa@m...> 
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 8:29am
Subject: [dsg] Re: Test Your Knowledge .../ Robertk's Finding about A. Mun

 	
Hi James and Sarah -

I have been following your dialogues about Achariya Mun with great 
interest mainly because your perspectives are diametrically opposite. 
Maybe I can help bring the discussion to a fruitful conclusion.

James, can I ask you what special achievements and characters of A. 
Mun have convinced you completely that he was an Arahant? 

I believe the discussion on A. Mun's achievements and characters 
should be more productive, since we will be looking for facts and it is 
impersonal. Do you agree?


Kindest regards,


Tep

===============

--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" 
<buddhatrue@y...> wrote:
> 
> Hi Sarah,
> 
> I'm in an Internet cafe (my computer is broken) so this response 
> isn't going to be very clean and trimmed.
> 
> --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott 
> <sarahprocterabbott@y...> wrote:
> > Hi James,
> > 
> > --- buddhatrue <buddhatrue@y...> wrote: 
> > > Sarah: I have no opinions/beliefs regarding A.Mun …
> > > 
> > > James: Well, in this case it is helpful to know if he was just 
> > > hallucinating or if he was an arahant and telling the truth. It 
> is 
> > > relevant to this discussion. I think you are just avoiding a 
> direct 
> > > answer. You entered this thread so you must have an opinion 
one 
> way 
> > > or the other on the subject.
> > …
> > S: I have an opinion on the point about cittas and paranibbana. If 
> anyone
> > suggests they can communicate with the cittas of the Buddha after 
> his
> > paranibbana, I think it's wrong.
> 
> There. Now,that wasn't so hard was it? So,in other words, you 
> believe that A. Mun was either crazy or a liar. Personally, I 
> believe he was telling the truth and believe that his legacy 
> deserves the greatest respect possible. 
> 
> > …
> > > Sarah: I believe the texts, including the sutta I quoted, 
> clearly 
> > > indicate that all khandhas cease, never to arise again at 
> > > paranibbana. Of course, cittas make up the vinnana khandha. 
Just 
> as 
> > > when no more fuel is added to the fire, the flames cease for 
> good, 
> > > so for the khandhas when no more fuel is added.
> > > 
> > > James: Interesting, there is a law of physics which applies to 
> this 
> > > matter: Energy is never destroyed, it is only transformed. The 
> > > consciousness of an arahant is not like that of a wordling. As 
> the 
> > > Buddha said, he was deep and unfathomable like the ocean- and 
> yet 
> > > you speak as if you have him all figured out ;-).
> > ….
> > S: I believe it is the truths and his omniscience which are deep 
> and
> > unfathomable. In any case, the khandhas of an arahant or Buddha 
> are still
> > anicca, dukkha and anatta. As I said, at paranibbana, no new fuel 
> for the
> > khandhas to arise.
> 
> Maybe you should see the post by Cosmique. We are not really 
> talking about the khandas subject to clinging, we are talking about 
> the consciousness which has been freed from clinging. Nibanna isn't 
> anicca, dukkha, or anatta.
> 
> > 
> > We're discussing dhammas, not physics;-).
> 
> ;-)) Interesting. Why don't you tell me the difference since you 
> know. 
> 
> > ….
> > > Sarah: There cannot be any citta communication with cittas which 
> > > have been completely extinguished. 
> > > 
> > > James: Of course, but the point I am making is that it is quite 
> > > possible that the cittas have not been extinguished but merely 
> > > transformed. 
> > …
> > S: I don't believe there is any suggestion of this possibility in 
> the
> > texts.
> 
> Again, the texts don't cover everything. The Buddha clearly said as 
> much with his 'leaves in the hand compared to the leaves in the 
> forest' metaphor (I'm sure you know it).
> 
> > …
> > >However, my larger point is that we shouldn't think we 
> > > know something just from reading the suttas. That would be a 
> > > significant flaw and a hindrance to practice. Life and 
> experience 
> > > are a lot more than what is written in the suttas.
> > …
> > S: <smile> no comment
> 
> Why no comment? This is the main point of this conversation! Can 
> there be a realm of experience to the enlightened which isn't 
> described in the texts?
> 
> > ….
> > > ps. Again, you can find the biography at this link:
> > > http://buddhanet.net/pdf_file/munbio_photos.pdf
> > …
> > S: You're welcome to post any further (short) extracts for 
> discussion. I'd
> > be happy to discuss any points of dhamma. I think this is more 
> useful than
> > `A.Mun study', `K.Sujin study' or even `James' or `Sarah' study;-).
> 
> Huh? I don't understand what you are implying. If I post any short 
> extracts it would be a dhamma and an A. Mun study. I don't see how 
> you can separate them. However, I probably won't anyway because 
my 
> computer is broken and this conversation isn't getting very far.
> 
> > 
> > Metta,
> > 
> > Sarah
> > ========
> 
> Metta,
> James
> ps. Simon is doing great but I got another kitten about a week ago 
> to keep him company and that kitten died today. Not good news. 
> Haven't decided if I will get another kitten again or not.
	
