58000 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:34am Subject: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence ken_aitch Hi Howard, ------------- KH: > > Therefore, the purpose > of Dhamma study is to learn all we can about those mental and > physical phenomena (the five khandhas, the elements, the paramattha dhammas). > > Howard: > But that is a non-sequitur. On that basis there must then be scads of enlightened chemists, physicists, and psychologists! -------------- I am not with you. What would chemists and the like necessarily know about dhammas? ----------------------- H: > I would sooner say that the purpose of Dhamma study is to learn from the teachings how to purify and train the mind to eventually come to directly see, first-hand, "the conditioned world as it really is - mere mental and physical phenomena bearing the three characteristics anicca, dukkha and anatta," ----------------------- On the surface, there is not much difference in what each of is saying, but we know from past conversations that our perspectives are very different. According to my understanding, the Dhamma is all about the here and now. It is not intended to make me, an uninstructed worldling, feel inferior or to want things to be different from the way they are. An uninstructed worldling is, in ultimate reality, just a few conditioned namas and rupas. So too is an ariyan disciple. So what is there to feel inferior about? Where is the need to purify and train the mind? Yes, I know the Middle Way involves a sense of urgency, but it, like every other facet of the Path, is at the level of paramattha dhammas. ------------------------------------- H: > and, most of all, to come to see dependent origination, in a direct and throughgoing way, not as an abstraction but as the actual and sole mode of existence that phenomena have. ------------------------------------- Dependent Origination is happening here and now. I know that much from Dhamma study. I suppose that rudimentary, intellectual understanding is about the extent of my right understanding. If I had been a better student in the past, my understanding would have been better. But so what? I am grateful to know the little I do. ------------------------------------------------ H: > We do not need to learn, nor should we learn, "all we can" about mental and physical phenomena. First of all, most of the simsapa leaves would be well left on the forest floor prior to awakening, -------------------------------------------------- Now don't split hairs, Howard. :-) I fully realise that the leaves in the Buddha's hand represent far more Dhamma than I could ever study in this lifetime. I have no intention of 'looking on the floor.' --------------------------------- H: > and, secondly, it is not a matter about learning all one can even about those in the Buddha's hand as formal knowledge, but in coming to see them directly for oneself and holding them in one's own hand. --------------------------------- Is 'coming to see them directly for oneself' exclusive of acquiring formal knowledge? I don't think so. Surely it would depend upon and follow after it. Ken H 58001 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ADL ch 1 egberdina Hey Phil, > > Can you conceive of an undifferentiated stream of experience, or > perhaps > > even the absence of such a thing? > > I might be able to if I tried but I don't want to try. THe harder > we think about things the further we get off the path, in my opinion. > Understanding settles at unexpected moments. That's fair enough. I wasn't asking it as a trick question, but if you consider it a bit, it was actually a very silly question of mine. Because you do not have to conceive of the stream of experience. It is there. It is what gives rise to stuff to think about. You don't have to think about anything for what is real to present itself. It seems to me that the exercise of > > establishing a taxonomy of mind states is entirely a conceptual > exercise. > > What is the purpose of the exercise? > > Well, the Buddha does this in the suttas as well. Samyutta Nikaya > (the only area of the suttanta I know to even a light degree) is all > about classifying experience by khandas, by dhatus, by ayatanas etc. > Abhidhamma is just more detailed or something, I don't know. I don't > find much difference between Samyutta Nikaya and Abhidhamma, > personally. > > Of course we start with conceptual understanding, and then to the > degree that condition permits, deeper understanding arises, > conditioned by various factors including the conceptual > understanding, I guess. I agree with what you are saying re Samyutta and Abhidhamma. I wonder if it is conceptual understanding we start of with, or whether it is just pure craving for existence? Why do we create concepts and hold onto to them so tightly, but for wanting to be? Kind Regards Herman -- There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58002 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ADL ch 1 upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Jon and Neil) - I may be missing your intent (LOL!) in the following. It *seems* to me that your main point is that without intent (to see the way things are), there will be no distinguishing because of no "looking," or something along those lines. I suppose that may be so, but I don't undestand what it is that you infer from it. Somehow I'm missing the punch line, Herman. I do, BTW, very much like Sn IV.5 Paramatthaka Sutta, which urges not clinging to views. It even points out the importance of not being "dependent on what's seen, heard, or sensed, or on precepts & practices," and it says that one should not "conjure a view in the world in connection with knowledge or precepts & practices." But I don't take this as urging one to put on blinders to distinctions [Distinctions are part of "the way things are," with "reality" not being an undifferentiated, homogeneous mass], and I certainly don't see it urging one to refrain from engaging in an analytic decomposition of apparent entities into their qualities (into paramattha dhammas, as I see it) as a skillful means to make one aware of not-self at the gross level. And since you, yourself, have spoken fovorable recently about such an analytic approach, I am confused as to the main point you are making. I don't know why I don't get it, but, in any case, I'd appreciate a clarification by you. Just one more point I'd like to make, just in case it is relevant to your intended meaning, though it may well not be: The way things are, as I see it, and as I regard the Buddha as having said, is neither that of a discrete pluralism of separate, self-existent realities nor an undifferentiated, substantial monism, nor that of an utter nullity either, but is a middle way between such extremes as expressed, for example, in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta. With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/19/06 12:36:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > > Hey, Howard, (Jon and Neil) > > > > > >>It seems to me that the exercise of > >>establishing a taxonomy of mind states is entirely a conceptual > >exercise. > >====================== > > But can you not see something in common between sights, sounds, > >tastes, smells, and bodily sensations, i.e., the various material/ physical > >contents > >of experience, that is not shared with the mental operations of awareness, > >feeling (as pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral), the various affective > >operations > >of fearing, craving, hating, being bored, being amused, the perceptual > >operations of recalling and recognizing, and the further cognitive- support > >operations > >of attention, concentration, and ideation which all seem to share a > >certain > >flavor that makes us call them "mental"? That is, doesn't the distinction > >of > >nama and rupa seem like a genuine distinction to you? There is a > >difference in > >kind, I think, between mental and physical, between namic and rupic. > > > Yes, I can see all the differences and similarities you point out. But > therein lies the crux of the biscuit. > All these comparisons are unnecessary if you are intentionless towards the > flow of experience. Neil quoted Thales with regards to being unable to step > into the same river twice. But this depends on the river being a given, > there being a what-it-is-like-to-step-in-a-river. At the most fundamental > level, you cannot step into the same river once. Before comparisons, all > phenomena are occuring for the first time. Every phenomenon is unique. Only > after the first differentiation and categorisation does a phenomenon become > an instance of this, or an instance of that. And that latter view of things > is markedly different to the former. > > > It is a separate issue, I believe, of whether so called rupas are > >merely content of consciousness or exist "externally" and independent of > >experience. Whether one adopts a phenomenalist perspective as I do that > >does not > >presume "external rupas" or adopts a realist perspective as Jon does that > >does > >presume (five) realms of "external rupas", there still seems to be a clear > >difference between mental and physical, don't you think? > > > Yes, certainly. When one looks for differences, they are to be found. All it > requires is a mechanism of comparison to be in place. But what is pivotal in > all of that is the intention. Without intention, phenomena are merely what > they are, which does not include them being members of a class, or instances > of a category. > > > What was quoted so far from chapter 1 in Phil's post is certainly not > >yet worthy of the term 'taxonomy of mindstates'. It merely distinguishes > >mental from physical. Also, the notions of nama and rupa and namarupa were > >not > >Abhidhammic creations. They are ensconced in the suttas and, in fact, > >preceded the > >Buddha. But in any case, the Buddha himself in the suttas began a taxonomy > >that already went well beyond the nama/rupa breakdown. And there is a > >value in > >this, because by means of it, or rather, by the direct experiential > >knowledge > >of it, and not just scanning tables and perusing reportage, one is partly > >disabused of thinking of "the person" as an entity, where all that there > >are are > >impersonal mental and physical phenomena and operations. This experiential > >breakdown is a first step towards wisdom as I see it, to be followed by > >more deeply > >looking into these impersonal phenomena and grasping their radical > >impermanence, their utterly failing as sources of satisfaction, and their > >interdependence and utter emptiness of self/own-being. > > > > Yes, I agree with all you say. But the Buddha has so many words attributed > to him. Including > Sn IV.5 Paramatthaka Sutta > > > One who isn't inclined > > hasn't the least > preconceived perception > with regard to what's seen, heard, or sensed. > By whom, with what, > should he be pigeonholed > here in the world? > — this brahman > who hasn't adopted views. > > > — Such — > doesn't fall back. > > > Kind Regards > > > Herman /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) 58003 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 4/19/06 4:36:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > H: >I would sooner say that the purpose of Dhamma study is to learn > from the teachings how to purify and train the mind to eventually > come to directly see, first-hand, "the conditioned world as it > really is - mere mental and physical phenomena bearing the three > characteristics anicca, dukkha and anatta," > ----------------------- > > On the surface, there is not much difference in what each of is > saying, but we know from past conversations that our perspectives > are very different. > > According to my understanding, the Dhamma is all about the here and > now. It is not intended to make me, an uninstructed worldling, feel > inferior or to want things to be different from the way they are. > > An uninstructed worldling is, in ultimate reality, just a few > conditioned namas and rupas. So too is an ariyan disciple. So what > is there to feel inferior about? ----------------------------------- Howard: What is all this talk about feeling inferior? Who brought up such a thing? What'[s on your mind with this? I don't get it, Ken. ------------------------------------ Where is the need to purify and > > train the mind? > > ------------------------------------ Howard: Please check with the Buddha on this. It was he who said (from memory - the quote may be off) "Do no harm, do good, and purify the mind." ================== 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) 58004 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence egberdina Hi Ken-aitch, ---------------------------- > H: > Without thinking / papanca-ing / conceptualisation, there is > only knowing, and the knowing of anicca at that. > ---------------------------- > > Now, you have confused me. But I know not to spend too much time on > it because, after all, it is only Herman-dhamma. You give me an awful lot of credit for what isn't mine. I do not hold the copyright on anicca :-) Kind Regards Herman -- There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58005 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:04am Subject: Hullo fbartolom Hi to everyone. Just a small introduction as suggested by the guidelines. I came to this list by an Italian one on the same purpose. I am a theravada practicioner in Italy with a keen interest for canonical texts and manuals. Regarding those latter I read and enjoyed the Adhidammattha Sanghaa (I am reading it for the second time) and the Visuddhi Magga. I attend most cerimonies and events at the Santacittarama monastery in Italy and I particularly appreciate the teachings of Ven. Achaan Chandapalo. 58006 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ADL ch 1 egberdina Hi Howard, On 19/04/06, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Herman (and Jon and Neil) - > > I may be missing your intent (LOL!) in the following. It *seems* to > me > that your main point is that without intent (to see the way things are), > there will be no distinguishing because of no "looking," or something > along those > lines. I suppose that may be so, but I don't undestand what it is that you > infer from it. Somehow I'm missing the punch line, Herman. The punch line is Nibbana, Howard, the intentless intent of Buddhism. :-) I do, BTW, very much like Sn IV.5 Paramatthaka Sutta, which urges not > clinging to views. It even points out the importance of not being > "dependent > on what's seen, heard, or sensed, or on precepts & practices," > and it says that one should not "conjure a view in the world in connection > with knowledge or precepts & practices." But I don't take this as urging > one to > put on blinders to distinctions [Distinctions are part of "the way things > are," with "reality" not being an undifferentiated, homogeneous mass], and > I > certainly don't see it urging one to refrain from engaging in an analytic > decomposition of apparent entities into their qualities (into paramattha > dhammas, as I > see it) as a skillful means to make one aware of not-self at the gross > level. If you see distinctions everywhere, that is what is happening. And that will not change if you all do you is train yourself to look for distinctions. > And since you, yourself, have spoken fovorable recently about such an > analytic approach, I am confused as to the main point you are making. I > don't know > why I don't get it, but, in any case, I'd appreciate a clarification by > you. Phenomenal reduction does not have to be limited to deconstructing concepts into components. It can also be about deconstructing beliefs about causal relationships into mere, discardable thoughts. Just one more point I'd like to make, just in case it is relevant to > your intended meaning, though it may well not be: The way things are, as I > see > it, and as I regard the Buddha as having said, is neither that of a > discrete > pluralism of separate, self-existent realities nor an undifferentiated, > substantial monism, nor that of an utter nullity either, but is a middle > way between > such extremes as expressed, for example, in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta. Thanks for your questions and comments, Howard Kind Regards Herman -- There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58007 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The place of "meditation" .concentration. nimitta, nibbaana. jonoabb Hi Nina nina van gorkom wrote: >Hi Jon, >thank you for your answer. I find the simile of the veil good. >You say: As I understand it, there is nothing to be known about the nimitta > itself. >But when we asked, Kh Sujin said: it is now. Thus I think we shall better >understand if there can be direct awareness. >After more reflection I think that characteristics appear and can be known >and that that is the nimitta of visible object, sound, etc. > > Thanks for these further thoughts. I agree that the nimitta is closely linked to the characteristics (somehow ;-)). I think what I meant to say is that the task is not to know more about the nimitta; the task remains to understand more about dhammas, but initially what is know is the nimitta of the dhamma rather than the dhamma itself. Something like that. Jon 58008 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ADL ch 1 upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 4/19/06 9:15:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > > If you see distinctions everywhere, that is what is happening. And that will > not change if you all do you is train yourself to look for distinctions. > ======================== Have I said that is all I train myself to do? For that matter, I don't even say that I train myself to look explicitly for distinctions, though they are there for the seeing, but just to look. What is present will be seen if, with a cultivated mind, one looks. The crucial point is that it must be with a cultivated mind, a mind in which the doors of perception have been cleansed. (That's what Dhamma practice is all about, including right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. At first these are cultivations, but eventually they become fruits of cultivation.) Carefully looking at one's experience, one *does* find bodily sensations, sights, sounds, tastes, smells, and an intricate variety of mental states and operations, and one *does* come to see that they are all fleeting, interconnected, and empty. The Buddha points out that this is the way things are, and that we should come and see. Perhaps you are suggesting that the Buddha would better have not pointed out what there is to see, because there is a danger that it will only fool us into thinking we see what we really don't? I agree that that it is always a possibility of fooling oneself due to p resuppositions. What knowledge one has prior to direct seeing is a tricky matter. None is no good, and too much is no good. The point of optimality is hard to discern. 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) 58009 From: "matheesha" Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:49am Subject: [dsg] Re: Jhana Retreat matheesha333 Hi Eric, This reply is quite late. It is quite interesting we are having the same experiences of jhana thousands of miles apart. >E: Where did you learn how > to enter the jhanas? My first experience was quite by accident. I had read ven gunaratanas account of it. Then I came across a meditation centre in sri lanka which taught jhana as a prequel to vipassana. Recently I had an experience which was the strongest I have had. I was unable to breath (even if i wanted to) in a particular jhana state as mentioned in the suttas. After the experience was over the sati which arose after it was so clear/solid and lasted for hours. The equanimity was very strong, my mind not falling into desire or aversion. I could sense very subtle thoughts and changes in mood. It was a wonderful experience of the power of the dhamma. Recently I tried attaining concentration the way mentioned in the vitakkasanatana sutta by clearing the mind of defilements. It was also quite successful and I would recommend it to anyone. It is markedly differnt from the method of concentrating on one point. metta Matheesha > > with metta > 58010 From: "indriyabala" Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:37am Subject: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence indriyabala Hi KenH & Howard - It is always, and will always be very appropriate for any person (Buddhist and non-Buddhist) to ask where the need to purify and train the mind is !! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Ken - > > In a message dated 4/19/06 4:36:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > ken_aitch@... writes: > ... ... > Where is the need to purify and > > > train the mind? > > > > > ------------------------------------ > Howard: > Please check with the Buddha on this. It was he who said (from memory > - the quote may be off) "Do no harm, do good, and purify the mind." > ================== Tep: The need is where the troubles are. The troubles are seen when one's mind is conquered by greed, aversion, delusion, anger, hostility, hypocrisy, spite, selfishness, evil envy, or evil longing. [AN X.24 Cunda Sutta] Sincerely, Tep ======== 58011 From: "indriyabala" Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:12am Subject: [dsg] Re:what is sati. indriyabala Hi Sarah - Thank you for always paying attention to what's going on. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Tep (& Eric), > ... .... > S: I was very glad to see your comment at the end as well and to know that we're all in agreement in this thread at least:). > > Tep, I am also following all your other threads and there are several outstanding posts to me I wish to get back to you on. Thanks as usual for your patience and kind comments, but actually I'm also very far behind and most impressed by your efficiency in responding to everyone and in such detail:). Thank you for the friendship which I value a lot. > I am honored by your remarks about my posts and my interaction with the other members. Please take your time to answer my questions and importantly, please feel free to skip my messages when you don't have time to write. I understand. I also value your friendship a lot. Sincerely, Tep =================== 58012 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Ken) - In a message dated 4/19/06 12:41:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: > > > Hi KenH &Howard - > > It is always, and will always be very appropriate for any person > (Buddhist and non-Buddhist) to ask where the need to purify and train > the mind is !! ----------------------------------------- Howard: Tep, when Ken said "Where is the need to purify and train the mind?" I understood him not to be asking about where to find the target-point for mental purification and training, but rather to assert his position that there is no need at all to purify and train the mind! ==================== With metta, Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > >Hi, Ken - > > > >In a message dated 4/19/06 4:36:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > >ken_aitch@... writes: > > > ... ... > > Where is the need to purify and > > >>train the mind? > >> > >> > >------------------------------------ > >Howard: > > Please check with the Buddha on this. It was he who said > (from memory > >- the quote may be off) "Do no harm, do good, and purify the mind." > >================== > > Tep: The need is where the troubles are. The troubles are seen when > one's mind is conquered by greed, aversion, delusion, anger, > hostility, hypocrisy, spite, selfishness, evil envy, or evil longing. > > [AN X.24 Cunda Sutta] > > Sincerely, > > > Tep /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) 58013 From: "indriyabala" Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 2:04pm Subject: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence indriyabala Hi Howard (and KenH) - This was the first time that I completely "missed the point"! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Tep, when Ken said "Where is the need to purify and train the mind?" I understood him not to be asking about where to find the target-point for mental purification and training, but rather to assert his position that there is no need at all to purify and train the mind! > ==================== But it is wrong for ANYONE, even the Arahants, to say or imply that "there is no need at all to purify and train the mind". What is the use of Buddhism if not for purification purposes (in sila, citta, and paaa)? Are you sure that your assertion of KenH's position is correct? {:>) Sincerely, Tep ======= 58014 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Are concepts impermanent? TGrand458@... Hi Rob M., All As I always argue...concepts are mental-formations and therefore are of course impermanent. There are no contradictions in Sutta interpretation when concepts are understood as mental-formations. The 'commentarial view' that "concepts don't exist" is a mistake IMO. There is also no need to create a "two realities" viewpoint and so on. The Suttas do not support these views and do not even bother to deal with them. TG In a message dated 4/17/2006 5:14:07 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, rob.moult@... writes: Hi All, I was reading "The Buddhist Philosophy of Relations" (Patthanudessa Dipani) by Ledi Sayadaw's, Wheel Publication No. 331/333. The opening sentence of the translator's preface is, "Buddhism views the world, with the exception of Nibbana and pannatti, as impermanent, liable to suffering and without soul-essence." There is an interesting footnote to this sentence added by the BPS Editor (I assume that it was Bhikkhu Bodhi at the time, 1986), "Pannatti means concept or idea. The Venerable Author's and the Translator's view that concepts are not subject to impermanence is not supported by the canonical texts nor by the ancient commentaries." Metta, Rob M :-) 58015 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - In a message dated 4/19/06 5:06:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: > Hi Howard (and KenH) - > > This was the first time that I completely "missed the point"! > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > > Tep, when Ken said "Where is the need to purify and train the > mind?" I understood him not to be asking about where to find the > target-point for mental purification and training, but rather to > assert his position that there is no need at all to purify and train > the mind! > >==================== > > But it is wrong for ANYONE, even the Arahants, to say or imply that > "there is no need at all to purify and train the mind". What is the > use of Buddhism if not for purification purposes (in sila, citta, and > paaa)? > > Are you sure that your assertion of KenH's position is correct? {:>) -------------------------------------- Howard: Sure? No, I'm not sure. That was what I understood. Ken will need to correct me if I'm wrong. --------------------------------------- > > > Sincerely, > > > 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) 58016 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 11:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ontological Status of the Tilakkhana -- The term "Reality" TGrand458@... Hi Jon Always a challenge! In a message dated 4/15/2006 4:02:24 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi TG Thanks for the detailed reply. Let me extract the main point (as I see it) for discussion first. [Jon: What then to your understanding is the development of insight that leads to enlightenment? I don't mean what are your views on *how* insight is to be developed, but what is actually happening when insight is being developed. What is going on at such moments that happens at no other time?] TG: Insight is clear about impermanence, suffering, and or no-self. Awareness of the present moment is a means to an end. The point of the issue is not to know the present moment, that is just the "exercise." The point is to know impermanence, suffering, and or no-self to the extent necessary to detach the mind from all conditions INCLUDING THE PRESENT MOMENT. You see a clear distinction between insight into impermanence, suffering and no-self (as the goal) and awareness of the present moment (as the means to that goal). I am in general agreement with you there, in that I also understand that those 3 characteristics (as I consider them to be) are not fully penetrated until enlightenment. I think that 'enlightenment' would be a better statement of the goal, however. And the means to the attainment of that goal is the development of awareness. TG: When I say above that -- "The point is to know impermanence, suffering, and or no-self to the extent necessary to detach the mind from all conditions" -- I figure I have posited "enlightenment" as the goal. However, I'm not sure if we are using the terms 'impermanence, suffering and no-self' in quite the same way. To me, they are the 3 characteristics of presently arising dhammas (aka the khandhas, ayatanas, dhatus spoken of in the suttas). I'd be interested to hear what they mean to you. TG: That's fine to me. Keeping in mind, the Buddha spoke to the impermanence of past and future states as well....meaning that such "conceptual knowledge" and principles were fodder for insight as well. Insight is not merely insight into the present moment...although "present moment insight" is a very important aspect of insight. Insight is effectively any knowledge that detaches the mind from conditions. Seeing conditions as "ultimate realities" strikes me as having the opposite affect. Likewise, I'd be interested to hear more about the 'conditions' from which the mind is to become detached. Are these something other than dhammas? Is there a reason you have avoided the term 'dhammas' in your description of the development of insight? TG: Since "dhammas" is used as "realities" and since I don't like "realities," I therefore don't like "dhammas." I'm satisfied calling them conditions, elements, aggregates. When they start being referred to as "realities," then I think a threshold is passed that should not be passed. The threshold is that of imparting more significance and substantiality to these conditions than I believe they were meant to have (by the Buddha.) I add some further comments in the text of your post below. TGrand458@... wrote: >[J: Speak for yourself! In the context of what are the dhammas/'realities' >of the present moment -- for example, seeing consciousness, visible >object, thinking, feeling, hardness, etc. -- I just don't see where the >'entity' thing comes into it.] > >TG: It's a very subtle thing. When the mind 'identifies' things, it seeks >to establish an 'identity.' The root of identity is "entity"!!! > > I can agree with the statement you have just made, but I'm having difficulty seeing why that means that anyone who uses the label 'reality' as a translation of the Pali term 'dhamma' is bound to have wrong view on that account. Are you sure such a generalisation holds true for everyone? What about the actual underlying view of the person? TG: I suspect that 100 different minds that hold the view of "realities" would likely have 100 different ways of thinking about it. I believe that it goes against the grain of the Buddha's teaching but cannot say that all such standpoints are misapprehensions of the Suttas. >TG: ... What I have a problem with is >claiming that the "interpretation" IS the Buddha's teaching. > >To the best of our understanding the Suttas (for the most part) are the >closest representations to the Buddha's teaching. The Abhidhamma is an analysis >of the Buddha's teaching. Commentaries and other secondary materials are >interpretations (mixed with analysis) of the Buddha's teachings. > >The teachings should be called -- "the teachings" >The analysis should be called -- "the analysis" >The interpretations should be called -- "the interpretations" > >Distortions begin as soon as these get mixed up. In this group, several >folks regularly call "interpretations" --> "teachings." This is convenient for >defending their point of view, but it is not accurate. It leads to >confusion. > I don't quite understand your concern here. The distinction you correctly make here between the suttas ("the teachings") and the commentaries ("the interpretation") is universally accepted as far as I know. The suttas form part of the Tipitaka while the commentaries don't. The term 'commentaries' itself acknowledges that there is a 'parent' text of higher standing. TG: My concern is -- "the commentaries" are being called "the Buddha's teaching." I find it disingenuous and destructive for "truth investigators." It's true that in discussions such as the one we are now having people do not always indicate which material is from the Tipitaka and which is from the commentaries, but in the Theravadin tradition that is a common thing, I believe; the texts that are the commentaries properly so called have a special standing by virtue of their approval at one or other of the Great Councils. >TG: This is the crux of the difference of opinion I think. To me... seeing >things as having "their own characteristics" is a conventional way of >thinking. I believe that insight is the understanding that transcends this >viewpoint and replaces it with the knowledge that nothing has anything of its own. > The statement that 'nothing has anything of its own' is not one that I recognise as coming from the texts. I think that whenever the Buddha spoke about not-self, conditionality, insubstantiality, and the like he did so in the context of dhammas (or perhaps some other specified 'thing'); but not as general, abstract concepts. But I'm sure you have a basis for your statement. TG: Some quotes... the first one, at least, exhibits a "general principle" I think... “Venerable sir, it is said, ‘Empty is the world, empty is the world.’ In what way, venerable sir, is it said, ‘Empty is the world’?? “It is, Ananda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to self that it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’? (The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 2, pg. 1163) “Form is like a lump of foam, Feeling like a water bubble; Perception is like a mirage, Volitions like a plantain trunk (coreless), And consciousness like an illusion, (The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 1, pg. 952 – 953) “Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it toward the deathless element thus: ‘This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbana (Nirvana). Standing upon that, he attains the destruction of the taints [mental corruptions].? (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 540, The Great Discourse to Malunkyaputta, Mahamalunkyaputta Sutta, #64) TG: This last quote which includes seeing states as "void" and "alien" also indicates to me that conditions have "nothing of their own." By the way, I would not describe the development of awareness as "seeing things as having their own characteristics". I can see how that could suggest one is looking for something of substance. I would describe the development of awareness as "the seeing of any presently arising dhamma as it truly is" (for example, seeing namas as nama, rupas as rupa). Jon TG: I suspect that the above paragraph is just a running in circles. The question would then be -- what is it truely? The answer from some of the leaders in this group would tend to run ... Paramattha Dhammas with their own characteristics. TG 58017 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ADL ch 1 egberdina Hi Howard, ======================== > Have I said that is all I train myself to do? No, you didn't. What I intended was to apply what I was saying to all, including moi. Therefore I should have used the word "one" instead of "you". Sorry about the confusion. :-) For that matter, I don't > even say that I train myself to look explicitly for distinctions, though > they > are there for the seeing, but just to look. What is present will be seen > if, > with a cultivated mind, one looks. What is present when looking is looking. The question is why would or do you (oops; one) :-) look? The Buddha points out that this is the way things are, and > that we should come and see. Perhaps you are suggesting that the Buddha > would better have not pointed out what there is to see, because there is a > danger that it will only fool us into thinking we see what we really > don't? I agree > that that it is always a possibility of fooling oneself due to p > resuppositions. What knowledge one has prior to direct seeing is a tricky > matter. None is > no good, and too much is no good. The point of optimality is hard to > discern. I like what you are saying. A stupid baby lying on it's back is a bundle of craving/aversion with no sense of self. It is craving that gives birth to a sense of self down the track. The Buddha points out how to come to realise that this sense of self is a mirage. But with the dissolution of a sense of self, if craving remains, the possibility of rebirth remains. If there is looking with a sense of wanting-to-be, get ready for some more birth pangs :-) Over time the baby can learn to control its various sphincters and not soil its clothes. However, one sphincter remains troublesome, and that is the mind sphincter. Without learning to recognise and control the craving mind, there will remain lots and lots of mental incontinence. Babies do not spontaneously toilet-train, they get prompted by their toilet-trained carer. Adults don't spontaneously mind-train, and I agree that coming to recognise the different types of mental excrement could play a part in ultimately having a 24/7 guard on that sphincter. But that won't happen as long as examing the effluent is considered interesting or its own reward. Sorry if that is too colourful :-) Kind Regards Herman -- There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58018 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:43pm Subject: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence ken_aitch Hi Tep and Howard, ---------- T: > This was the first time that I completely "missed the point"! ---------- Howard, also, completely missed the point - as he has done throughout all of our discussions on this particular point. I am happy to try again, but you won't like it: :-) The Buddha taught anatta. Knowledge of anatta profoundly changes the way we see the world. We might insist, "No, I can go on seeing the world in the same way I always have done, and I can practise Dhamma (develop insight) at the same time." But that would be a grave misunderstanding: knowledge of the Dhamma really does change everything. As Howard said, the Buddha taught suffering and release from suffering. The method he taught was: do good, refrain from evil and purify the mind. The obvious question is: So where is the profundity in that: isn't that what every great teacher has taught? The profundity is in anatta (there is no self; there are only dhammas). Anatta makes the Buddha's teaching profoundly different from every other teaching. I try to express my beginner's understanding of this new way of seeing the world, but that leaves me open to accusations. In this instance, I am accused of denying the Buddha's teaching of "Purify the mind." But I am not doing that at all. I am trying to see the Middle Way. In the Middle Way there are only dhammas. So it is dhammas that purify the mind, not Ken H. Ken H is ultimately just a figure of speech. How does this beginner's understanding affect my life? It means I don't have the conventional religious zeal to radically change my lifestyle in an effort to attain enlightenment. But that doesn't mean I favour the other extreme - 'eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.' The Middle Way is, first and foremost, to understand the conditioned dhammas that are arising now - citta, cetasika and rupa. Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > > > Hi Howard (and KenH) - > > This was the first time that I completely "missed the point"! > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > Tep, when Ken said "Where is the need to purify and train the > mind?" I understood him not to be asking about where to find the > target-point for mental purification and training, but rather to > assert his position that there is no need at all to purify and train > the mind! > > ==================== > > But it is wrong for ANYONE, even the Arahants, to say or imply that > "there is no need at all to purify and train the mind". What is the > use of Buddhism if not for purification purposes (in sila, citta, and > paaa)? > 58019 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:16pm Subject: Re: On spice and paradoxes [ was: [dsg] Re: Beliefs lbidd2 Hi Joop, Larry: "On the one hand the Buddha said paramattha dhammas are anatta because they are not subject to control (avasavattitaa)." Joop: "Has the Buddha really said that, where?" L: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn-22-059-nt0.html JOOP: I don't think that "dhammas ARE anatta"; here you use "anatta" as a property, a characteristic a (ultimate) reality can have. To me "anatta" is not a property/characteristic but a permanent warning. "Anatta" is only relevant on the level of a (non-existing) person; on the level of a ultimate reality it's "anicca" "Anatta" ITSELF (that's a really paradox) is a concept: doesn't belong to the list of ultimate realities. For the rest: I don't understand everything of your message, I think I agree. But are things not more easy when we accept: volition=volition?" L: It seems to me the question isn't so much what dhammas are as what we think dhammas are. We think there is a Joop and a Larry, but whatever we think Joop and Larry are is ultimately matter, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness. And obviously (hopefully) none of these five kinds of phenomena can be said to be Joop or Larry. Additionally, 'self' isn't necessarily subjective. You could talk about the self of a computer. In a phenomenological sense the self or nature of a computer breaks down into these 5 categories in the sense that the reality of a computer is the experience of a computer. On a purely materialistic level we could see the computer as a collection of rupas. But in this group of parts there is no where to be found a computer. You could say the group itself is a computer, but what is the experience of a group? Regarding the paradox of desiring the end of desire, I tried to show that this desire manifests through prompted consciousness. For example, if the Buddha said you should recognize realities in order to end suffering, and I subsequently thought "I should recognize realities", and then that thought conditioned the recognition of a feeling, that recognition of a feeling would be a prompted consciousness, prompted by the two "shoulds". I think 'should' is a better way of looking at this than volition. In that 'should' is a desire to control and, because of that, self view. This amounts to the manifestation of desire to end desire by satipatthana. The resolution of this problem comes when prompted consciousness conditions the arising of UNprompted consciousness. 'Should', self view, and desire to control disappear and there is just the recognition of realities. I should also say that unprompted consciousness is not necessarily conditioned by prompted consciousness. It can be conditioned by any number of accumulations. Larry 58020 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 6:12pm Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence ken_aitch Hi Eric, -------------- E: > Take any 'x' and place it below. > 'x' exists: That is one extreme. 'x' > doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two > extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:... Read the sutta and let it roll around your mind. Duality of existence/non-existence. This is how the mind works and the Buddha was offering a way out via the middle. A way out of the suffering caused by this dualistic seeing & thinking. ------------- That is one interpretation, but it is not the Theravada interpretation. Even so, it is adopted by many people, including many monks, who insist they are Theravada Buddhists. They say the Buddha never taught, "There is no self." But he did. :-) The understanding, "There is no self," is inconvenient in many ways. To get around it, people prefer to quote, "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." It opens the way for something other than "this" to be mine, I or self. And, yes, the Buddha did describe wrong views as including, "The self exists. The self does not exist. The self both exists and does not exist. The self neither exists not does not exist." But that does not prevent right view from being described as, "There is no self." Ken H 58021 From: "indriyabala" Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:31pm Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence indriyabala Hi Howard and KenH - Let me pull the key ideas from our three most recent messages and present them as a summary below. > >Tep (#58013): > But it is wrong for ANYONE, even the Arahants, to say or imply that > "there is no need at all to purify and train the mind". What is the > use of Buddhism if not for purification purposes (in sila, citta, and paaa)? > > Are you sure that your assertion of KenH's position is correct? {:>) ----------------------- > Howard (#58015): Sure? No, I'm not sure. That was what I understood. Ken will need to correct me if I'm wrong. .............................. KenH (#58018): The profundity is in anatta (there is no self; there are only dhammas). Anatta makes the Buddha's teaching profoundly different from every other teaching. I try to express my beginner's understanding of this new way of seeing the world, but that leaves me open to accusations. In this instance, I am accused of denying the Buddha's teaching of "Purify the mind." But I am not doing that at all. I am trying to see the Middle Way. In the Middle Way there are only dhammas. So it is dhammas that purify the mind, not Ken H. Ken H is ultimately just a figure of speech. How does this beginner's understanding affect my life? It means I don't have the conventional religious zeal to radically change my lifestyle in an effort to attain enlightenment. But that doesn't mean I favour the other extreme - 'eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.' The Middle Way is, first and foremost, to understand the conditioned dhammas that are arising now - citta, cetasika and rupa. ... ... ................... Tep: Boy, you were good, Ken. Instead of accepting the fact that the Buddha's Teachings are about purifications(visuddhi) which aim at eradicating dukkha ["Herein, purification should be understood as nibbana, which being devoid of all stains, is utterly pure. The path of purification is the path to that purification; it is the means of approach that is called the path." Vism. I, 5], you just evaded the issue and jumped back to your favorite Paramattha-dhamma theme : "there are only conditioned dhammas that are arising now - citta, cetasika and rupa". Boy, you were so slippery like a skillful politician! Warm regards, Tep, your friend. =========== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > Hi Tep and Howard, > > ---------- > T: > This was the first time that I completely "missed the point"! > ---------- > > Howard, also, completely missed the point - as he has done > throughout all of our discussions on this particular point. > > I am happy to try again, but you won't like it: :-) > > The Buddha taught anatta. Knowledge of anatta profoundly changes the > way we see the world. We might insist, "No, I can go on seeing the > world in the same way I always have done, and I can practise Dhamma > (develop insight) at the same time." But that would be a grave > misunderstanding: knowledge of the Dhamma really does change > everything. > > As Howard said, the Buddha taught suffering and release from > suffering. The method he taught was: do good, refrain from evil and > purify the mind. > > The obvious question is: So where is the profundity in that: isn't > that what every great teacher has taught? > (snipped) 58022 From: connie Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:50pm Subject: missed ya nichiconn :) mike! i was beginning to regret not having said as long as the funeral wasn't yours... but then again??? may your next be the last, or close to it... i hear there's a milk route. no wiser here on the ways of 58023 From: connie Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:53pm Subject: niamitampoko ;) nichiconn indriyabala, joop and ? :) von buddhaghosa's sri lankan vissudhi way. purification/purity/reinheit. tepster: "What is the use of Buddhism?" what is "need"? to train? the mind? it makes me smile to think we might pick and choose what we believe... peace, c. The Guide: 238. (Pe 54, 91; Dh. 183; D.ii,49). What is called 'any kind of evil' is the three kinds of misconduct, namely bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, and mental misconduct. These ten unprofitable courses of action, namely killing breathing things, taking what is not given, and misconduct in sensual-desires; false speech, malicious speech, harsh speech, and gossip; and covetousness, ill will, and wrong-view. 239. These are two kinds of action, namely choice and concomitant of cognizance (cf. Pe 35-6). 240. Herein, killing breathing things, malicious speech and harsh speech are moulded by hate; taking what is not given, misconduct in sensual-desires, and false speech are moulded by greed; and gossip is moulded by delusion. These seven kinds of acting are action as choice. 241. Covetousness is greed as a root of the unprofitable; ill will is hate as a root of the unprofitable; wrong view is the wrong path. These three kinds of acting are action as concomitant of cognizance. That is why it was said 'action as choice and action as concomitant of cognizance' (see #239). 242. When a root of the unprofitable comes to [expression by] the means [consisting of body or speech], it comes to [expression as] one [of the four] bad ways, namely those through will, hate, fear, or delusion. 243. [44] Herein, when it comes to [expression as] the bad way through will, it is moulded by greed; when it comes to [expression as] the bad way through hate, it is moulded by hate; when it comes to [expression as] the bad ways through fear and delusion, it is moulded by delusion. 244. Herein, greed is abandoned by means of [contemplating] ugliness, hate by means of loving-kindness, and delusion by means of understanding. Likewise, greed is abandoned by means of onlooking-equanimity, and hate by means of loving-kindness and compassion, and delusion is abandoned and disappears by means of sympathetic-gladness. That is why the Blessed One said 'No doing of any kind of evil, ...' (#243). 245. And what is called 'any kind of evil' is the eight wrongnessess, namely wrong view, wrong intention, wrong speech, wrong action, wrong livelihood, wrong effort, wrong mindfulness, and wrong concentration. These are called 'any kind of evil'. Any non-effecting, non-doing, non-practising, of these eight wrongnesses is called 'no doing any kind of evil'. 246. When the eight wrongnesses are abandoned, the eight rightnesses reach excellence (sampajjanti). Any effecting of, producing excellence in (sampaadana), the eight rightnesses is called 'perfecting (upasampadaa) profitable skill'. 247. 'And purifying one's own heart' is the effecting, keeping in being, of the (S.ii,105), it is mindfulness of that. When the heart is purified, the categories become purified. That is why the Blessed One said ( ). 248. The purifying is of two kinds, namely the abandoning of hindrances and the eradication of underlying-tendencies. Also there are two planes of purifying, namely the plane of seeing and the plane of keeping in being. 249. Herein, that by penetration of which one purifies is Suffering. That from which one purifies is the Origin. That by which one purifies is the Path. And that which is purified is Cessation (cf. Pe 91). These are the four Truths. Hence the Blessed One said 'No doing any kind of evil ...' (#238). Guide 267: Herein, what is a Thread dealing with morality? A Thread dealing with morality is this: talk on giving, talk on virtue, talk on heaven and the diappointment in sensual desires and the benefits in renunciation (see M.i,379). 268. Herein, what is a Thread dealing with Penetration? A Thread dealing with penetration is this: any displaying of the four Truths. 269: In a Thread dealing with morality there is no act-of-understanding, there is no Path, there is no Fruit [of the Path]. In a Thread dealing with penetration there is the act-of-understanding, there is the Path, there is the Fruit [of the Path]. 