42796

From: <TGrand458@a...> 
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 4:48am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Four Great Elements as Foundation / Howard

 	
In a message dated 2/27/2005 5:52:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
upasaka@a... writes:
Howard:
Actually, were I to be persuaded that a phenomenalist interpretation 
of the 
Dhamma is incorrect, I would jump at the the Goenka interpretation, as I 
think it provides the best dualistic understanding I have seen. What is 
radical in 
it is not that dualism, because that is certainly one longstanding 
interpretation of the Dhamma, particularly within Theravada, but his 
identification of 
vedana, not as the operation of affective feeling, but as sensation (in the 
sense of internal correspondent to external rupa). 

Hi Howard

Dualism is another type of criticism that came along later. Since the Buddha 
actually says ... owing to a duality (or dyad), consciousness comes into 
being (arises) ... hard to criticise Goeanka for his "dual" interpretation if he 
is following along those lines.

TG


42797

From: Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@x...> 
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 11:31am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Four Great Elements as Foundation / Howard

 	
Hi, Howard,
op 27-02-2005 16:11 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...:

> I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that the contact of one
> mindstate conditions the feeling of a subsequent mindstate, so that there is
> feeling in every mindstate, but the feeling of a mindstate is conditioned not
by 
the current contact, but by the contact ot the previous mindstate? That
would 
> suit well with me. In fact it is something that has occurred to me. But
perhaps 
> you mean something else?
N: I mean something else. How could contact linger on for a while and wait
for a following feeling so that it could contact it? Are they not, all of
them, impermanent? 
Nina.
	
42798

From: <TGrand458@a...> 
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:08am
Subject: Re: [dsg] Four Great Elements as Foundation

 	
In a message dated 2/27/2005 11:34:15 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
vangorko@x... writes:
N: I mean something else. How could contact linger on for a while and wait
for a following feeling so that it could contact it? Are they not, all of
them, impermanent? 
Nina. 

Hi Nina

I view impermanence as more of a continuous "transformation" rather than some 
type of digital "on/off" activity.

I think the Buddha demonstrates the "transformation" idea as he describes -- 
arising, persisting while changing, and ceasing. He also talks about the Four 
Great Elements as -- of the nature to be worn away or rubbed away in 
relation to impermanence.

TG


42799

From: <LBIDD@w...> 
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 5:10pm
Subject: Vism.XIV,141

 	
"The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XIV

141. (x) By its means they remember (saranti), or it itself remembers,
or it is just remembering (sara.na), thus it is 'mindfulness' (sati). It
has the characteristic of not wobbling.64 Its function is not to forget.
It is manifested as guarding, or it is manifested as the state of
confronting an objective field. Its proximate cause is strong
perception, or its proximate cause is the foundations of mindfulness
concerned with the body, and so on (see M. Sutta 10). It should be
regarded, however, as like a pillar because it is firmly founded, or as
like a door-keeper because it guards the eye-door, and so on. 
---------------------- 
Note 64. 'Apilaapana' ("not wobbling") is the steadying of an object,
the remembering and not forgetting it, keeping it as immovable as a
stone instead of letting it go bobbing about like a pumpkin in water'
(Pm.487).