58024 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 7:59pm Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence ken_aitch Hi Tep, Issue #4 overlaps with Issue #3, on which we seem to have reached agreement. As for the rest of it, I might agree or I might not. It depends on the way we understand what you have written. So I will nit-pick my way through it, and you can tell me what you think. ---------------------- Tep: > Metta is metta and only metta is metta, there is no "other metta". Are there "conventional khandhas" and "ultimately real khandhas"? Does that make sense? Khandhas are khandhas whichever way you look at them. --------------------- So far, so good! ---------------------------- T: > When you have attachment to khandhas, then there is a person being seen. ---------------------------- That's a difficult one. According to my understanding, there can be attachment to khandhas with or without the notion of a person being seen. Strictly speaking, attachment to khandhas occurs in cittas that have a khandha (a conditioned dhamma) as their object. So there is no concept of a person at that time. There can be wrong view (specifically, the view that there is a controlling entity somewhere inside or outside the khandha), and so in that way you could say there is both 'attachment to khandhas' and 'a person being seen' at the same time. ---------------------------------------------- T: > When you look at khandhas with the right view, you see dukkha, and you see the arising and the passing away of dukkha. ----------------------------------------------- Again, I am not saying any of that is wrong, but it is not the way I would put it. When you say "dukkha" in this instance, are you referring to the characteristic of conditioned dhammas or are you referring to conditioned dhammas themselves? I am not sure, but I think the "noble truth, dukkha" has the second meaning. If you were referring to the first meaning then I would have to add that the citta in which right view (miccha-ditthi cetasika) arises might have the characteristic, dukkha, as its object or it might not. In the early stages of vipassana development, miccha-ditthi will only know concepts of dhammas. Eventually, there will be direct insight into the nama characteristics or the rupa characteristics of a conditioned dhamma. Only in the final stages of mundane vipassana will the characteristic of dukkha (or of anicca or anatta) become directly known. --------------------------------- T: > You don't see dukkha as a person or an 'atta'. And you realize 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self'. --------------------------------- I wouldn't say it was a case of 'not seeing' something. I think you directly see anatta. That is, you directly see emptiness of self and emptiness of anything pertaining to a self. (And, of course, it is panna, not you, that directly sees.) Are there any significant differences in what each of us is saying? Ken H 58025 From: connie Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:17pm Subject: passing notes in studyhall nichiconn hello again, Joop***, Sarah*, Nina**, Illustrator ch II: << 59. > Illustrator, p119 [the] "Blessed" [one]) << ...has splendour of all limbs, perfect in every aspect, which is capable of inspiring confidence (clarity) in the eyes and minds of people eager to see his form-body. And he has his desire, in other words, the production of what is wanted, since whatever is wanted and needed by him as beneficial to himself or to others is then and there produced for him. And ***he has right effort called vocation***, which is the reason why he has gained the veneration of the whole world. >> 58026 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Tep) - In a message dated 4/19/06 7:45:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > > Hi Tep and Howard, > > ---------- > T: >This was the first time that I completely "missed the point"! > ---------- > > Howard, also, completely missed the point - as he has done > throughout all of our discussions on this particular point. ------------------------------------- Howard: LOLOL! ------------------------------------ > > I am happy to try again, but you won't like it: :-) > > The Buddha taught anatta. Knowledge of anatta profoundly changes the > way we see the world. > ------------------------------------ Howard: That depends on what one means by "knowledge". Knowledge *about* will not do it! ---------------------------------- We might insist, "No, I can go on seeing the > > world in the same way I always have done, and I can practise Dhamma > (develop insight) at the same time." ---------------------------------- Howard: You seem to think you know how I see the world, Ken. I think you do not. -------------------------------- But that would be a grave > > misunderstanding: knowledge of the Dhamma really does change > everything. --------------------------------- Howard: You seem to have a very superior attitude with regard to your "knowledge" of Dhamma, Ken. Enjoy! --------------------------------- > > As Howard said, the Buddha taught suffering and release from > suffering. The method he taught was: do good, refrain from evil and > purify the mind. > > The obvious question is: So where is the profundity in that: isn't > that what every great teacher has taught? --------------------------------- Howard: The profundity in that lies in what constitutes purifying the mindaccording to the Buddha. That he explained again and again during his 45 years of teaching his Dhamma. --------------------------------- > > The profundity is in anatta (there is no self; there are only > dhammas). Anatta makes the Buddha's teaching profoundly different > from every other teaching. -------------------------------------- Howard: That's true, in part. That is his brilliant realization of the nature of things. How to go about realizing for ourselves is the rest. -------------------------------------- > > I try to express my beginner's understanding of this new way of > seeing the world, but that leaves me open to accusations. In this > instance, I am accused of denying the Buddha's teaching of "Purify > the mind." But I am not doing that at all. I am trying to see the > Middle Way. > > In the Middle Way there are only dhammas. So it is dhammas that > purify the mind, not Ken H. Ken H is ultimately just a figure of > speech. -------------------------------------- Howard: There are only dhammas - period. That is the nature of reality, that and conditionality, and these remain its nature whether there is a middle way or not known in the world, and whether there is a Buddha in the worlds or not. It is dhammas, empty, conditioned, and fleeting, that do everything, and critical as regards that doing is the dhamma that is cetana (kamma). With useful, wholesome, and effective cetana, progress towards awakening can be made, but not without it. --------------------------------------- > > How does this beginner's understanding affect my life? It means I > don't have the conventional religious zeal to radically change my > lifestyle in an effort to attain enlightenment. > --------------------------------------- Howard: What I wouldn't give for the Buddha to hear you say that! ;-) What a terrible thing it would be for one to have zeal to radically change their lifestyle! Gosh, all those silly bhikkhus down through the centuries - what *were* they thinking of? Hmmph, and all that blather by the Buddha about urgency and acting as if one's hair were on fire. Gee, what eas *he* thinking about? Man! You are so off base it boggles the mind! ----------------------------------------- But that doesn't > > mean I favour the other extreme - 'eat, drink and be merry for > tomorrow we die.' > The Middle Way is, first and foremost, to understand the conditioned > dhammas that are arising now - citta, cetasika and rupa. --------------------------------------- Howard: Understanding intentionally cultivated? Gosh, no, that would be an assertion of ego. Hmm, appearing by accident or magic I guess! ---------------------------------------- > > Ken H > =================== With metta and regretful disbelief, 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) 58027 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:53pm Subject: The Buddha's Instructions: Abandon, Develop, and Try! upasaka_howard Hi, Ken & all - I present the following for your inspection. With metta, Howard *********************************************** Abandon the unskillful, develop the skillful "Abandon what is unskillful, monks. It is possible to abandon what is unskillful. If it were not possible to abandon what is unskillful, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because it is possible to abandon what is unskillful, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' If this abandoning of what is unskillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because this abandoning of what is unskillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' "Develop what is skillful, monks. It is possible to develop what is skillful. If it were not possible to develop what is skillful, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because it is possible to develop what is skillful, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' If this development of what is skillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because this development of what is skillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.'"— AN II.19 __________________________________ Abandoning the wrong factors of the path "One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort... "One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into right resolve: This is one's right effort... "One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into right speech: This is one's right effort... "One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into right action: This is one's right effort... "One tries to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter into right livelihood: This is one's right effort."— MN 117 /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) 58028 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The place of "meditation" ... Kamma as Taught by the Buddha [re-sent] jonoabb Hi Tep indriyabala wrote: >Hi, Jon ( Han, and others) - > >Long time no debate! > > Good to be talking to you again! >>Agreed, except that I would say that clear knowledge [panna] of >>kamma and its cessation *is* the practice/developing of the path. >> >Tep: Not to be nitpicking with your familiar remark above, but your >emphasized *is* is indeed the spark that lit the fire. > >The sutta SN XXXV.145 just defines the 'cessation of kamma' and 'the >path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma' (the 3rd and 4th >noble truths). Definitions are part of the 'pariyatti'; so they must >come before the actual practice(patipatti, patipada) -- unless you are >a Dhamma-matured genious whose 'panna' is rapidly developed while >listening/reading/considering/reflecting/contemplating and can attain >stream-entry (or higher) afterward. Here I use 'clear knowledge' as >English words, not a translation from the Pali 'parinna' or panna that >penetrates the noble truths. > >The following questions indicate my confusion (thanks for that):<) > >What does "clear knowledge [panna] of kamma and its cessation" mean to >you? The term "clear knowledge of kamma and its cessation" was a term used by you. I thought you were using 'clear knowledge' as a translation of one of the Pali terms referring to 'panna' (such as 'sampajanna'). >How would you 'develop' such panna, or is it automatic as in the >genious with Dhamma Eye? 'Panna' (of the level of insight knowledge), as I understand it, is the mental factor that accompanies a moment of vipassana (a moment of mundane path moment of consciousness). So everything we have discussed about vipassana bhavana applies. >Why *is* such panna "the practice/developing of the path"? If panna of the level of insight knowledge arises, the path is being developed, as I see it. >Is your 'panna' the combination of the third and the fourth noble truths? The fourth noble truth relates to the development of insight knowledge, so yes. The third noble truth (Nibbana) is not seen until actual enlightenment, but I would assume that as panna becomes more highly developed, a better idea of what is meant by 'Nibbana' is gained. >Is your 'panna' same as 'pariyatti' + 'patipatti' ? If the panna that arises is of the level of insight knowledge, that is patipatti, as I understand it. If there is understanding at an intellectual level only, that would be 'pariyatti'. >These 5 questions are enough raw material for future debates (that may >never, never end). {:>)) Looking forward to more. Do let me know how I scored ;-)) Jon 58029 From: "gazita2002" Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 10:48pm Subject: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence gazita2002 Hello KenH, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > Hi Tep and Howard, > ......snip...... > > In the Middle Way there are only dhammas. So it is dhammas that > purify the mind, not Ken H. Ken H is ultimately just a figure of > speech. > > How does this beginner's understanding affect my life? It means I > don't have the conventional religious zeal to radically change my > lifestyle in an effort to attain enlightenment. But that doesn't > mean I favour the other extreme - 'eat, drink and be merry for > tomorrow we die.' > > The Middle Way is, first and foremost, to understand the conditioned > dhammas that are arising now - citta, cetasika and rupa. > azita: well said, KenH. I believe the more one sees the reality of dhammas, even if only on the intellectual level, one becomes somehow less attached [at short moments] to everyday things in life. Somehow this all 'works' in a way that is beyond 'my' control. I'm surprised at times, how I react to events, less wanting to control the situation - and have been a control freak in the past :-) Patience, courage and good cheer azita. 58030 From: sharad goswami Date: Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:54pm Subject: Time Less Quotes By Lord Buddha -Must Read For Every Human pisean282311 Dear All, Time Less Quotes By Lord Buddha.The pyschology is discovering now what he said 2500 years ago. Though he should conquer a thousand men in the battlefield a thousand times, yet he, indeed, who would conquer himself is the noblest victor. Not to do any evil, To cultivate good, To purify one's mind, This is the advice of the Buddhas. Better a single day of life seeing the reality of arising and passing away than a hundred years of existence remaining blind to it. for more view:- http://www.cam-associates.com/articles/quotes_by_buddha.htm <...> 58031 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hullo sarahprocter... Hi Fabrizio, Welcome to DSG! Many thanks for the introduction and for letting us know you're here! Was it Pablo who introduced you by any chance? He's another fairly active member from Italy (rather quiet of late....). Whereabouts in Italy do you live? --- Fabrizio Bartolomucci wrote: I am a > theravada practicioner in Italy with a keen interest for canonical > texts and manuals. Regarding those latter I read and enjoyed the > Adhidammattha Sanghaa (I am reading it for the second time) and the > Visuddhi Magga. ... S: Sounds like you'll be right at home here - these are both texts commonly referred to. Larry and Nina have just started a series based on ch XV11 of Vism and will be delighted if you join in. Do you use B.Bodhi's edited English translation of Ab.Sangaha or the Narada one? Please quote or refer to anything you find especially helpful or puzzling for any reason. .... > > I attend most cerimonies and events at the Santacittarama monastery in > Italy and I particularly appreciate the teachings of Ven. Achaan > Chandapalo. .... S: Is he based at this monastery? Whereabouts in Italy is it? I'll look forward to talking to you later. Meanwhile, you may find it helpful to refer to the 'Useful Posts' in the files section of DSG, use the bookmarks section also. And if you wanted to scroll through the archives (like Pablo), check out: www.dhammastudygroup.org. The entire back-up of archive posts is kept here and it can also be used for searches. Metta, Sarah ======== 58032 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The place of "meditation" ... Viharati (corrected) jonoabb Hi Eric ericlonline wrote: >>Eric, you seem to be saying that a person who attains jhana is >>thereby developing the Noble Eightfold Path. Is that your view? >> > >Yes. I am sure you have the Tipitaka >in Pali on CD or something. Can you >do me a huge favor. Look up insight >and see if jhana or samatha is within >2 or 3 sentences. How often does this >occur i.e. never, sometimes, often, >always. I would be much obliged!! > This sounds a bit like a 'dhamma by numbers (statistics)' approach ;-)) There is no argument from me that the Buddha spoke often about (a) the role of samadhi [note: samadhi, not samatha, not jhana] in the development of the path, or (b) the development of insight to the stage of enlightenment by those who have already attained, or are capable of attaining, jhana, or (c) the benefits of developing samatha to all levels including jhana. But the proposition that merely by developing jhana one is thereby developing the path is something else altogether. If that's so, what is the difference between samatha and vipassana, as you see it? >>Jhana is a kusala state, but is is not the development of >>insight. >> > >Depends on the person. But to me >insight cannot be developed. It >is the fruit of a process of >investigation. You can't 'DO' >insight. > I agree that you can't 'DO' insight (and I've always said that 'meditation', which is a doing thing in most people's minds, is a poor translation for 'vipassana bhavana'). And I like your description of insight as 'the fruit of a process of investigation'. But the suttas do mention vipassana bhavana (as well as samatha bhavana), and bhavana translates as 'development'. I think of development in this context as more like 'increase' or 'growth', something that happens in its own good time but nevertheless, given the right conditions, inexorably. >>A >>person may attain jhana without ever having heard the teachings. >> > >Indeed. Like our >master as a child. > Good to find another point of agreement here ;-)) >>Seriously though, for the development of samatha, belief in a soul >>is not a hindrance; for the development of insight it would be. >>That is the difference. >> > >If someone is capable of samatha, >a silly little belief is not much >of a hindrance. For someone without >a belief and the inability of samatha, >now that is a hindrance (5 to be exact) >i.e. a belief (thought) is much easier >to overcome. > The 5 hindrances that are temporarily suppressed by jhana do not include wrong view. So whatever the level of an individual's attainment of jhana, there would still need to be the right understanding of the development of insight if the path is to be developed. That right understanding does not come out of the blue just because one has attained jhana. If there is to be insight after jhana has been attained, it's development must have taken place before (and independently of) the jhana attainment. >Look at yourself, you are >a true believer and yet...why aren't >you enlightened? What are you lacking? > > What I'm lacking, I believe, is developed insight, rather than developed samatha ;-)). Moments of (mundane) insight are moments of (mundane) path consciousness, requiring the contemporaneous arising of a number of mundane path factors, including both right view and right concentration. Moments of samatha development (including jhana) also require panna and concentration, but not of the kind that constitute the factors of the NEP. >What path factors are you ignoring? > > Moments of insight (vipassana) do not come about by somehow 'assembling' the individual path factors. There is clear sutta authority showing that they arise together and support each other. What conditions their arising is, broadly speaking, an interest in and understanding of the teachings and the relating of what one has properly understood to the present moment (and patience, confidence and good cheer ;-)). >>J> The quoted passage in my earlier post is from the commentary >>material to the Abhidhammattha Sangaha, as summarised by Bh Bodhi >>in his "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma' at the reference given. >> >> > >I am sorry Jon, >I dont do Abhidhamma >or its commentaries. >The Buddhas words are >good enough for me. > > Well the Abhidhamma is part of the Tipitaka and, regardless of one's views about exactly how it came to be in its present form, it has always been an integral part of the teachings, seen as fully consistent with the suttas and vinaya. As Phil and others have mentioned lately, there is a substantial overlap between the Suttanta and the Abhidhamma parts of the Tipitaka. In short, there's nothing to be afraid of, Eric (especially for one of your considerable attainments ;-))). Jon 58033 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fou great References sarahprocter... Dear Robert K (& Kom), Thanks for your quotes and references to the 'Four Great References' as given in the Mahaa Parinibaana Sutta. --- rjkjp1 wrote: <..> > "In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is > neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without > approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences > word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify > them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the > Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude > thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has > been misunderstood by that bhikkhu or by that community, or by > those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should > reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the > Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude > thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been > well understood by that bhikkhu or by that community, or by those > elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept > it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, > bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve."' (DN > 16: Maha-parinibbana Sutta .... S: Yes, the whole section and the commentary on it are very good. Kom was referring to these Four Great References recently: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/56862 I may have quoted parts of the commentary on this section from the Mahaa Parinibbaana Sutta, but not all of it as I recall(I see it runs to several pages). Here are just a couple of extracts from it, 'Commentary on the Four Great References' (transl by Yang-Gu An, PTS). ***** From the beginning of the section: " 'Great References (mahaapadesa)': either 'great occasions' or 'great refrences' (mahaa-apadese). It means that the great reasons [for holding something to be the teaching] are stated by referring to various great people, beginning with the Buddha. " 'It should not be received with praise': It should not be listened to by a happy and delighted audience with exclamations of approval in advance [i.e of collation]. For if that is done, even if he [the monk] is afterwards told that it conflicts, he says: 'Can it be that what was correct before is now incorrect?', and so does not give up his wrong view.' "It should not be treated with scorn': One should not say in advance [i.e of collation]. 'What is this fool saying?', for it one does, he will not even say what it is proper to say....." ***** And from the last section of this part of the commentary: "But in the list [of four things] beginning with sutta, sutta means the three baskets whith the three Councils recited. 'Accordance with sutta' means legitimate by being in accord [with what is explicitly legitimate]. 'The word of the teacher' means the commentary.'One's own opinion' means one's own illumination through grasping an analogy or one's consequent understanding. "Of these, sutta should not be rejected, for he who rejects that rejects the Buddha himself. If what is legitimate by being in accord agrees with the sutta, it should be accepted, but otherwise not. If the word of a teacher agrees with the sutta, it should be accepted, but otherwise not. One's own opinion is weakest of all, but if it agrees with the sutta, it should be accepted, but otherwise not. "'The three Councils' are the one of five hundred monks, the one of seven hundred, the one of a thousand. Only a sutta transmitted through them is authoritative; any other is a contemptible sutta, not to be accepted. Even though the words and syllables appear in the latter, they should be known 'as ones which do not appear in the Sutt, are not found in the Vinaya.' " ***** Thanks for reminding me of it. Was there any special reason for drawing it to our attention? Metta, Sarah ============ 58034 From: "Joop" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:04am Subject: Kind of khandhas? Was: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence jwromeijn Hallo Tep, KenH, all Tep: > Metta is metta and only metta is metta, there is no "other metta". Are there "conventional khandhas" and "ultimately real khandhas"? Does that make sense? Khandhas are khandhas whichever way you look at them. Only being an observer of your discussion, this catched my eye (and after it catched my mind and after that catched my adrenaline etc) Some days ago I read in Bhikkhu Bodhi's guide to the Abhidhammatattha Sangaha (CMA) a distisguisment between "the five aggregates" (khandhas) AND "the five aggregates of clinging" (Ch VII paragrafs 34 and 35. BB explained in his guide to par. 35: "The four mental aggregates of the supramundane plane are not aggregates of clinging because they entirely transcend the range of clinging; that is, they cannot become objects of grees or wrong views" (p. 286) That was new to me: four of the five (not the material experienced aka rupa) khandhas have two "states". Of course mundane versus supramundane is not the same as conventional versus paramattha but still Tep (and KenH) seems not to be totally correct. Any comments? (I had to be careful because I also did read in this CMA: "It should be noted that a citta in its immediacy cannot become an object, for the cognizer cannot cognize itself; but A CITTA in an individual mental continuum CAN EXPERIENCE earlier cittas in that same continuum as well as THE CITTAS OF OTHER BEINGS." (p.136; capitals me) And Sarah tried to explain that commentaries explained this meant the opposite of the quoted!) BTW Starting tomorrow I live five days without computer, making a long distance walk. Metta Joop 58035 From: "Joop" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:05am Subject: On spice and paradoxes [ was: [dsg] Re: Beliefs jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi Joop, > Hallo Larry Thanks for your reaction. I will give four remarks: - You seem to say the Buddha said in SN 22 59 that "paramattha dhammas are anatta because they are not subject to control". Of course I knew this Sutta, but that's not using the tern "paramattha". What about my comment that 'anatta' is not meant by the Buddha as a property of realities but as a warning to us, not with a ontological but with a soteriological intention? - About the "desire the end of desire". I think we had to begin with accepting our desires ans seeing the roots of them (for example in "formal" vipassana meditation) - First you say this desire the end of desire is a "paradox" and in the end of your message you are calling it a "problem" which has a resolution. That's not the same: it's a paradox with which we (or: I) can live. - To be honest I (till now) always skip texts with go about the distinguishment prompted - unprompted because this simply does not resonate in me. And it still does not; but please don't try to explain; not only it's to technical, it doesn't resonate in me. Metta Joop 58036 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence egberdina Hi, Ken and all, The following came to mind, prompted I assume by what you wrote. > > An uninstructed worldling is, in ultimate reality, just a few > conditioned namas and rupas. So too is an ariyan disciple. So what > is there to feel inferior about? Where is the need to purify and > train the mind? > > Yes, I know the Middle Way involves a sense of urgency, but it, like > every other facet of the Path, is at the level of paramattha > dhammas. > > If I understand you correctly, an uninstructed worldling, arayan, and cockroach are identical in being a bunch of conditioned namas and rupas. That suits me fine. Let's get rid of that nonsense about the privilege of human birth. Hey, wait a minute, wouldn't that be an instance of Ken dhamma? ( :-)) -- There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58037 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:07am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 425 - mindfulness/sati (g) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== (Ch26 - mindfulness/sati continued) We should know the difference between ultimate realities and concepts. If we only know concepts and not ultimate realities we believe that a person or self really exists. We tend to think of a whole of mind and body, of the human person. When we study the Dhamma we learn that what we call mind are different types of citta accompanied by different cetasikas, and that these change all the time. What we call body are different rpas, some of which are produced by kamma, some by citta, some by temperature and some by nutrition. These rpas arise and then fall away, they change all the time. Through the study of the Dhamma we learn about the different conditions for the cittas, cetasikas and rpas which arise. For instance, people are born with different bodily features: some are beautiful, some are ugly, some are strong in body, some are weak. Such differences are caused by kamma. People have, as we say in conventional language, different characters, and through the Dhamma we acquire a more precise understanding of the conditions for their different characters. People had, in past lives, different abilities, different inclinations, and these have been accumulated from one moment of citta to the next moment of citta; therefore, they can condition the citta arising at the present moment. Kusala cittas and akusala cittas which arise are conditioned by accumulated inclinations to wholesomeness and unwholesomeness. We have pleasant experiences and unpleasant experiences through the senses and these are conditioned phenomena, they are vipkacittas produced by kamma. When we study the different conditions for the phenomena which arise we will understand more clearly that they are only fleeting phenomena, that there is no person or self who can exert control over the events of life. ***** (Ch26 - mindfulness/sati to be contd) Metta, Sarah ====== 58038 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fou great References rjkjp1 Dear Sarah, Yes, someone suggested that only suttaanta - not Abhidhamma - are the references. What does sutta mean in the text your quote? Robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Robert K (& Kom), > > Thanks for your quotes and references to the 'Four Great References' as > given in the Mahaa Parinibaana Sutta. > > --- rjkjp1 wrote: > <..> > > "In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is > > neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without > > approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences > > word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify > > them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the > > Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude > > thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has > > been misunderstood by that bhikkhu or by that community, or by > > those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should > > reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the > > Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude > > thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been > > well understood by that bhikkhu or by that community, or by those > > elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept > > it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, > > bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve."' (DN > > 16: Maha-parinibbana Sutta > .... > S: Yes, the whole section and the commentary on it are very good. Kom was > referring to these Four Great References recently: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/56862 > > I may have quoted parts of the commentary on this section from the Mahaa > Parinibbaana Sutta, but not all of it as I recall(I see it runs to several > pages). > > Here are just a couple of extracts from it, 'Commentary on the Four Great > References' (transl by Yang-Gu An, PTS). > ***** > From the beginning of the section: > > " 'Great References (mahaapadesa)': either 'great occasions' or 'great > refrences' (mahaa-apadese). It means that the great reasons [for holding > something to be the teaching] are stated by referring to various great > people, beginning with the Buddha. > > " 'It should not be received with praise': It should not be listened to by > a happy and delighted audience with exclamations of approval in advance > [i.e of collation]. For if that is done, even if he [the monk] is > afterwards told that it conflicts, he says: 'Can it be that what was > correct before is now incorrect?', and so does not give up his wrong > view.' > > "It should not be treated with scorn': One should not say in advance [i.e > of collation]. 'What is this fool saying?', for it one does, he will not > even say what it is proper to say....." > ***** > And from the last section of this part of the commentary: > > "But in the list [of four things] beginning with sutta, sutta means the > three baskets whith the three Councils recited. 'Accordance with sutta' > means legitimate by being in accord [with what is explicitly legitimate]. > 'The word of the teacher' means the commentary.'One's own opinion' means > one's own illumination through grasping an analogy or one's consequent > understanding. > > "Of these, sutta should not be rejected, for he who rejects that rejects > the Buddha himself. If what is legitimate by being in accord agrees with > the sutta, it should be accepted, but otherwise not. If the word of a > teacher agrees with the sutta, it should be accepted, but otherwise not. > One's own opinion is weakest of all, but if it agrees with the sutta, it > should be accepted, but otherwise not. > > "'The three Councils' are the one of five hundred monks, the one of seven > hundred, the one of a thousand. Only a sutta transmitted through them is > authoritative; any other is a contemptible sutta, not to be accepted. Even > though the words and syllables appear in the latter, they should be known > 'as ones which do not appear in the Sutt, are not found in the Vinaya.' " > ***** > > Thanks for reminding me of it. Was there any special reason for drawing it > to our attention? > > Metta, > > Sarah > ============ > 58039 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence egberdina Hi Ken, Howard, I've been cutting and splitting wood all day, which doesn't seem to be a reason the following came to mind. But it came to mind all the same. Like Howard, I was wondering about the inferiority bizzo you were writing about. But then it struck me what a contrast inferiority is to how advanced on the path you must be to know path from not-path, Herman-dhamma from proper Dhamma. Or am I confusing dhamma with path, or tipitaka with reality? Again, :-) all round. > According to the Dhamma, nama is definitely a separate reality from > rupa. Also, according to the Dhamma, no two objects can ever be > experienced together. So when, for example, seeing consciousness > becomes the object of [mind door] consciousness, only seeing > consciousness is experienced. No visible-object rupa, eye-door rupa, > or cetasika nama is experienced at that moment. > > -- There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58040 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fou great References sarahprocter... Dear Robert, --- rjkjp1 wrote: > Dear Sarah, > Yes, someone suggested that only suttaanta - not Abhidhamma - are > the references. What does sutta mean in the text your quote? > Robert .... S: More is given, but didn't this part make it clear? > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott > wrote: > > And from the last section of this part of the commentary: > > > > "But in the list [of four things] beginning with sutta, sutta > means the > > three baskets which the three Councils recited. .... S: Later in the commentary, after the parinibbana of the Buddha, Maha Kassapa says (same PTS transl): "Let me just be patient, for the Dhamma which the Blessed One taught is like a heap of flowers not yet tied together. As flowers blown by the wind scatter here and there, so by the influence of people like this [Subhadda], as time passes, a rule of training or two will be lost from the Vinaya. A question or two will be lost from the Sutta; a difference between stages or two will be lost from the Abhidhamma, so in due course the root is destroyed, we will become like demons. Therefore I will have the Dhamma and Vinaya recited. When it is done, this Dhamma and Vinaya will be immovable like the flowers tied together by strong string." S: Many other references to the Abhidhamma in the commentary too: On the last words of the Buddha: "Thus all of this has been told and discussed for forty-five years from my enlightenment to my parinibbaana; three baskets, five Nikaayas, nine branches (a'nga), eighty-four thousand groups of dhamma; these are the major divisions. Thus these eighty-four thousand groups of dhamma remain. I alone attain parinibbaana, and now I alone advise and instruct. After I have attained parinibbaana, these eighty-four thousand groups of dhamma will advise and instruct you." Hope this helps. Metta, Sarah ======= 58041 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hullo fbartolom Hi Sarah, thanks for your welcome, very kind of you. Actually it was some Phuntsog Tashi to introduce me to this list as one where Abhidhamma topics would be covered. I am sorry but I am not aware of any Pablo, if that is his real name, neither on the net or in the "real" italian Sangha. As for me I live in Rome near the sea and thus not far from the italian theravada monastery of Santacittarama. Ciao, fabrizio --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Fabrizio, > > Welcome to DSG! Many thanks for the introduction and for letting us know > you're here! Was it Pablo who introduced you by any chance? He's another > fairly active member from Italy (rather quiet of late....). Whereabouts in > Italy do you live? <...> 58042 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 0:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Are concepts impermanent? fbartolom --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > > Hi Rob M., All > > As I always argue...concepts are mental-formations and therefore are > of course impermanent. There are no contradictions in Sutta > interpretation when concepts are understood as mental-formations. Concepts are not proper mental formations or else they could not be shared with other people. In fact they embody vocal intimation and/or body intimation and other derived matter in the form of writings that both belong to the rupa aggregate. Thus they are of course impermanent like all conditions, but their condition are complex enough to make them much more stable than proper mental formations. > The 'commentarial view' that "concepts don't exist" is a mistake > IMO. Concepts belong to the conventional reality, like me, you, the president of the US and an apple. So they do not exist as ultimate (paramattha) reality. > There is also no need to create a "two realities" viewpoint and so > on. The Suttas > do not support these views and do not even bother to deal with > them. Suttas already identify two realities at least on the basis of the condition of the audience. Usually the Buddha talked according to the conventional reality when speaking to lay people or novices, and in ultimate reality terms when talking to advance monks - anyway see also the exception of Anathapindika last days. Surely, anyway, this distinctions is brought to the higher terms in the Abhidhamma Pitaka and its commentaries that, in fact, are focused just on ultimate reality. 58044 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fou great References rjkjp1 --- Dear Sarah, Thank you. One thing that would be helpful is the actual reference. What page, what is the name of book?. Robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > --- rjkjp1 wrote: > > > Dear Sarah, > > Yes, someone suggested that only suttaanta - not Abhidhamma - are > > the references. What does sutta mean in the text your quote? > > Robert > .... > S: More is given, but didn't this part make it clear? > > > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott > > wrote: > > > And from the last section of this part of the commentary: > > > > > > "But in the list [of four things] beginning with sutta, sutta > > means the > > > three baskets which the three Councils recited. > .... > S: Later in the commentary, after the parinibbana of the Buddha, Maha > Kassapa says (same PTS transl): > > "Let me just be patient, for the Dhamma which the Blessed One taught is > like a heap of flowers not yet tied together. As flowers blown by the wind > scatter here and there, so by the influence of people like this > [Subhadda], as time passes, a rule of training or two will be lost from > the Vinaya. A question or two will be lost from the Sutta; a difference > between stages or two will be lost from the Abhidhamma, so in due course > the root is destroyed, we will become like demons. Therefore I will have > the Dhamma and Vinaya recited. When it is done, this Dhamma and Vinaya > will be immovable like the flowers tied together by strong string." > > S: Many other references to the Abhidhamma in the commentary too: > > On the last words of the Buddha: > > "Thus all of this has been told and discussed for forty-five years from my > enlightenment to my parinibbaana; three baskets, five Nikaayas, nine > branches (a'nga), eighty-four thousand groups of dhamma; these are the > major divisions. Thus these eighty-four thousand groups of dhamma remain. > I alone attain parinibbaana, and now I alone advise and instruct. After I > have attained parinibbaana, these eighty-four thousand groups of dhamma > will advise and instruct you." > > Hope this helps. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= > 58045 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] More questions about Ajaan Sujin egberdina Hi Sarah, A bit of a personal question about K. Sujin. No need to answer if you feel it inappropriate. Did K. Sujin have children? Kind Regards Herman -- There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58046 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] More questions about Ajaan Sujin sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > A bit of a personal question about K. Sujin. No need to answer if you > feel > it inappropriate. > > Did K. Sujin have children? ... S: No. Metta, Sarah ======== 58047 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fou great References sarahprocter... Rob, --- rjkjp1 wrote: > Dear Sarah, > Thank you. One thing that would be helpful is the actual reference. > What page, what is the name of book?. > Robert ... 'The Buddha's Last Days'. (translator, publisher, section given in my first post). Commentary on the 4 Great Refs, ch 1V, pp 114-121. S. 58048 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] More questions about Ajaan Sujin fbartolom --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott > > Did K. Sujin have children? > ... > S: No. In the conventional or ultimate sense? ;-) 58049 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 2:58am Subject: [dsg] James' Long Response (Re:what is sati.) buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi James, > > Thanks for all your considered comments in your long response to several > of us. Pls excuse the snipping: James: Thanks for the reply to this post. I thought it had died a quiet death. ;-)) > > --- buddhatrue wrote: > > Well, to break it down, again from the Nidanasamyutta Sutta: > > > > "And what, bhikkhus, is craving? There are these six classes of > > craving: craving for forms, craving for sounds, craving for odours, > > craving for tastes, craving for tactile objects, craving for mental > > phenomena. This is called craving." > > > > Is sati a form? > > Is sati a sound? > > Is sati an odour? > > Is sati a taste? > > Is sati a tatile object? > > Is sati a mental phenomena (like a thought, feeling, or emotion)? > ... > S: The last. Sati is a mental phenomena. Here, I believe, mental phenomena > refers to anything experienced through the mind-door. Like feeling, > awareness is a mental factor which not only accompanies consciousness, but > can also be experienced. When it's experienced, it can be with wise or > unwise attention. Do you not agree? James: I did some research and I agree with you because of this teaching that I found: "Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the seven factors for Awakening. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the seven factors for Awakening? There is the case where, there being mindfulness as a factor for Awakening present within, he discerns that 'Mindfulness as a factor for Awakening is present within me.' Or, there being no mindfulness as a factor for Awakening present within, he discerns that 'Mindfulness as a factor for Awakening is not present within me.' He discerns how there is the arising of unarisen mindfulness as a factor for Awakening. And he discerns how there is the culmination of the development of mindfulness as a factor for Awakening once it has arisen" This clearly points to the fact that sati can be the object of sati. I stand corrected- thanks for pointing out my error. :-) > ..... > > "And what, bhikkhus, is clinging? There are these four kinds of > > clinging: clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging > > to rules and vows, clinging to a doctrine of self. This is called > > clinging." > > > > Is sati a sensual pleasure? > > Is sati a view? > > Is sati a rule or vow? > > Is sati a doctrine of self? > ... > S: Clinging to sensual objects (kaamupaadaana) includes all objects of > clinging that are not accompanied by the others with wrong view. So all > the 'mental phenomena' above are included. (Only exceptions as others have > said are supramundane dhammas). James: Not sure what you are saying, but okay. > .... > <...> > > So, why is all of this important? This is important because it > > isn't helpful to believe that sati can be the object of craving or > > clinging. Unlike what Sarah has said above, the doctrine of self > > doesn't cause clinging to everything except the paths, the fruits, > > and nibbana- clinging is what causes the doctrine of self! > .... > S: And yet it is only when the wrong idea of self is eradicated that other > kinds of wrong view are also eradicated and the release from samsara is > assured. I agree with you that craving (and ignorance) are what leads to > the cycle, but it is particularly craving with wrong view. James: Here I don't agree with you. You seem to be rewriting dependent origination to put an emphasis on the 'wrong idea of self' which the Buddha didn't teach. You would have to show me some evidence that when the Buddha taught craving of the Four Noble Truths, he particularly meant craving with the wrong view of self. This is what the Buddha taught: "And this, monks is the noble truth of the origination of dukkha: the craving that makes for further becoming accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming." Here I don't see evidence of "particularly craving with wrong view" I see equal credit being put to craving for sensual pleasure and craving for becoming/non-becoming. Frankly, I believe the Buddha places the emphasis on craving for "passion and delight, relishing now here and now there" "craving for sensual pleasure". Sarah, your emphasis seems to be in the wrong direction. > > Even when it doesn't arise, the latent tendency is still there. > .... > > > What I have also hoped to point out with this post is that the KS > > philosophy places the wrong emphasis on the doctrine of self because > > it doesn't rightly see the doctrine of self in terms of dependent > > origination. > .... > S: The first link is avijja - it is especially the ignorance of the 4NT. > While there is a wrong idea of self having mastery over states, there > cannot be any removal of avijja. James: Again, you are re-writing dependent origination. It's the wisdom which sees the dhammas > for what they are that removes avijja, making it possible for the 4NT to > be known. James: And again, you are re-writing dependent origination. > .... > > I hope this post hasn't been too long, but this is a complicated > > issue. > ... > S: I agree it's complicated and I was glad you wrote a long, detailed and > well-reasoned post. James: Thank you. Can we agree that all aspects need to be stressed - > i.e ignorance, craving and wrong view? James: Yes, I can agree with that- AS LONG AS IF THEY ARE STRESSED EQUALLY! Putting the emphasis on wrong view of self re-writes dependent origination. I also agree with you (I think), > that it's usually clinging to an idea (or fantasy) of sati, rather than > sati itself.... James: Thank you, that was my main point. > > Thanks for helping me to reflect more on this. James: No, thank you for the opportunity. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======== > Metta, James 58050 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] More questions about Ajaan Sujin sarahprocter... Hi Fabrizio, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott > > > Did K. Sujin have children? > > ... > > S: No. > > In the conventional or ultimate sense? ;-) ... S: Take your pick;-) Oh, you'll be right at home here with that kind of question....;-);-) Ciao, Sarah p.s near Rome, by the sea -- very nice:) ================= 58051 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fou great References rjkjp1 Dear Sarah I searched the PTS website and can't find the book . I want to order it, how did you get from Pali Text society, perhpas it has an IBBN number that I can use to find it, the website is not easy to search? Robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Rob, > > --- rjkjp1 wrote: > > > Dear Sarah, > > Thank you. One thing that would be helpful is the actual reference. > > What page, what is the name of book?. > > Robert > ... > 'The Buddha's Last Days'. (translator, publisher, section given in my > first post). Commentary on the 4 Great Refs, ch 1V, pp 114-121. > > S. > 58052 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:52am Subject: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ? [was: [dsg] Re: How to radiate metta buddhatrue Hi Joop, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > > I adressed my original message to Nina and James because this two > honorable DSG-participants are the most pure representatives > of "dedicated to the Dhamma" c.q. (to) meditation". Thank you for the compliment, but I don't think I deserve it. As far as a great debate about meditation, I don't know if that would work. We have debated that subject many times in the past and it usually ends up being a semantic argument. Mention meditation and the opposing side wants to get highly technical as to how to define meditation (and meditators): how it is defined in the suttas, how it is defined in the commentaries, and how it is defined in the sub-commentaries. After they get done will all this analytical probing, they usually come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as meditation!! LOL! Really, it reminds me of the trial of Bill Clinton when he tried to escape impeachment due to his lying. What did he do? He tried to turn it into a semantic issue by analyzing and defining what "sex" is and what "is" is! It was hilarious! So the opposing side will try to wiggle out of the meditation issue by defining the terms to death. That doesn't make for a very healthy debate. Metta, James > > Remarks are welcome > > Metta > > Joop > 58053 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fou great References sarahprocter... Dear Rob, --- rjkjp1 wrote: > Dear Sarah > I searched the PTS website and can't find the book . I want to order > it, how did you get from Pali Text society, perhpas it has an IBBN > number that I can use to find it, the website is not easy to search? ... It's a great (slim) book - it has a wealth of detail and helpful notes. It was published in 2003 and we got it as the PTS free gift (it was the 'standard' free gift that year). Ok, here it is: isbn 0 86013 405 9 'The Buddha's Last Days', then in smaller print: 'Buddhaghosa's Commentary on the Mahaaparinibbaana Sutta'. I can't fine a recent catalogue to check either. S. 58054 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] More questions about Ajaan Sujin fbartolom --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarahprocterabbott" wrote: > > In the conventional or ultimate sense? ;-) > ... > S: Take your pick;-) > > Oh, you'll be right at home here with that kind of question....;-);-) Thanks dear... I am afraid to declare the question was a sort of test to check the atmosphere of the list but... happy to inform you fully passed it :-) > Ciao, > > Sarah > p.s near Rome, by the sea -- very nice:) Just going a bit OT by inviting you for a visit next time you come to Europe. Ciao, Fabrizio 58055 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] More questions about Ajaan Sujin egberdina Hey, Fabrizio, Welcome abroad (sic) Are you related to any other Fabrizio's? :-) Kind Regards Herman On 20/04/06, Fabrizio Bartolomucci wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott > > > Did K. Sujin have children? > > ... > > S: No. > > In the conventional or ultimate sense? ;-) > > -- There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58056 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:37am Subject: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence ken_aitch Hi Azita, ---------- > well said, KenH. I believe the more one sees the reality > of dhammas, even if only on the intellectual level, one becomes > somehow less attached [at short moments] to everyday things in life. ---------- Thanks Azita. Yes, as I understand it (I think I heard this on one of the recorded talks) intellectual right understanding continues to condition detachment while we remember the words. If we forget (e.g., by suffering amnesia or by dying and being reborn) then the detatchment is no longer conditioned. However, actual insight, (satipatthana) continues its conditioning effect whether we rember the words or not. (I think I've got that right.) Ken H 58057 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:55am Subject: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence ken_aitch Hi Herman, ------------ H: > If I understand you correctly, an uninstructed worldling, arayan, and cockroach are identical in being a bunch of conditioned namas and rupas. That suits me fine. Let's get rid of that nonsense about the privilege of human birth. -------------- Let's not get rid of any part of the Dhamma - whether it suits us fine or not. :-) The privilege of human birth can be explained in terms of paramattha dhammas. (Better still, in terms of the dhammas that arise in this life.) Therefore, it is instrumental in the development of right understanding. ------------------------ H: > Hey, wait a minute, wouldn't that be an instance of Ken dhamma? ( :-)) ------------------------ :-) It might be Ken dhamma, I hope not. It is the way I currently understand the real Dhamma. BTW, I have nothing against DSG members discussing their original theories - I just like to know that's what they're doing. Ken H 58058 From: "Joop" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 6:19am Subject: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ? [was: [dsg] Re: How to radiate metta jwromeijn Hallo James, Sarah, all I used the term 'great debate' because there have been some with this name in the discipline of astrophysics, and in physics, for example between Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein. Maybe you are right, the not-formal-meditators (or formal-not- meditators) have not yet responded to my proposal. And the moderators have not responded either. I don't want a repetition of the discussion for the hundreth time here. I want it on a higher level, and structured and moderated. I think that in general it's possible that there is - somewhere in the cosmos - a such a useful discussion about 'meditation' in a clean and healthy way. And when somewhere in the cosmos, why not in DSG? Perhaps I know the answer on that question myself: every remark of the 'meditators' to the 'non-meditators' of the kind "I don't agree with you" will be seen as an attack on mrs. Sujin who is present, not- present, both present and not-present, neither present nor not- present on DSG. How to prevent this? About your remark " 'the opposing side' usually come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as meditation"; perhaps a answer of sarah to a question of Marisa this week is useful: Marisa: "is there anywhere where Ajaan Sujin specifically addresses the role of meditation, and if so, what is her stance?" Sarah: "She'll say it depends on what the meaning of `meditation' is when someone uses the term. She'll ask what is meant by bhaavanaa (mental development) instead. It's not sitting still in a quiet room, but the development from the very beginning from hearing, considering and so on until awareness begins to develop. Gradually it will lead to more understanding if one keeps on the right path." Partly this quote proves you may be right, but stil This process as describes by Sarah can rather easaly be compared with vipassana-meditation (a la Mahasi, not a la Goenka!) because there it's said: not only mindfulness on your cushion but also in daily life. And this together (cushion + rest of daily life) can be seen as the practise of one of the aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path - right mindfulness. And, can be said after that conclusion, there also is another aspect of this NEP: right concentration, the jhanas mentioned, and practised, by the Buddha so many times in the Suttas. The overall conclusion: we have to do both! Curtain falls, applause, happy end. Metta Joop BTW Tomorrow we leave home (and computer) for a five-days walk in the east part of our small country --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Joop, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" > wrote: > > > > > I adressed my original message to Nina and James because this two > > honorable DSG-participants are the most pure representatives > > of "dedicated to the Dhamma" c.q. (to) meditation". > > Thank you for the compliment, but I don't think I deserve it. > > As far as a great debate about meditation, I don't know if that > would work. We have debated that subject many times in the past and > it usually ends up being a semantic argument. Mention meditation > and the opposing side wants to get highly technical as to how to > define meditation (and meditators): how it is defined in the suttas, > how it is defined in the commentaries, and how it is defined in the > sub-commentaries. After they get done will all this analytical > probing, they usually come to the conclusion that there is no such > thing as meditation!! LOL! > > Really, it reminds me of the trial of Bill Clinton when he tried to > escape impeachment due to his lying. What did he do? He tried to > turn it into a semantic issue by analyzing and defining what "sex" > is and what "is" is! It was hilarious! > > So the opposing side will try to wiggle out of the meditation issue > by defining the terms to death. That doesn't make for a very > healthy debate. > > Metta, > James > > > > > Remarks are welcome > > > > Metta > > > > Joop > > > 58059 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:10am Subject: Re: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ? [was: [dsg] Re: How to radiate metta sarahprocter... Hi Joop (James & all), --- Joop wrote: > The overall conclusion: we have to do both! > Curtain falls, applause, happy end. ... S: I discussed an alternative happy end with Charles D yesterday as we walked up the Peak where he gave me a mini-kung fu lesson on the top, more walking, breakfast outdoors and then a steep climb down to Central Hong Kong... We discussed many issues but agreed there really only ever is this moment now - so whether the seeing, hearing, thinking and other dhammas are arising as we walk around the country-side, sit on a cushion or at the computer really doesn't matter. Seeing is just seeing, hearing is just hearing, thinking is just thinking. And all the ideas we have about other people we think about helping, about trips to Hong Kong or the East of the Netherlands (in your case), are just ideas thought about at this moment. So any practice or meditation can only ever be now and only the present dhammas can ever be the objects of awareness. They're conditioned just as they are and this is how it also is for everyone, no matter how different their lifestyle or inclinations are. I think the point of the sutta is that we do have different ways or accumulations*, but there is only one way of insight that leads to the goal regardless. .... > BTW Tomorrow we leave home (and computer) for a five-days walk in the > east part of our small country ... S: Have a good trip and good weather, I hope! There can be meditation anytime on the trip when there is awareness, but not when there is any trying to make it happen:-). We'll try to save some spicy paradoxes, serious debates, arguments and disagreements for your return. [I see you're bringing up SSG issues, but I'll abstain from them in our threads as agreed:-)]. Metta, Sarah * accumulations refer to all the various mental tendencies (dhammas) arising now as we speak - the likes and dislikes for particular objects, the feelings, the rememrances of certain sights or sounds and so on. p.s I assure you that few people would like to see us moderating threads and issuing further guidelines. Ask James OFF-LIST for his valued opinion for a start:)lol,l0l! If you want an answer from us on any mod-related topics, pls ask us off-list only too - we prefer to just be ordinary members here too:-). ================= 58060 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:15am Subject: Defining 'Mental Phenomena' upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and James) - In a post of James', he quotes himself asking: Is sati a form? Is sati a sound? Is sati an odour? Is sati a taste? Is sati a tatile object? Is sati a mental phenomena (like a thought, feeling, or emotion)? and he quotes your reply: S: The last. Sati is a mental phenomena. Here, I believe, mental phenomena refers to anything experienced through the mind-door ... Sarah, would it not be more precise a definition to say that mental phenomena are any phenomena experienced *solely* through the mind-door? But isn't even that problematical? According to Abhidhamma, I believe, the water element is experienced solely through the mind-door. But it is rupa, not nama. Nobody would consider cohesion or any of the other experiences referred to as "the water element" to be mental phenomena. So, it seems to me that the definitional determination in Abhidhamma of what are mental phenomena is shaky. If one were to allow water as a body-sense phenomenaon, then the "experienced solely through the mind-door" definition would come close to sufficing, but even that would be off. Why? Because including "the mind-door" as part of the definition already begs the question. The terms "mind-door phenomena" and "mental phenomena" are virtual synonyms, and one needs clarification just as much (or as little) as the other. Actually, it seems to me that it is probably best to attempt to define neither of these synonyms. This is a fundamental category, a "paramattha category", if you will, that is not conceptually reducible, or so it seems to me. The terms 'mental phenomena' and 'mind-door phenomena' are probably best explained by ostensive definition, simply by giving examples. (Like redness and the smell of vinegar, we know it when we observe it. Just "point" and say "That's it!") 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) 58061 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Defining 'Mental Phenomena' upasaka_howard Hi again, Sarah & James - A bit more about the water element: There is a case to be made, I think, of knowing water mentally, but mentally in the sense of "conceptually". Actually, as soon as we include several basic qualities under the heading of "water element" we are already involving concept. (Disparate qualities like wetness, fluidity, and cohesion are what I have in mind.) But it is possibe that at least the first two of these qualities, individually, should not be thought of as mind-door phenomena, I believe. We never see or hear or smell or taste (coventional) water, and certainly not cohesion or fluidity. The real question that remains is to what extent water qualities are experienced through touch/body sense. I think that some positive argument for this can be made. We can dismiss the coldness (or heat) felt in touching water (in the H2O sense), for this is fire element, and we can dismiss the solidity that is there (and that IS part of what is experienced), but there remains at least two other things that are "picked up" in contacting conventional water, namely sensations of wetness and fluidity (or slipperiness). It does seem to me that these are body-door phenomena that are neither "earth", "air", nor "fire" - and that leaves just "water". Cohesion, however, is another matter. I think that it is actually the reification of a relation of sorts. From the conventional perspective, it is a fact that materials often do cohere. That is, the relation of sticking together occurs, and this is especially so in the presence of water and other liquids. I know of no means of knowing about that except inference. Perhaps the faculty of wisdom is able to nonconceptually grasp relations. If that is so, then perhaps cohesion would qualify as a first-class mind-door object. But opening the door to relations being first-class dhammas is a dangerous step. I believe! 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) 58062 From: "Joop" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:58am Subject: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ? [was: [dsg] Re: How to radiate metta jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Joop (James & all), > > Hallo Sarah, James, RobM, Christine, all I did send today my request off-list to the mods although generally speaking I prefer transparancy in decision-making and thus in on-list proposals (so I don't ask James; no reason to be afraid). You already started the discussion (I did too), but not structured enough. Perhaps RobM will be a good moderator for this discussion; Christine too. And about accumulations you said "accumulations refer to all the various mental tendencies (dhammas)arising now as we speak - the likes and dislikes for particular objects,the feelings, the rememrances of certain sights or sounds and so on." J: That is a rather good definition that makes it clear that this "accumulations" are not ultimate realities: they don't immediately fall away (and, a formal argument, they are not mentioned in the list of cittas+cetasikas+rupas+nibbana). ERGO: they are conventional realities (concepts)! Do you agree? Or is there a third class of realities? You said: "There can be meditation anytime on the trip when there is awareness, but not when there is any trying to make it happen:-)." J: I have no illusions about the effect of trying anything. But onely some kinds of meditation are possible during walking; for example jhana during walking will not really be a success. So discussions is onely possible if we distinguish different kinds of meditation! Thanks for your good wishes, it's the first really sunny spring- weekend so it will be good Metta Joop 58063 From: "ericlonline" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:59am Subject: [dsg] Re: Jhana Retreat ericlonline Hi Matheesha, You wrote: >This reply is quite late. It is quite interesting we are having the same experiences of jhana thousands of miles apart. Indeed! According to some of our friends here we must be having a bout with the same delusion bug! :-) >E: Where did you learn how > to enter the jhanas? >My first experience was quite by accident. I had read ven gunaratanas account of it. Then I came across a meditation centre in sri lanka which taught jhana as a prequel to vipassana. Lucky for you! >Recently I had an experience which was the strongest I have had. I was unable to breath (even if i wanted to) in a particular jhana state as mentioned in the suttas. I have had a similar experience while working on Anapanasati step 4, calming the body conditioner. The breath got so faint, only about a thimble full was going in and out. At first I was startled then I just relaxed with it. Another time while white water kayaking, I was stuck beneath the boat for longer than I wanted. After the initial fight/flight response died off, it was quite peaceful floating upside down in the moving current. Then I snapped out of that and finally got out of the boat and to the surface. Some yogis are able to stop their heart beat. It seems either indirectly thru the breath or directly. There is a meditation that some Tibetans do. They put on wet towels and sit outside in the cold winter air. They are able to gain control of the bodies heat regulation (normally an autonomic function) and not only stay warm but dry the towels! >After the experience was over the sati which arose after it was so clear/solid and lasted for hours. The equanimity was very strong, my mind not falling into desire or aversion. I could sense very subtle thoughts and changes in mood. It was a wonderful experience of the power of the dhamma. Yes, concentration can do wonderful things! >Recently I tried attaining concentration the way mentioned in the vitakkasanatana sutta by clearing the mind of defilements. It was also quite successful and I would recommend it to anyone. It is markedly differnt from the method of concentrating on one point. hmm, seems a different use of vicara and vitakka. Eliminate the defiling thoughts first and 'slide' into jhana. I think because you have experience in jhana, you are able to slide or go there when the thoughts subside. If you had no previous experience, your mind may not tend or be able to do this. What do you think? metta 58064 From: "ericlonline" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:15am Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence ericlonline Hi Ken H, -------------- E: > Take any 'x' and place it below. > 'x' exists: That is one extreme. 'x' > doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two > extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:... Read the sutta and let it roll around your mind. Duality of existence/non-existence. This is how the mind works and the Buddha was offering a way out via the middle. A way out of the suffering caused by this dualistic seeing & thinking. ------------- K> That is one interpretation, but it is not the Theravada interpretation. Even so, it is adopted by many people, including many monks, who insist they are Theravada Buddhists. They say the Buddha never taught, "There is no self." But he did. :-) NEWS FLASH : The Buddha was not a Theravadan! :-) Ken, all we have is interpretations! 2500 year old dead language interpreted and commented every millenia. 'No self' was just to get people with a kunf fu GI Joe death grip on the self to ease up on it. If you look at the 4 NT's there is no mention of self/no-self. Why is that? Come on, connect the dots. >The understanding, "There is no self," is inconvenient in many ways. To get around it, people prefer to quote, "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." It opens the way for something other than "this" to be mine, I or self. > >And, yes, the Buddha did describe wrong views as including, "The self exists. The self does not exist. The self both exists and does not exist. The self neither exists not does not exist." But that does not prevent right view from being described as, "There is no self." The tetralemma was to show the logical outcomes (views) of any postulated statement X. Lets take your belief in no-self. No-self Self Both Neither These are just the possible logical outcomes of dualistic thinking in Indian thought. That's it! The Middle Way as postulated in the 4NT's is not based on these 4 logical outcomes in reference to Self. Now, if you are hung up on (attached to) Self, then investigate No-Self and Both and Neither until you see that they are just views and can be relinquished and the Middle Path can then appear and open up. Read the Sutta and ponder it! metta 58065 From: "ericlonline" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:42am Subject: [dsg] Re: The place of "meditation" ... Viharati (corrected) ericlonline Hi Jon, >>Eric, you seem to be saying that a person who attains jhana is >>thereby developing the Noble Eightfold Path. Is that your view? >> > J>Yes. I am sure you have the Tipitaka >in Pali on CD or something. Can you >do me a huge favor. Look up insight >and see if jhana or samatha is within >2 or 3 sentences. How often does this >occur i.e. never, sometimes, often, >always. I would be much obliged!! > J>This sounds a bit like a 'dhamma by numbers (statistics)' approach ;-)) This was a rare time when I was not kidding. I was being serious asking you to do me a favor! No big deal if you dont have the time. I was curious is all. Maybe we would both learn something new. :-) J> But the proposition that merely by developing jhana one is thereby developing the path is something else altogether. If that's so, what is the difference between samatha and vipassana, as you see it? There really is no difference between them. They go hand in hand. This comes later in the commentaries. Where the object of meditation is defined as being a suitable samatha or vippassana based one. J>>Jhana is a kusala state, but is is not the development of >>insight. >> > E>Depends on the person. But to me >insight cannot be developed. It >is the fruit of a process of >investigation. You can't 'DO' >insight. J> I agree that you can't 'DO' insight (and I've always said that 'meditation', which is a doing thing in most people's minds, is a poor translation for 'vipassana bhavana'). And I like your description of insight as 'the fruit of a process of investigation'. > >But the suttas do mention vipassana bhavana (as well as samatha bhavana), and bhavana translates as 'development'. I think of development in this context as more like 'increase' or 'growth', something that happens in its own good time but nevertheless, given the right conditions, inexorably. Yes, doing vs non-doing. In this regard it may be beneficial to contemplate some of the other traditions like zen with their no-mind teachings. But these teachings are for a developed practitioner and not beginners trying to get the concepts down. J>Seriously though, for the development of samatha, belief in a soul >>is not a hindrance; for the development of insight it would be. >>That is the difference. >> > E>If someone is capable of samatha, >a silly little belief is not much >of a hindrance. For someone without >a belief and the inability of samatha, >now that is a hindrance (5 to be exact) >i.e. a belief (thought) is much easier >to overcome. > J> The 5 hindrances that are temporarily suppressed by jhana do not include wrong view. So whatever the level of an individual's attainment of jhana, there would still need to be the right understanding of the development of insight if the path is to be developed. Yes J>That right understanding does not come out of the blue just because one has attained jhana. If there is to be insight after jhana has been attained, it's development must have taken place before (and independently of) the jhana attainment. I dont see it that way. Jhana and its factors can be the basis of insight. Again, not splitting samatha and vipassana. E>Look at yourself, you are >a true believer and yet...why aren't >you enlightened? What are you lacking? > J>What I'm lacking, I believe, is developed insight, rather than developed samatha ;-)). Maybe both huh? Look at the Trancendental Dependent Origination which is what I was trying to get you to see! E>What path factors are you ignoring? > > J> Moments of insight (vipassana) do not come about by somehow 'assembling' the individual path factors. There is clear sutta authority showing that they arise together and support each other. Sure, I agree. Again, firing on all 8 cylinders. J> What conditions their arising is, broadly speaking, an interest in and understanding of the teachings and the relating of what one has properly understood to the present moment (and patience, confidence and good cheer ;-)). And good friends and good health and the ability to put ones views down and look and see (concentrate on) what is being revealed in the moment. >>J> The quoted passage in my earlier post is from the commentary >>material to the Abhidhammattha Sangaha, as summarised by Bh Bodhi >>in his "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma' at the reference given. >> >> > E>I am sorry Jon, >I dont do Abhidhamma >or its commentaries. >The Buddhas words are >good enough for me. > > J> Well the Abhidhamma is part of the Tipitaka and, regardless of one's views about exactly how it came to be in its present form, it has always been an integral part of the teachings, seen as fully consistent with the suttas and vinaya. As Phil and others have mentioned lately, there is a substantial overlap between the Suttanta and the Abhidhamma parts of the Tipitaka. Good to know. But I dont hold the leaves that tightly too grind them into leave particles. I like the leaves themselves and that is enough for me like all those that heard the original teachings and benefited. J>In short, there's nothing to be afraid of, Eric (especially for one of your considerable attainments ;-))). :-) You can take my "attainments" and 50 cents and get yourself a bowl of soup! metta 58066 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Are concepts impermanent? TGrand458@... Hi Anonymous In a message dated 4/20/2006 3:38:06 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, f.bartolomucci@... writes: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > > Hi Rob M., All > > As I always argue...concepts are mental-formations and therefore are > of course impermanent. There are no contradictions in Sutta > interpretation when concepts are understood as mental-formations. Concepts are not proper mental formations or else they could not be shared with other people. In fact they embody vocal intimation and/or body intimation and other derived matter in the form of writings that both belong to the rupa aggregate. TG: This logic makes no sense to me. Dependent Origination shows that all impinging conditions are "shared." Interesting conclusion that concepts are being called rupa. Within the context of this post I do not agree. Concepts are basically delusion. Thus they are of course impermanent like all conditions, but their condition are complex enough to make them much more stable than proper mental formations. TG: They are no more stable than the conditions that generate them ... i.e., nama and rupa. > The 'commentarial view' that "concepts don't exist" is a mistake > IMO. Concepts belong to the conventional reality, like me, you, the president of the US and an apple. So they do not exist as ultimate (paramattha) reality. TG: I don't subscribe or believe in a "two reality" system. > There is also no need to create a "two realities" viewpoint and so > on. The Suttas > do not support these views and do not even bother to deal with > them. Suttas already identify two realities at least on the basis of the condition of the audience. Usually the Buddha talked according to the conventional reality when speaking to lay people or novices, and in ultimate reality terms when talking to advance monks - anyway see also the exception of Anathapindika last days. TG: The Buddha is not addressing two different realities. The Buddha is speaking to people in different terms due to their respective levels of delusion. Please show a quote where the Buddha speaks to two different realities.?. I'm confident the closest you can find will be a quote dealing with "conventional language" and not a quote dealing with "two realities." Surely, anyway, this distinctions is brought to the higher terms in the Abhidhamma Pitaka and its commentaries that, in fact, are focused just on ultimate reality. TG: The Abhidhamma Pitaka is not focussed on "ultimate realities." That is an assumption based on commentaries. This is another case of mere language is being confused for ontology. TG 58067 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Defining 'Mental Phenomena' TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 4/20/2006 8:25:37 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, Sarah (and James) - In a post of James', he quotes himself asking: Is sati a form? Is sati a sound? Is sati an odour? Is sati a taste? Is sati a tatile object? Is sati a mental phenomena (like a thought, feeling, or emotion)? and he quotes your reply: S: The last. Sati is a mental phenomena. Here, I believe, mental phenomena refers to anything experienced through the mind-door ... Sarah, would it not be more precise a definition to say that mental phenomena are any phenomena experienced *solely* through the mind-door? But isn't even that problematical? According to Abhidhamma, I believe, the water element is experienced solely through the mind-door. But it is rupa, not nama. Nobody would consider cohesion or any of the other experiences referred to as "the water element" to be mental phenomena. So, it seems to me that the definitional determination in Abhidhamma of what are mental phenomena is shaky. TG: Here, I believe, problems with the separation of nama and rupa are being revealed. Nama and rupa are not "separate and distinct realities." Experiences are conditioned by both. Even a so-called "solely mental process" rely on mental states that were and are "composed/constructed" in conjunction with rupa. Contact (phassa) requires nama and rupa. Sati requires contact. Therefore, sati has both nama and rupa. TG 58068 From: "indriyabala" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 11:54am Subject: Kind of khandhas? Was: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence indriyabala Hi, Joop (KenH, Howard)- About Bhikkhu Bodhi's explanation on the khandhas, you kindly asked "Any comments?" Yes, I do have some. First, let's again look at his explanation : >BB (his guide to par. 35, p. 286): >The four mental aggregates of the supramundane plane are not aggregates of clinging because they entirely transcend the range of clinging; that is, they cannot become objects of greeds or wrong views. Tep: I understand the reason why the Buddha said the five khandhas were "aggregates of clinging". It is because clinging on these khandhas cannot avoid dukkha ["In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha". DN 22]. I do not think it is useful for us, who still have clinging(upadana), to worry about the supramundane plane right now. We should wisely learn from the Buddha and contemplate often on the Teachings to attain the right view 'this is not mine, this I am not, this is not my atta', the sooner the better. "And what are the five clinging-aggregates? "Whatever form past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that is called form as a clinging-aggregate. "Whatever feeling past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that is called feeling as a clinging-aggregate. "Whatever perception past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that is called perception as a clinging-aggregate. "Whatever (mental) fabrications past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near are clingable, offer sustenance, and are accompanied with mental fermentation: those are called fabrications as a clinging-aggregate. "Whatever consciousness past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that is called consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. "These are called the five clinging-aggregates." [SN XXII.48, Khandha Sutta] ............................ >Joop: >That was new to me: four of the five (not the material experienced aka rupa) khandhas have two "states". Of course mundane versus supramundane is not the same as conventional versus paramattha but still Tep (and KenH) seems not to be totally correct. Tep: Are mundane and supramundane the two states of the khandhas? Further, if you can, please explain what you understand about mundane khandhas versus supramundane khandhas. BTW Who invented these terms? Oh, one more thing : conventionmal versus paramattha is KenH's terminology, not mine! .................. >Joop: > Starting tomorrow I live five days without computer, making a long distance walk. Tep: Isn't that dependence on computers a kind of attachment? I guess it is. Karuna, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > > Hallo Tep, KenH, all > > > Tep: > Metta is metta and only metta is metta, there is no "other > metta". Are there "conventional khandhas" and "ultimately real > khandhas"? Does that make sense? Khandhas are khandhas whichever way > you look at them. > (snipped) 58069 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 8:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Defining 'Mental Phenomena' upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 4/20/06 2:48:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Howard > > In a message dated 4/20/2006 8:25:37 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > upasaka@... writes: > > Hi, Sarah (and James) - > > In a post of James', he quotes himself asking: > > Is sati a form? > Is sati a sound? > Is sati an odour? > Is sati a taste? > Is sati a tatile object? > Is sati a mental phenomena (like a thought, feeling, or emotion)? > > and he quotes your reply: > > S: The last. Sati is a mental phenomena. Here, I believe, mental > phenomena > refers to anything experienced through the mind-door ... > > Sarah, would it not be more precise a definition to say that mental > phenomena are any phenomena experienced *solely* through the mind-door? > But isn't even that problematical? According to Abhidhamma, I believe, the > water element is experienced solely through the mind-door. But it is rupa, > not > nama. Nobody would consider cohesion or any of the other experiences > referred > to as "the water element" to be mental phenomena. So, it seems to me that > the > definitional determination in Abhidhamma of what are mental phenomena is > shaky. > > > TG: Here, I believe, problems with the separation of nama and rupa are > being revealed. Nama and rupa are not "separate and distinct realities." > Experiences are conditioned by both. Even a so-called "solely mental > process" rely > on mental states that were and are "composed/constructed" in conjunction > with rupa. Contact (phassa) requires nama and rupa. Sati requires > contact. > Therefore, sati has both nama and rupa. > > TG ===================== I disagree with you on this one, TG. A child, to *be* a child, requires parents, but the child need not be a parent, and certainly is not his/her own parent. Dependencies are not identities. Turning to paramattha dhammas: Feeling depends on contact, and craving on feeling, but craving is distinguishable from feeling, and feeling is distinguishable from contact. To be conditioned by something, to depend on it, is not to be identical with it. A conditioned dhamma has no identity separate from its conditions nor the same as them. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 58070 From: "Joop" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:34pm Subject: Kind of khandhas? Was: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence jwromeijn Dear Tep When I'm back I try to respond. 'Try' because I ddon't have strong opinions, just curious open mind (on this topic) And yes I'm attached, even addicted to my computer Metta Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > > > Hi, Joop (KenH, Howard)- > > About Bhikkhu Bodhi's explanation on the khandhas, you kindly asked > "Any comments?" Yes, I do have some. > > First, let's again look at his explanation : > > >BB (his guide to par. 35, p. 286): > >The four mental aggregates of the supramundane plane are not > aggregates of clinging because they entirely transcend the range of > clinging; that is, they cannot become objects of greeds or wrong views. > > Tep: I understand the reason why the Buddha said the five khandhas > were "aggregates of clinging". It is because clinging on these > khandhas cannot avoid dukkha ["In short, the five clinging- aggregates > are dukkha". DN 22]. I do not think it is useful for us, who still > have clinging(upadana), to worry about the supramundane plane right > now. We should wisely learn from the Buddha and contemplate often on > the Teachings to attain the right view 'this is not mine, this I am > not, this is not my atta', the sooner the better. > > "And what are the five clinging-aggregates? > > "Whatever form past, future, or present; internal or external; > blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near is clingable, > offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that > is called form as a clinging-aggregate. > > "Whatever feeling past, future, or present; internal or external; > blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near is clingable, > offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that > is called feeling as a clinging-aggregate. > > "Whatever perception past, future, or present; internal or external; > blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near is clingable, > offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that > is called perception as a clinging-aggregate. > > "Whatever (mental) fabrications past, future, or present; internal > or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near are > clingable, offer sustenance, and are accompanied with mental > fermentation: those are called fabrications as a clinging-aggregate. > > "Whatever consciousness past, future, or present; internal or > external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near is > clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental > fermentation: that is called consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. > > "These are called the five clinging-aggregates." [SN XXII.48, Khandha > Sutta] > ............................ > > >Joop: > >That was new to me: four of the five (not the material experienced > aka rupa) khandhas have two "states". Of course mundane versus > supramundane is not the same as conventional versus paramattha but > still Tep (and KenH) seems not to be totally correct. > > Tep: Are mundane and supramundane the two states of the khandhas? > Further, if you can, please explain what you understand about mundane > khandhas versus supramundane khandhas. BTW Who invented these terms? > > Oh, one more thing : conventionmal versus paramattha is KenH's > terminology, not mine! > .................. > > >Joop: > > Starting tomorrow I live five days without computer, making a > long distance walk. > > Tep: Isn't that dependence on computers a kind of attachment? I guess > it is. > > > Karuna, > > > Tep > ====== > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > > > > Hallo Tep, KenH, all > > > > > > Tep: > Metta is metta and only metta is metta, there is no "other > > metta". Are there "conventional khandhas" and "ultimately real > > khandhas"? Does that make sense? Khandhas are khandhas whichever way > > you look at them. > > > (snipped) > 58071 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Defining 'Mental Phenomena' TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 4/20/2006 1:12:03 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: > TG: Here, I believe, problems with the separation of nama and rupa are > being revealed. Nama and rupa are not "separate and distinct realities." > Experiences are conditioned by both. Even a so-called "solely mental > process" rely > on mental states that were and are "composed/constructed" in conjunction > with rupa. Contact (phassa) requires nama and rupa. Sati requires > contact. > Therefore, sati has both nama and rupa. > > TG ===================== I disagree with you on this one, TG. A child, to *be* a child, requires parents, but the child need not be a parent, and certainly is not his/her own parent. Dependencies are not identities. TG: Not sure what you are disagreeing with. Did I make the claim that conditions were all identical??? Using your child analogy... A child "shares" qualities of his or her parents. Also, a child shares qualities with the food it eats, the air it breathes, and all other conditions that come in contact with it. All of these qualities together constitute the child. This does not mean there is no difference between them. When I say something is not separate, please don't assume I am saying that they are identical. Turning to paramattha dhammas: Feeling depends on contact, and craving on feeling, but craving is distinguishable from feeling, and feeling is distinguishable from contact. To be conditioned by something, to depend on it, is not to be identical with it. A conditioned dhamma has no identity separate from its conditions nor the same as them. TG: Again, perhaps you did not gather the meaning of my post. Putting aside the unnecessary "paramattha dhammas" context, I would agree with all the above ... although not certain if contact is distinguishable from feeling. :-) My point with nama and rupa, after all, is that "the child" is not separate-able as distinct and separate from his parents and other conditions. Nor is it identical as you have stated above. They are interrelated. Being that conditions are interrelated, my original point was to show that nama should not be spoken of as a "separate reality" from rupa. Again...not identical not identical not identical either. whew! LOL With metta, Howard TG 58072 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Defining 'Mental Phenomena' upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 4/20/06 4:59:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: > > My point with nama and rupa, after all, is that "the child" is not > separate-able as distinct and separate from his parents and other > conditions. Nor is > it identical as you have stated above. They are interrelated. > > Being that conditions are interrelated, my original point was to show that > nama should not be spoken of as a "separate reality" from rupa. > Again...not > identical not identical not identical either. whew! LOL > ======================= Sorry about that! ;-) We, in fact, DO agree! 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) 58073 From: Daniel Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:20am Subject: Vipassana and Satipattana daniell@... Hello. Often buddhist meditation is called "Vipassana meditation". But I think that speaking precisely, "Vipassana" (Special Insight) is not a meditation. It is a state of mind that should be reached by meditation. This state of mind is reached by practicing Satipattana meditation. So, if one wants to be really precise, the Satipattana is the meditation and Vipassana is the state of mind reached after practicing this. Am I correct? Could anyone bring a precise quotation from a Sutta? (Hopefully a short one... Sometimes those quotations become much longer than three posts together... ). Thank you. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 58074 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:05pm Subject: Re: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ? [was: [dsg] Re: How to radiate metta egberdina Hi Sarah, I would appreciate further clarification on the following. If it is inappropriate in this great debate thread, feel free to move it :-) There can be meditation anytime on the trip when there is awareness, but > not when there is any trying to make it happen:-). If meditation is the same as mental development, which I don't have a problem with, and mental develpment is a learning of some kind (or unlearning as the case may be) you are saying that there can be no learning while trying to learn. Is it your intention to say that? Kind Regards Herman -- There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58075 From: "indriyabala" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:04pm Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence indriyabala Dear KenH (& Howard, Joop, Han)- You are making a progress! Of course, kindly do nit-picking anything that is not clear -- but please do not do it just for the sake of denying (even though you know it yourself what you are denying is right). >KenH : >Strictly speaking, attachment to khandhas occurs in cittas that have a khandha (a conditioned dhamma) as their object. So there is no concept of a person at that time. There can be wrong view (specifically, the view that there is a controlling entity somewhere inside or outside the khandha), and so in that way you could say there is both 'attachment to khandhas' and 'a person being seen' at the same time. Tep: The first part is not clear -- it sounds too theoretical (bookish). The second part is clear. ................ >KenH : >When you say "dukkha" in this instance, are you referring to the characteristic of conditioned dhammas or are you referring to conditioned dhammas themselves? I am not sure, but I think the "noble truth, dukkha" has the second meaning. Tep: The conditioned dhammas, e.g. khandhas, are dukkha. 'In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha' [DN 22]. ............... >KenH : In the early stages of vipassana development, miccha-ditthi will only know concepts of dhammas. Eventually, there will be direct insight into the nama characteristics or the rupa characteristics of a conditioned dhamma. Only in the final stages of mundane vipassana will the characteristic of dukkha (or of anicca or anatta) become directly known. > Tep: Agreed. ............... > >T: You don't see dukkha as a person or an 'atta'. And you realize 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self'. --------------------------------- >KenH: >I wouldn't say it was a case of 'not seeing' something. I think you directly see anatta. That is, you directly see emptiness of self and emptiness of anything pertaining to a self. Tep: Here, "don't see dukkha as a person" is the same as "do not have the wrong view that there is a person in the khandhas". ............... >KenH: (And, of course, it is panna, not you, that directly sees.) Tep: Is that lokuttara paaa? Are you talking about a lokuttara paaa that you have experienced? ............... >KenH: >Are there any significant differences in what each of us is saying? Tep: The most significant difference is that you are talking down from the top of the ivory Paramattha Dhamma tower, while I am talking about what the Buddha said (or what I understand him saying) for practicing monks(sekha). Sincerely yours, Tep ===== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > Issue #4 overlaps with Issue #3, on which we seem to have reached > agreement. As for the rest of it, I might agree or I might not. It > depends on the way we understand what you have written. So I will > nit-pick my way through it, and you can tell me what you think. > (snipped) > > Are there any significant differences in what each of us is saying? > > Ken H > 58076 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence egberdina Hi KenH, Let's not get rid of any part of the Dhamma - whether it suits us > fine or not. :-) The privilege of human birth can be explained in > terms of paramattha dhammas. (Better still, in terms of the dhammas > that arise in this life.) Therefore, it is instrumental in the > development of right understanding. > > ------------------------ Does this mean that in paramattha dhamma terms, there is something peculiarly human? Kind Regards Herman -- There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58077 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Cetasikas' study corner 425 - mindfulness/sati (g) egberdina Hi noone in particular, Just a short commentary on the first paragraph. (Ch26 - mindfulness/sati continued) > > We should know the difference between ultimate realities and > concepts. If we only know concepts and not ultimate realities we > believe that a person or self really exists. We tend to think of a > "whole" of mind and body, of the human person. When we study > the Dhamma we learn that what we call mind are different types > of citta accompanied by different cetasikas, and that these change > all the time. The moment an ultimate reality is identified it is a concept. The problem lies with the word "an". "An" implies "this, not that". This is conceptualisation, the means by which every banal thing becomes known to man. What is knowable about reality is anicca. What is knowable about ultimate and conventional is that they are concepts. Is anicca a concept? Only when you think about it :-) -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58078 From: "indriyabala" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:42pm Subject: Re: niamitampoko ;) indriyabala Dear Connie (KenH, Howard) - You kindly wrote: >Connie: > indriyabala, joop and ? :) von buddhaghosa's sri lankan vissudhi way. purification/purity/reinheit. tepster: "What is the use of Buddhism?" what is "need"? to train? the mind? it makes me smile to think we might pick and choose what we believe... peace, c. Tep: The three discussers were KenH, Howard and I (tep or Indriyabala). Please backtrack to the message #58013. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Tep, when Ken said "Where is the need to purify and train the mind?" I understood him not to be asking about where to find the target-point for mental purification and training, but rather to assert his position that there is no need at all to purify and train the mind! > ==================== But it is wrong for ANYONE, even the Arahants, to say or imply that "there is no need at all to purify and train the mind". What is the use of Buddhism if not for purification purposes (in sila, citta, and paaa)? Are you sure that your assertion of KenH's position is correct? {:>) Sincerely, Tep ======= [end of message #58013] Tep: Coventionally speaking, what's wrong with "need" and "train the mind" ? Thank you for "the guide". Is it from the Vism? ................. The Guide: 238. (Pe 54, 91; Dh. 183; D.ii,49). What is called 'any kind of evil' is the three kinds of misconduct, namely bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, and mental misconduct. These ten unprofitable courses of action, namely killing breathing things, taking what is not given, and misconduct in sensual-desires; false speech, malicious speech, harsh speech, and gossip; and covetousness, ill will, and wrong-view. 239. These are two kinds of action, namely choice and concomitant of cognizance (cf. Pe 35-6). 240. Herein, killing breathing things, malicious speech and harsh speech are moulded by hate; taking what is not given, misconduct in sensual-desires, and false speech are moulded by greed; and gossip is moulded by delusion. These seven kinds of acting are action as choice. 241. Covetousness is greed as a root of the unprofitable; ill will is hate as a root of the unprofitable; wrong view is the wrong path. These three kinds of acting are action as concomitant of cognizance. That is why it was said 'action as choice and action as concomitant of cognizance' (see #239). 242. When a root of the unprofitable comes to [expression by] the means [consisting of body or speech], it comes to [expression as] one [of the four] bad ways, namely those through will, hate, fear, or delusion. 243. [44] Herein, when it comes to [expression as] the bad way through will, it is moulded by greed; when it comes to [expression as] the bad way through hate, it is moulded by hate; when it comes to [expression as] the bad ways through fear and delusion, it is moulded by delusion. 244. Herein, greed is abandoned by means of [contemplating] ugliness, hate by means of loving-kindness, and delusion by means of understanding. Likewise, greed is abandoned by means of onlooking-equanimity, and hate by means of loving-kindness and compassion, and delusion is abandoned and disappears by means of sympathetic-gladness. That is why the Blessed One said 'No doing of any kind of evil, ...' (#243). 245. And what is called 'any kind of evil' is the eight wrongnessess, namely wrong view, wrong intention, wrong speech, wrong action, wrong livelihood, wrong effort, wrong mindfulness, and wrong concentration. These are called 'any kind of evil'. Any non-effecting, non-doing, non-practising, of these eight wrongnesses is called 'no doing any kind of evil'. 246. When the eight wrongnesses are abandoned, the eight rightnesses reach excellence (sampajjanti). Any effecting of, producing excellence in (sampaadana), the eight rightnesses is called 'perfecting (upasampadaa)profitable skill'. 247. 'And purifying one's own heart' is the effecting, keeping in being,of the (S.ii,105), it is mindfulness of that. When the heart is purified, the categories become purified. That is why the Blessed One said ( ). 248. The purifying is of two kinds, namely the abandoning of hindrances and the eradication of underlying-tendencies. Also there are two planes of purifying, namely the plane of seeing and the plane of keeping in being. 249. Herein, that by penetration of which one purifies is Suffering. That from which one purifies is the Origin. That by which one purifies is the Path. And that which is purified is Cessation (cf. Pe 91). These are the four Truths. Hence the Blessed One said 'No doing any kind of evil ...' (#238). Guide 267: Herein, what is a Thread dealing with morality? A Thread dealing with morality is this: talk on giving, talk on virtue, talk on heaven and the diappointment in sensual desires and the benefits in renunciation (see M.i,379). 268. Herein, what is a Thread dealing with Penetration? A Thread dealing with penetration is this: any displaying of the four Truths. 269: In a Thread dealing with morality there is no act-of-understanding,there is no Path, there is no Fruit [of the Path]. In a Thread dealing with penetration there is the act-of-understanding, there is the Path, there is the Fruit [of the Path]. .......................... Warm regards, Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connie wrote: > > > indriyabala, joop and ? > :) > von buddhaghosa's sri lankan vissudhi way. purification/purity/reinheit. > > tepster: "What is the use of Buddhism?" > > what is "need"? > to train? > the mind? > it makes me smile to think we might pick and choose what we believe... > peace, > c. > (snipped) > 58079 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence egberdina Hi Eric, KenH, The tetralemma was to show the logical > outcomes (views) of any postulated statement > X. Lets take your belief in no-self. > > No-self > Self > Both > Neither > > These are just the possible logical > outcomes of dualistic thinking in Indian > thought. That's it! > > The Middle Way as postulated in the > 4NT's is not based on these 4 logical > outcomes in reference to Self. Now, if > you are hung up on (attached to) Self, > then investigate No-Self and Both and > Neither until you see that they are just > views and can be relinquished and the > Middle Path can then appear and open up. > Read the Sutta and ponder it! > > Very much agreed. It just is not necessary to take a position on the existence of anything. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58080 From: "indriyabala" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 3:59pm Subject: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence indriyabala Hi Connie (KenH, Howard) - The Buddha's Teachings are so profound that ten people may have ten different perspctives about the Dhamma. > >KenH: > As Howard said, the Buddha taught suffering and release from > suffering. The method he taught was: do good, refrain from evil and > purify the mind. > > The obvious question is: So where is the profundity in that: isn't > that what every great teacher has taught? --------------------------------- Howard: The profundity in that lies in what constitutes purifying the mind according to the Buddha. That he explained again and again during his 45 years of teaching his Dhamma. --------------------------------- > >KenH: > The profundity is in anatta (there is no self; there are only > dhammas). Anatta makes the Buddha's teaching profoundly different > from every other teaching. -------------------------------------- Howard: That's true, in part. That is his brilliant realization of the nature of things. How to go about realizing for ourselves is the rest. -------------------------------------- Tep: What did the Buddha teach, dear Connie? Warm regards, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Ken (and Tep) - > > In a message dated 4/19/06 7:45:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > ken_aitch@... writes: > > > > > Hi Tep and Howard, > > > > ---------- > > T: >This was the first time that I completely "missed the point"! > > ---------- > > > > Howard, also, completely missed the point - as he has done > > throughout all of our discussions on this particular point. > > ------------------------------------- > Howard: > LOLOL! > ------------------------------------ > > > > > I am happy to try again, but you won't like it: :-) > > > > The Buddha taught anatta. Knowledge of anatta profoundly changes the > > way we see the world. > > > ------------------------------------ > Howard: > That depends on what one means by "knowledge". Knowledge *about* will > not do it! > ---------------------------------- > We might insist, "No, I can go on seeing the > > > world in the same way I always have done, and I can practise Dhamma > > (develop insight) at the same time." > ---------------------------------- > Howard: > You seem to think you know how I see the world, Ken. I think you do > not. > -------------------------------- (snipped) 58081 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:16pm Subject: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence ken_aitch Hi Howard, I thought about letting you have the last word, but couldn't do it. :-) ----------- KH: > > <. . .> Knowledge of anatta profoundly changes the way we see the world. > Howard: > That depends on what one means by "knowledge". Knowledge *about* will not do it! ----------- It will do it for some of us. Consider the difference between a conventional understanding of the world - people, trees, atom bombs, - and an intellectual right understanding of the world - a few paltry namas and rupas. If that doesn't strike you as profound, what does? ------------------------ KH: > > <. . .> We might insist, "No, I can go on seeing the world in the same way I always have done, and I can practise Dhamma (develop insight) at the same time." > Howard: > You seem to think you know how I see the world, Ken. I think you do not. ------------------------- Point taken - although I wasn't thinking of anyone in particular when I wrote that. ---------------------------------------- KH: > But that would be a grave misunderstanding: knowledge of the Dhamma really does change everything. > Howard: > You seem to have a very superior attitude with regard to your "knowledge" of Dhamma, Ken. Enjoy! ---------------------------------------- Maybe I am a bit opinionated, but I am not taking credit for the doctrine of anatta - just expressing my very elementary grasp of it. I am sure a real grasp of anatta will be infinitely more profound. ---------------------------------------------------- KH: > > <. . .> do good, refrain from evil and purify the mind. The obvious question is: So where is the profundity in that: isn't that what every great teacher has taught? > Howard: > The profundity in that lies in what constitutes purifying the mind according to the Buddha. That he explained again and again during his 45 years of teaching his Dhamma. ----------------------------------------------------- Sorry, you'll have to be more specific. What part of the Buddha's teaching - apart from the fact that the world is just a few conditioned dhammas - was profoundly different from the other great teachings? (Oh, looking ahead, I see you do become more specific.) ---------------------------------------- KH: > > <. . .> Anatta makes the Buddha's teaching profoundly different from every other teaching. > Howard: > That's true, in part. That is his brilliant realization of the nature of things. How to go about realizing for ourselves is the rest. -------------------------------------- It's all self with you meditators, isn't it? :-) ---------------------------- KH: > > <. . .> In the Middle Way there are only dhammas. <. . .> > Howard: > There are only dhammas - period. That is the nature of reality, that and conditionality, and these remain its nature whether there is a middle way or not known in the world, and whether there is a Buddha in the worlds or not. -------------------------------------- Yes, there are only Dhammas. Knowing there are only Dhammas is the Middle Way. ---------------------------- H: > It is dhammas, empty, conditioned, and fleeting, that do everything, and critical as regards that doing is the dhamma that is cetana (kamma). ---------------------------- Citta is the leader. When a wholesome citta is conditioned to arise, a wholesome cetana is conditioned to arise with it. In the Middle Way, panna becomes the leader (cetana is shunted even further back in the order.) ---------------------------------- H: > With useful, wholesome, and effective cetana, progress towards awakening can be made, but not without it. ---------------------------------- I think the cetana you are referring is the intention to make things different in the future. That sort of intention would entail the concept of future. Having a concept as object, it couldn't be a part of the practice. Intention to make things better in the future might be a part of pariyatti (the intellectual stage) but I doubt it. --------------- KH: > > <. . .> It means I don't have the conventional religious zeal to radically change my lifestyle in an effort to attain enlightenment. > Howard: > What I wouldn't give for the Buddha to hear you say that! ;-) What a terrible thing it would be for one to have zeal to radically change their lifestyle! Gosh, all those silly bhikkhus down through the centuries - what *were* they thinking of? --------------- I don't know why you insist on a conventional path; you must have your reasons. ---------------------- H: > Hmmph, and all that blather by the Buddha about urgency and acting as if one's hair were on fire. Gee, what was *he* thinking about? Man! You are so off base it boggles the mind! ---------------------- If there are only dhammas then the Buddha must have been telling us it was dhammas (not you or me) that must act with urgency (as they do in a moment of right understanding.) It would be silly of you or me to pretend to be a dhamma. -------------------------------------- KH: > > <. . .> The Middle Way is, first and foremost, to understand the conditioned dhammas that are arising now - citta, cetasika and rupa. > Howard: > Understanding intentionally cultivated? Gosh, no, that would be an assertion of ego. Hmm, appearing by accident or magic I guess! ---------------------------------------- Why do you want understanding to be intentionally cultivated, as distinct from conditionally cultivated? To paraphrase the Anattalakkhana Sutta: If cetana were self, it would be possible to say, "Let my cetana be thus!" but it isn't, and it isn't. Ken H 58082 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:36pm Subject: Re: On spice and paradoxes [ was: [dsg] Re: Beliefs lbidd2 Hi Joop, Reactions below: J: "You seem to say the Buddha said in SN 22 59 that "paramattha dhammas are anatta because they are not subject to control". Of course I knew this Sutta, but that's not using the tern "paramattha". What about my comment that 'anatta' is not meant by the Buddha as a property of realities but as a warning to us, not with a ontological but with a soteriological intention?" L: Didn't he say rupa, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness are not self because they are not subject to control? What are paramattha dhammas? As I recall he didn't use the word 'control' either, but he used words that meant the same as 'control'. I think all three general characteristics are a warning, as you say, in other words, soteriological. Because dhammas are impermanent they are ungraspable. Because dhammas are dukkha there is no satisfaction in them. Because dhammas are not self there is no logic behind desire. J: "About the "desire the end of desire". I think we had to begin with accepting our desires ans seeing the roots of them (for example in "formal" vipassana meditation)" L: I agree it's a good idea to accept our desires and investigate their roots (conditions). If you want to meditate, go ahead! J: "First you say this desire the end of desire is a "paradox" and in the end of your message you are calling it a "problem" which has a resolution. That's not the same: it's a paradox with which we (or: I) can live." L: Imo it starts out as a hypothetical philosophical paradox and is resolved, through abhidhamma analysis, into ordinary experience. One aspect of this phenomenon is that it is hidden. Everyone wants to end suffering but no one wants to end desire. No one ever asks the Buddha "how can I end desire". J: "To be honest I (till now) always skip texts with go about the distinguishment prompted - unprompted because this simply does not resonate in me. And it still does not; but please don't try to explain; not only it's to technical, it doesn't resonate in me." L: Okay, no problem. It does seem that no one is interested in that distinction. Maybe another time. Larry 58083 From: "indriyabala" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:12pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The place of "meditation" ... Kamma as Taught by the Buddha [re-sent] indriyabala Hi, Jon (and all)- Excellent response! I am glad to have another opportunity to appreciate your paaa. Of course, it is not possible even for two Buddhists living in the same country to agree 100% on every aspect of the Dhamma. So, anyone should feel free to correct me, anytime. > >What does "clear knowledge [panna] of kamma and its cessation" mean to you? > Jon: > The term "clear knowledge of kamma and its cessation" was a term used by you. I thought you were using 'clear knowledge' as a translation of one of the Pali terms referring to 'panna' (such as 'sampajanna'). > Tep: I like that "such as" which implies that there are several meanings/levels of paaa. ................ > >How would you 'develop' such panna, or is it automatic as in the > >genious with Dhamma Eye? > Jon: > 'Panna' (of the level of insight knowledge), as I understand it, is the mental factor that accompanies a moment of vipassana (a moment of > mundane path moment of consciousness). So everything we have discussed about vipassana bhavana applies. Tep: Given that we have the same understanding of 'vipassana bhavana', then I'd accept/agree with/follow that definition of paaa. The great Arahant Sariputta in the Patisambhidamagga defined dassana(seeing)as the 'meaning of the understanding faculty' (paindriya) [Psm I, 26] The following passage [Psm V, 57] may delight most DSG members. "When one who has great resolution gives attention as impermanent, he acquires the faith faculty. When one who has great tranquillity gives attention as painful, he acquires the concentration faculty. When one who has great wisdom(veda) gives attention as not self, he acquires the understanding faculty." [Note: veda means insight, revelation, wisdom] ............. > >Why *is* such panna "the practice/developing of the path"? > Jon: > If panna of the level of insight knowledge arises, the path is being > developed, as I see it. > Tep: Isn't it the other way around, i.e. when concentration (the 8th path factor) is well developed (with the other matured seven path factors as support), then right knowledge(vijja) arises? "In one of right view, right resolve comes into being. In one of right resolve, right speech comes into being. In one of right speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration... In one of right concentration, right knowledge... In one of right knowledge, right release comes into being. Thus the learner is endowed with eight factors, and the arahant with ten." - see MN 117. ............ > >Is your 'panna' the combination of the third and the fourth noble truths? > Jon: > The fourth noble truth relates to the development of insight knowledge, so yes. The third noble truth (Nibbana) is not seen until actual enlightenment, but I would assume that as panna becomes more highly developed, a better idea of what is meant by 'Nibbana' is gained. > Tep: I don't see paaa as the combination of the third and the fourth noble truths. The fourth noble truth alone consists of sila, samadhi and paaa. However, I agree that "as panna becomes more highly developed, a better idea of what is meant by 'Nibbana' is gained". That is, 'right release' is gained; it is the 10th factor for the arahant [MN 117]. ...................... > >Is your 'panna' same as 'pariyatti' + 'patipatti' ? > Jon: > If the panna that arises is of the level of insight knowledge, that is patipatti, as I understand it. If there is understanding at an > intellectual level only, that would be 'pariyatti'. > Tep: I also see that there are pariyatti understandings that are different from the insight knowledges that are developed from patipatti understandings. With metta & appreciation, Tep, your friend. ============ --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Tep > > indriyabala wrote: > > >Hi, Jon ( Han, and others) - > > > >Long time no debate! > > > > > > Good to be talking to you again! > (snipped) > >These 5 questions are enough raw material for future debates (that may > >never, never end). {:>)) > > Looking forward to more. Do let me know how I scored ;-)) > > Jon > 58084 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence egberdina Hi KenH, Yes, there are only Dhammas. Knowing there are only Dhammas is the > Middle Way. > > ---------------------------------- > > I think the cetana you are referring is the intention to make things > different in the future. That sort of intention would entail the > concept of future. Having a concept as object, it couldn't be a part > of the practice. > > Intention to make things better in the future might be a part of > pariyatti (the intellectual stage) but I doubt it. > > I don't know why you insist on a conventional path; you must have > your reasons. > If there are only dhammas then the Buddha must have been telling us > it was dhammas (not you or me) that must act with urgency (as they > do in a moment of right understanding.) It would be silly of you or > me to pretend to be a dhamma. Why do you want understanding to be intentionally cultivated, as > distinct from conditionally cultivated? To paraphrase the Anattalakkhana Sutta: If cetana were self, it > would be possible to say, "Let my cetana be thus!" but it isn't, and > it isn't. > > To paraphrase MN24 (the one about the relay chariots - the basis for the entire VisM) one size fits all won't cut it. A glib "everything is dhammas" means as little as "everything is due to conditions". That is because something that purports to describe everything, describes nothing at all. It is precisely because not everything is dhammas, and not everything is conditions, that talking about dhammas and conditions means anything at all. Without conditionless / dhammaless nibbana, Buddhism is a furfy, or should that be phurphy :-). In MN24, the second chariot to complete unbinding through lack of clinging (that's where the relay goes, if you don't want to arrive, don't get on board :-)) is mental development/concentration. If you feel that describing the development of concentration occuring through the co-inciding of conditions is a useful description, then so be it. But if you mean that description to include the development of concentration occuring without effort and intention, then you are wrong. And if the prompting of the Buddha to go and develop concentration is not a condition for intention and effort to arise, then nothing will be a condition for them to arise. I am not saying you or anyone else should be interested in nibbana, or even developing concentration. I'm saying that the teachings of the Buddha are about nibbana and how to get there as illustrated in MN24, and not to misrepresent that entire process. When the endless repeating of the concept "everythng is conditions" or the concept "everything is dhammas" has led to unbinding, then tell us about it. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58085 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 1:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 4/20/06 7:19:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I thought about letting you have the last word, but couldn't do > it. :-) ------------------------------------ Howard: I was starting to wonder!! LOLOL! ----------------------------------- > > ----------- > KH: >><. . .> Knowledge of anatta profoundly changes the way we > see the world. > > > Howard: >That depends on what one means by "knowledge". Knowledge > *about* will not do it! > ----------- > > It will do it for some of us. Consider the difference between a > conventional understanding of the world - people, trees, atom > bombs, - and an intellectual right understanding of the world - a > few paltry namas and rupas. If that doesn't strike you as profound, > what does? ------------------------------------------- Howard: It strikes me as a very good beginning. :-) ------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------ > KH: >><. . .> We might insist, "No, I can go on seeing the world > in the same way I always have done, and I can practise Dhamma > (develop insight) at the same time." > > > Howard: > You seem to think you know how I see the world, Ken. I > think you do not. > ------------------------- > > Point taken - although I wasn't thinking of anyone in particular > when I wrote that. > > ---------------------------------------- > KH: > But that would be a grave misunderstanding: knowledge of > the Dhamma really does change everything. > > > Howard: > You seem to have a very superior attitude with > regard to your "knowledge" of Dhamma, Ken. Enjoy! > ---------------------------------------- > > Maybe I am a bit opinionated, but I am not taking credit for the > doctrine of anatta - just expressing my very elementary grasp of it. > I am sure a real grasp of anatta will be infinitely more profound. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Then we have hit on something we agree on! :-) ---------------------------------------------- > > ---------------------------------------------------- > KH: >><. . .> do good, refrain from evil and purify the mind. > The obvious question is: So where is the profundity in that: isn't > that what every great teacher has taught? > > > Howard: > The profundity in that lies in what constitutes > purifying the mind according to the Buddha. That he explained again > and again during his 45 years of teaching his Dhamma. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Sorry, you'll have to be more specific. What part of the Buddha's > teaching - apart from the fact that the world is just a few > conditioned dhammas - was profoundly different from the other great > teachings? -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: One thing I can think of right away is the using of the jhanas, most specifically the 4th jhana, base for investigation of dhammas. The Buddha made much of the jhanas not being stages of enlightenment themselves, but as being tools to be properly used. The Buddha's teachers missed this entirely as far as I can see. They were taken in by the higher jhanas. They were fooled into thinking that the jhanas of infinite space, infinite consciousness, and so on, were progressive stages of unification with a universal self or Brahman. The Buddha, however, saw the error of his teachers ways, and saw how to move on from there. The Buddha also radically transformed the understanding of kamma, turning it into intention, and he replaced the fatalism and "randomism" of others by his magnicent discovery of the middle way of conditionality, and the specific case of dependent origination and dependent cessation of dukkha. So, what do you think, Ken? That's off the top of my head.That's a little more than only discovering that "the world is just a few conditioned dhammas" isn't it? (Not to minimize that in the slightest!!) ---------------------------------------------------- > > (Oh, looking ahead, I see you do become more specific.) > > ---------------------------------------- > KH: >><. . .> Anatta makes the Buddha's teaching profoundly > different from every other teaching. > > > Howard: > That's true, in part. That is his brilliant > realization of the nature of things. How to go about realizing for > ourselves is the rest. > -------------------------------------- > > It's all self with you meditators, isn't it? :-) -------------------------------------------- Howard: LOL! -------------------------------------------- > > ---------------------------- > KH: >><. . .> In the Middle Way there are only dhammas. <. . .> > > > Howard: > There are only dhammas - period. That is the > nature of reality, that and conditionality, and these remain its > nature whether there is a middle way or not known in the world, and > whether there is a Buddha in the worlds or not. > -------------------------------------- > > Yes, there are only Dhammas. Knowing there are only Dhammas is the > Middle Way. ------------------------------------------ Howard: No, Ken. It isn't. ------------------------------------------ > > ---------------------------- > H: >It is dhammas, empty, conditioned, and fleeting, that do > everything, and critical as regards that doing is the dhamma that is > cetana (kamma). > ---------------------------- > > Citta is the leader. When a wholesome citta is conditioned to arise, > a wholesome cetana is conditioned to arise with it. In the Middle > Way, panna becomes the leader (cetana is shunted even further back > in the order.) ----------------------------------------- Howard: Ken, I believe you are substituting slogans here for clear comprehension. ----------------------------------------- > > ---------------------------------- > H: >With useful, wholesome, and effective cetana, progress towards > awakening can be made, but not without it. > ---------------------------------- > > I think the cetana you are referring is the intention to make things > different in the future. That sort of intention would entail the > concept of future. Having a concept as object, it couldn't be a part > of the practice. -------------------------------------- Howard: More sloganeering, Ken, without genuine content. Reading the suttas makes it crystal clear how wrong you are in this. What do you think right effort is all about? --------------------------------------- > > Intention to make things better in the future might be a part of > pariyatti (the intellectual stage) but I doubt it. > > --------------- > KH: >><. . .> It means I don't have the conventional religious > zeal to radically change my lifestyle in an effort to attain > enlightenment. > > > Howard: > What I wouldn't give for the Buddha to hear you say > that! ;-) > What a terrible thing it would be for one to have zeal to > radically change their lifestyle! Gosh, all those silly bhikkhus > down through the centuries - what *were* they thinking of? > --------------- > > I don't know why you insist on a conventional path; you must have > your reasons. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Ken, what is your practice? None? Reading? Contemplating? Please read the sutta, AN V 73, Dhamma-viharin Sutta, One Who Dwells in the Dhamma, to be found at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an05-073.html. ------------------------------------------- > > ---------------------- > H: >Hmmph, and all that blather by the Buddha about urgency and > acting as if one's hair were on fire. Gee, what was *he* thinking > about? > Man! You are so off base it boggles the mind! > ---------------------- > > If there are only dhammas then the Buddha must have been telling us > it was dhammas (not you or me) that must act with urgency (as they > do in a moment of right understanding.) It would be silly of you or > me to pretend to be a dhamma. > > -------------------------------------- > KH: >><. . .> The Middle Way is, first and foremost, to understand > the conditioned dhammas that are arising now - citta, cetasika and > rupa. > > > Howard: > Understanding intentionally cultivated? Gosh, no, > that would be an assertion of ego. Hmm, appearing by accident or > magic I guess! > > ---------------------------------------- > > Why do you want understanding to be intentionally cultivated, as > distinct from conditionally cultivated? > > To paraphrase the Anattalakkhana Sutta: If cetana were self, it > would be possible to say, "Let my cetana be thus!" but it isn't, and > it isn't. > > Ken H > > ========================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 58086 From: "Richard Smith" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 5:41pm Subject: No Selfness = No Self? richard@... I apologize in advance for not knowing how to represent the diacriticals correctly. During my studies, I came across the term "nairaatmyaastitaa" in conjunction with "anatta". I understand the concept of No-Self, but am a bit confused about the idea of "fact of no-selfness". Am I oversimplifying matters by thinking both terms are the same? Or are there indeed differences that I am not seeing? "No-Self" and "Fact of No-Selfness" just seem the same to me right now. Or is there a variant translation of nairaatmyaastitaa that might clarify things? Metta, Richard 58087 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 9:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] No Selfness = No Self? sarahprocter... Hi Richard (& Connie) I'm not going to be much help, but I'd like to welcome you here anyway:). --- Richard Smith wrote: > I apologize in advance for not knowing how to represent the diacriticals > correctly. > > During my studies, I came across the term "nairaatmyaastitaa" in > conjunction with "anatta". I understand the concept of No-Self, but am a > bit confused about the idea of "fact of no-selfness". ... S: I can't 'catch' the word and I don't know if it's Pali or Sanskrit. Where did you come across it? My best very wild guess would be something like 'no atma (self) standing/remaining'. Maybe someone with more Pali expertise like Connie will be able to help....(She's also good at making up languages:-)). .... > > Am I oversimplifying matters by thinking both terms are the same? Or are > there indeed differences that I am not seeing? "No-Self" and "Fact of > No-Selfness" just seem the same to me right now. Or is there a variant > translation of nairaatmyaastitaa that might clarify things? ... S: It's all the same - anatta, the characteristic of all dhammas. However it's dressed up or whatever words are used, the reality is the same. Just namas and rupas. Can I encourage you to also tell us a little about yourself such as your background interest in the Buddha's teachings, where you live, or anything else? Connie may also be able to give a brief summary or link on representing the diacriticals. I can't at the moment find one. Metta, Sarah ======== 58088 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:03pm Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 426- mindfulness/sati (h) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) ========================================== (Ch26 - mindfulness/sati continued) We are used to only paying attention to concepts, but through the study of the Dhamma we learn to see the value of developing understanding of ultimate realities, of nma and rpa. We learn through the study of the Abhidhamma that the sense-objects are experienced through their appropriate doorway by cittas which arise in processes. Visible object is experienced through the eye-door by cittas arising in the eye-door process. Tangible object such as hardness is experienced through the body-door by cittas arising in the body-door process. Each object is experienced through its appropriate doorway; tangible object, for example, could not be experienced through the eye-door. Only one object can be experienced at a time, through one doorway; the different doorways should not be confused with each other. When we only pay attention to concepts we think, for example, that we can see and touch a flower. But in reality the seeing sees only what is visible, visible object, and the body-consciousness experiences tangible object such as hardness or softness. We can think of a whole such as a flower because of remembrance of different experiences through different doorways. The thinking is conditioned by the seeing and other sense impressions. ***** (Ch26 - mindfulness/sati to be contd) Metta, Sarah ====== 58089 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] No Selfness = No Self? lbidd2 Richard: "During my studies, I came across the term "nairaatmyaastitaa" in conjunction with "anatta". I understand the concept of No-Self, but am a bit confused about the idea of "fact of no-selfness". Am I oversimplifying matters by thinking both terms are the same? Or are there indeed differences that I am not seeing? "No-Self" and "Fact of No-Selfness" just seem the same to me right now. Or is there a variant translation of nairaatmyaastitaa that might clarify things?" Hi Richard, This is a sanskrit word used in mayahana philosophy. This is what I googled: "The teaching of Anatta dispels the darkness of false beliefs, and produces the light of wisdom. It is not negative, as Asanga aptly says: 'There is the fact of No-selfness' (nairatmyastita). (P66)" L: One might argue that the primary meaning of 'anatta' in the suttas _is_ negative insofar as the Buddha doesn't talk about anatta-ness. Although there may be some linguistic subtleties in the pali I'm not aware of. Anatta usually means 'this is not me or mine'. "The fact of no-selfness" could be construed as the experience of things as collections of parts; kind of holie if not holy. Not only is Asanga (or this commentator?) rejecting a grammatical negative he is also rejecting a value negative. Often in the suttas you find the formula, 'what is impermanent is dukkha and what is dukkha is anatta'. In mahayana anatta is the highest good. There is not much interest in nirvana as the cessation of all conditioned arising. Larry 58090 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Defining 'Mental Phenomena' sarahprocter... Hi Howard (James & TG), --- upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Sarah (and James) - > > In a post of James', he quotes himself asking: > > Is sati a form? > Is sati a sound? > Is sati an odour? > Is sati a taste? > Is sati a tatile object? > Is sati a mental phenomena (like a thought, feeling, or > emotion)? > > and he quotes your reply: > > S: The last. Sati is a mental phenomena. Here, I believe, > mental > phenomena > refers to anything experienced through the mind-door ... > > Sarah, would it not be more precise a definition to say that > mental > phenomena are any phenomena experienced *solely* through the mind-door? .... S: I only had a translation of a few lines from a sutta. Working back, I assume that here 'mental phenomena' referred to dhammaaramma.na. Mind-objects or mind-door objects would be a more accurate translation imho. Now, dhammaaramma.na or mind objects strictly speaking, also include sounds, visible objects etc too, because after having been experienced through the eye door, they are then experienced in the immediately following mind door process too. As you'll have seen, I was trying to keep it simple:). ..... > But isn't even that problematical? According to Abhidhamma, I believe, > the > water element is experienced solely through the mind-door. But it is > rupa, not > nama. ... S: Not problematical now, I think. What you say is right. And apart from the seven rupas experienced through the 5 senses, all other rupas in fact are only experienced through the mind-door. This is why they're only directly experienced and known by a highly developed wisdom. Tangible object such as hardness is a lot more apparent than water element/cohesion or subtle rupas such as heart-base, masculinity or femininity! ... >Nobody would consider cohesion or any of the other experiences > referred > to as "the water element" to be mental phenomena. So, it seems to me > that the > definitional determination in Abhidhamma of what are mental phenomena is > shaky. .... S: No, it's the use of the translation term 'mental phenomena' for dhammaaramma.na that's 'shaky'. Hope this clarifies... Metta, Sarah ======== 58091 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Defining 'Mental Phenomena' sarahprocter... Hi again Howard, --- upasaka@... wrote: > A bit more about the water element: There is a case to be made, I > > think, of knowing water mentally, but mentally in the sense of > "conceptually". ... S: When we think of it now, it's definitely a concept. But it has a characteristic which can be known directly by developed wisdom. The same as I said with regard to all sorts of other kinds of subtle rupas which you've objected to in the past:-). Just because we don't have any direct knowledge or experience, doesn't mean it's not possible! If they weren't dhammas which could be known, the Buddha wouldn't have bothered to mention them. Clearly, they were very apparent to his wisdom! ..... > Actually, as soon as we include several basic qualities under the > heading of > "water element" we are already involving concept. (Disparate qualities > like > wetness, fluidity, and cohesion are what I have in mind.) But it is > possibe that at > least the first two of these qualities, individually, should not be > thought of > as mind-door phenomena, I believe. > We never see or hear or smell or taste (coventional) water, and > certainly not cohesion or fluidity. The real question that remains is to > what extent > water qualities are experienced through touch/body sense. .... S: Not at all. Only temperature, hardness/softness and motion are experienced through the body-sense. When we experience motion, softness and coolness/heat, we think we're experiencing fluidity, but we're not. .... >I think that > some > positive argument for this can be made. We can dismiss the coldness (or > heat) > felt in touching water (in the H2O sense), for this is fire element, and > we can > dismiss the solidity that is there (and that IS part of what is > experienced), > but there remains at least two other things that are "picked up" in > contacting conventional water, namely sensations of wetness and fluidity > (or > slipperiness). It does seem to me that these are body-door phenomena > that are neither > "earth", "air", nor "fire" - and that leaves just "water". .... S: What exactly is experienced when you think 'wetness' is experienced? .... > Cohesion, > however, is another matter. I think that it is actually the reification > of a relation > of sorts. From the conventional perspective, it is a fact that materials > often do cohere. That is, the relation of sticking together occurs, and > this is > especially so in the presence of water and other liquids. I know of no > means of > knowing about that except inference. ... S: Right. We know about the cohesive property of water from inference, but it's not directly experienced. .... >Perhaps the faculty of wisdom is > able to > nonconceptually grasp relations. If that is so, then perhaps cohesion > would > qualify as a first-class mind-door object. But opening the door to > relations > being first-class dhammas is a dangerous step. I believe! .... S: No, it's not a relation, but a characteristic of a reality which can be known directly. Of course, without direct experience of this characteristic, what I say is just on faith that what I read is correct. I have no reason to doubt it. The same for masculinity, life-force rupa etc. It makes sense to me (conceptually). Better to be aware of what is apparent through the body-sense, no matter what names or labels are used or not used, I think. Metta, Sarah ======= 58092 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:43pm Subject: Re: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ? [was: [dsg] Re: How to radiate metta sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > I would appreciate further clarification on the following. If it is > inappropriate in this great debate thread, feel free to move it :-) .... S: Joop's in charge of what is appropriate/inappropriate to the thread :-) .... > > There can be meditation anytime on the trip when there is awareness, but > > not when there is any trying to make it happen:-). > > > > If meditation is the same as mental development, which I don't have a > problem with, and mental develpment is a learning of some kind (or > unlearning as the case may be) you are saying that there can be no > learning > while trying to learn. Is it your intention to say that? .... S: Yes. As soon as there is a trying to have mental development at any time, it's indicative of a wish for results (often with an idea of self). Such wishing is lobha (attachment) not learning or mental devlopment. Hope that's cleared up:). **** And on the ballooning -- to try not to have interest, to try not to have lobha whilst in the balloon, at the concert or in the surf would be equally indicative of a wrong view that this is the way to go or that a self really can stop lobha from arising. I'm glad you both had a good Easter holiday. Please wish Vicki well:). Metta, Sarah ========= 58093 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 10:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How to radiate metta sarahprocter... Dear Joop, Not sure if this will reach you before you leave, but just in case, a little more to reflect on whilst you go walking: --- Joop wrote: > I thought to have found a source in the Abhidhamma for my > convincement that there exists a "social citta" called "intuition" in > conventinal language. A human being can experience the citta of > another human being (especially on moments without self view), a > horse can experience the citta of another horse, etc. .... S: Do you even know your own citta at this moment? Or this moment? Not by thinking about what must have arisen a moment ago or by thinking about a story of feeling happy, sad, having metta etc, but actually directly knowing a citta of seeing or hearing when it arises in a split second? Mostly, what we know even about our own cittas is only by inference and thinking about them. Even more so with regard to others. (Such thinking and inference doesn't need to be in words at all). .... > 'Higher knowledge' can make the functioning of this 'social citta' > perfect but it's also possible without much (everybody has some > higher knowledge in him of her). > That's my conviction and I still hope that's a buddhistic conviction. > If not: so be it, it's still my conviction. > If it is not according Theravada but according Mahayana: than I'm > partly a Mahayanist. > When some commentators say it's not possible then they are autistic. .... :-) .... > About "accumulations" we (also Nina) have had more discussions. It > does not belong to the list of ultimate realities (89/121 cittas +52 > cetasikas +29 ruppas +1 nibbina). Or can ultimate realities be added > to that list, in that case I have one too? .... S: As I tried to indicate in this thread and in another one, accumulations refers to all cittas and cetasikas which are conditioned by so many factors. So, to keep it simple, let's say that all these cittas and cetasikas above are 'accumulated' (with the possible exception of the lokuttara cittas??). As I've said before, add what you like and call it Joop's revised list:-). Metta, Sarah ========== 58094 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 11:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement in Skillful Action sarahprocter... Hi Tep (& Dan), --- "Dan D." wrote: > Dear Tep, > I also find the extract from Thanissaro's writing relevant to the > ongoing discussion, but perhaps not in the same way you find it > relevant. Let's start with the word 'kusala', which Thanissaro > glosses as "skilful." I also used to use 'skilful' for kusala--well, > at least I did so until I realized that the word is a lousy, > misleading, and even subversive gloss for kusala. I wrote about it in > Feb. 2002; excerpts below... .... S: Actually Tep, here you have my sympathies. Dan goes on to explain how he used to purposely use skiful with all sorts of sakkaya-ditthi intents to 'mistake conventional effort for Right Effort' and so he assumes everyone else uses it with this same purpose. All the limitations on its use which he points out (I was given the 'paper' before, too:-)) are true, but when I use skilful (as I sometimes still do when Dan isn't around), it is merely to avoid using 'wholesome', 'good', 'pure' or other terms which also come with their own baggage. Connie just quoted this: >The Guide: 238. (Pe 54, 91; Dh. 183; D.ii,49).< **** Here profitable skill is a translation of kusalassa. Maybe 'cultivating good' is better, but I don't think that as skill and skilful are commonly used in translations that there is necessarily any more idea of self view than when other terms are used. We had a long discussion on various words recently in Bangkok. As usual, no conclusion, but better just to use 'kusala' and 'akusala'! Some people (like my mother and Rob K's mother) really strongly object to the use of 'wholesome' -- quite wrong they say, this is a term that should be confined to the kitchen! Others had strong objecttions to other translations. Anyway, Dan -- it is a good 'paper', but I wasn't sure back in Feb 2002 and I'm not sure now, that it isn't a bit of a mountain out of a mole-hill based on your own subversive past:). Metta, Ssrah p.s great writing below and snipped as usual, Dan:-). > [In early 2001] I explicitly used "skillful" when the conversation > would steer uncomfortably close to anatta -- something that people > are more loathe to accept than even the moral/immoral/amoral triplet! > > I confess my subversive intent in using "skillful" back then. I > thought (and probably wrote) things like: "These guys talk about > anatta too much and over-emphasize Right View instead of balancing it > with talk about the other parts of the path, like Right Effort." Of > course, much of the time I was thinking about conventional effort > (despite the fact that I thought I was talking about "Right Effort"). > I was delighted when I stumbled onto the "skillful" gloss > for "kusala" because I could use it in my quest to steer the > conversation back to the more comfortable realm of mistaking > conventional effort for Right Effort and of making it easier to > staying firmly rooted in sakaya-ditthi... 58095 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 11:20pm Subject: Re: On spice and paradoxes [ was: [dsg] Re: Beliefs sarahprocter... Dear Joop, --- Joop wrote: > And another example of messages of me that apparently don't inspire > other participants, I repeat the core of my message of some weeks > ago to which nobody responded (again that not a "I'm neglected" but > more a "do I belong to DSG?" and not directed to you, Sarah so no > critics) <...> > A paradox of desire in buddhism ? > > Hallo Nina, James, Tep, Jon, all > > Perhaps the discussion in DSG between those who state that the > buddhistic Path had to be understood active (things to do) and those > who state that for example 'formal meditation' as such is already > craving and clinging ('passive' in the perception of the 'activists') > can be brought to a higher level. > > In the journal 'Philosophy East and West' there has been a discussion > in 1978-1980 about the question > if "THERE IS OR THERE IS NOT A PARADOX OF DESIRE IN BUDDHISM ?" > > The (possible) paradox is the existence of the DESIRE TO GIVE UP > DESIRES. ..... S: A desire to give up desires is lobha (attachment). As I see it, attachment merely leads to more attachment, not to the end of samsara. When we read suttas which seem to indicate otherwise, we have to read them very carefully. I'll be happy to discuss any suttas with you on your return to see if there really is a paradox. Often such paradoxes arise because of our very limited understanding. Metta, Sarah ====== 58096 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 11:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:what is sati. sarahprocter... Hi Eric, --- ericlonline wrote: > (agreements snipped) > > S: Right - lots of agreement in this thread. Can 'you' really do > anything about them?? > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part3.htm > l#part3-e > > Thanissaro says (I think it is somewhere there > above or linked) that 'he trains thus' in the > Anapanasati Sutta means that this practice > is willed. It seems to me that is what skillful > means is. You learn about this/that causality > in order to effect it for the better i.e. > towards unification of mind. .... S: Who or what affects it for the better?. Willed by who or what? .... > > PS Also here he talks about Jhana in two > ways and does indeed say it is spreading > rapture throughout the body from head to > toe. ..... S: Just to repeat a point - rapture (piiti) is a mental state, a mental factor which arise with the first 2 jhanas (and also commonly with attachment). Mental states or factors cannot be spread 'throughout the body', but as discussed, mental states and jhana factors can and do condition bodily rupas in different ways. .... >And he also mentions the creation > of the visual nimitta as another way to > jhana. BTW I know a monk (took over Bhikkhu > Bodhi's kuti when he left Sri Lanka) here > in Chicago who teaches by this method. So > it seems we may not be that far off there > also. .... S: Out of curiosity only, are you referring to B.Mettavihara or B.Guttasila or who? Eric, I don't really mind who teaches what, but I think we need to really consider and look deeply at the texts. For a while, everyone seemed to be sotapannas. Now everyone seems to have jhana attainments. Of course it's all very appealing to lobha, but I think we have to keep questioning what the path really is at this moment, otherwise we'll be led astray all the time. .... > > thx for all the good feedback. > > It does feel good to actually > see eye to eye for a change! :-) .... S: Ah well, nothing lasts.....sweet while it did, though ;-) Metta, Sarah ======= 58097 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 11:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Beliefs sarahprocter... Hi Phil (& Herman), I like the 'Baby steps for baby minds!' - I'll be in on that one:). ADL - just go as slow as you like.... ...then this one was funny:) --- Phil wrote: > Hi Herman > > > That makes me feel special. (The bit about me annoying the hell > out of you > > :-)) > > Don't get puffed up about it. Just about everyone here annoys the > hell out of me. Even the people who don't annoy the hell out of me > end up annoying the hell out of me because they are friendly with > the people who *do* annoy the hell out of me! :) .... S: :-) (Trying not to be too friendly!!) ... > > I find it very, very interesting - thanks to Dhamma (I assume) the > things that used to cause me intense aversion "out there" in daily > life and even drove me to drinnk no longer bother me whatsoever. But > when I come to DSG, which you'd think would be a kind of refuge, I > get pissed off almost immediately. This doesn't bother me because I > can see it as a kind of > confirmation of understanding Dhamma. All the dosa I have > accumulated has to find an object, so it naturally floods to the > area where I have the strongest clinging - Dhamma. I'm confident it > will pass. ... S: You will love the India 05 discussions (getting close:-)), especially one track near the very end when Betty brings up just this same point....what had bothered her the previous year in India, no longer did, but a whole new set of issues were now arising.....so true. Dosa looking for its object. K.Sujin's response (from memory) was all smiles and along the lines of 'isn't good to know, good to see....otherwise we may think we're better than before we started studying the teachings'. People are always looking for indications of great personal progress rather than honestly seeing the truth which is a lot of akusala. .... > I also feel a lot more peaceful now that I have gone back to the > beginning. I think one reason I got irritated is that I sensed > people were racing ahead too fast for their own and my own good. I > will go nice and slow at my own pace now ...maybe. That can't be > controlled. .... S: And it doesn't matter when we have confidence (as you do) that any dhamma can be the object of awareness now, no matter things work out as we'd like or not. I'll look f/w to your installments and comments, Phil. Metta, Sarah ====== 58098 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 11:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ADL ch 1 sarahprocter... Hi Howard, I thought the post you wrote in this thread to Herman was very good. I'll look forward to reading more. Here's just a part: --- upasaka@... wrote: >But in any case, the Buddha himself in the suttas began a > taxonomy > that already went well beyond the nama/rupa breakdown. And there is a > value in > this, because by means of it, or rather, by the direct experiential > knowledge > of it, and not just scanning tables and perusing reportage, one is > partly > disabused of thinking of "the person" as an entity, where all that there > are are > impersonal mental and physical phenomena and operations. This > experiential > breakdown is a first step towards wisdom as I see it, to be followed by > more deeply > looking into these impersonal phenomena and grasping their radical > impermanence, their utterly failing as sources of satisfaction, and > their > interdependence and utter emptiness of self/own-being. .... S: So true! There was another you wrote to Tep (I think) on paramattha dhammas and the Tibetans which worked well for me:) As Eric was saying, it's nice to agree too! Metta, Sarah ========== 58099 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 11:55pm Subject: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ? [was: [dsg] Re: How to radiate metta buddhatrue Hi Sarah (Herman, Howard, and all), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Herman, > .... > S: Yes. As soon as there is a trying to have mental development at any > time, it's indicative of a wish for results (often with an idea of self). > Such wishing is lobha (attachment) not learning or mental devlopment. > > Hope that's cleared up:). > You might be surprised, but I actually agree with you on this point- except, I think your emphasis is misplaced. Granted, when one sits in meditation, if he/she thinks things such as: "I'm meditating. I'm meditating. I want to reach enlightenment. I wonder how long I have to do this before I get results. Won't I be so happy when I get those results! I need to meditate more per day to get better resultsetc. etc. etc.", then that will not be a very productive meditation. The ego has kidnapped the meditation process and rendered it useless. However, we all must start somewhere, and we all start with some amount of lobha. But if one truly follows the Noble Eightfold Path, all eight factors of the path, then this lobha will fall away more and more. Then the meditation will become natural, effort-less, and spontaneous. It will become, as is called in Taoism, a "non- doing". One will begin to do the meditation out of love, not out of greed. This can only happen though if one begins by following the techniques taught by the Buddha and purposefully bringing the mind back again and again to the meditation object. As Howard often emphases in this group: we all have to start from where we are. Metta, James 58100 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 0:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Are concepts impermanent? sarahprocter... Hi Rob M (& Sukin), Many thanks for sharing your breakfast get-together with us. I'm glad it worked out. --- robmoult wrote: > I was reading "The Buddhist Philosophy of Relations" (Patthanudessa > Dipani) by Ledi Sayadaw's, Wheel Publication No. 331/333. > > The opening sentence of the translator's preface is, "Buddhism views > the world, with the exception of Nibbana and pannatti, as impermanent, > liable to suffering and without soul-essence." > > There is an interesting footnote to this sentence added by the BPS > Editor (I assume that it was Bhikkhu Bodhi at the time, > 1986), "Pannatti means concept or idea. The Venerable Author's and the > Translator's view that concepts are not subject to impermanence is not > supported by the canonical texts nor by the ancient commentaries." .... S: Yes, it's an odd (wrong) note and I showed it to B.Bodhi a couple of years ago or so. He was also surprised! He said he'd have to take responsibility, being the editor at the time but speculated that it may have been copied from notes Ven Nyanaponika had written. I believe elsewhere there are comments to suggest Ven N. thought like this. BB talked about it for some time and about discussions and different views the two of them had at times on some points like this one. (Is there a ref. to something similar in 'AB.Studies'? I forget now where I've seen it. This is all just my vague memory, so don't quote me. Metta, Sarah ========== 58101 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 0:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Are concepts impermanent? fbartolom --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > Concepts are not proper mental formations or else they could not be > shared with other people. In fact they embody vocal intimation > and/or body intimation and other derived matter in the form of > writings that > both belong to the rupa aggregate. > TG: This logic makes no sense to me. Dependent Origination shows > that all impinging conditions are "shared." Dependent Origination makes reference to just ultimate reality: there is nothing conventional - but for age, perhaps - in the list. > Interesting conclusion that concepts are being called rupa. Within > the context of this post I do not agree. > Concepts are basically delusion. Even the Dhamma is a concept. Thus concepts are neutral in terms of ethical qualities. > Thus they are of course impermanent like all conditions, but their > condition are complex enough to make them much more stable than > proper mental formations. > TG: They are no more stable than the conditions that generate them ... > i.e., nama and rupa. Then I make a simile becuse sometimes intelligent people understand things by way of similes. Assume you have an important file in your computer and you may or you may not make a backup of it on a tape. Well, we may surely say that both the disk and the tape are subject to losing data but we may say without fear of error - or else I would lose my ICT job :-) - that a file stored both on the disk AND on the tape is less easily lost than one just stored on the disk. > Concepts belong to the conventional reality, like me, you, the > president of the US and an apple. So they do not exist as ultimate > (paramattha) reality. > TG: I don't subscribe or believe in a "two reality" system. No problem. Minds are different: my mind is mathematical in kind and thus a bit reductionistic; if yours is holistic you may dispense of classifications, at least for some time. > TG: The Buddha is not addressing two different realities. The > Buddha is speaking to people in different terms due to their > respective levels of delusion. Please show a quote where the Buddha > speaks to two different realities.?. > I'm confident the closest you can find will be a quote dealing > with > "conventional language" and not a quote dealing with "two > realities." The two things are indeed connected. Conventional reality is the domain where conventional language makes sense; utimate reality is where ultimate language makes sense. Of course the Buddha applied very subtle modifications to his teachings to accomodate different levels of delusion: still I believe a clear mark may be drawn between talks in the ultimate reality and talks in the conditional reality. For instance I am not aware of talks in which conventional reality objects are quoted along ultimate reality ones. Things like the King's eyes consciousness, for example. > TG: The Abhidhamma Pitaka is not focussed on "ultimate realities." > That is > an assumption based on commentaries. This is another case of mere > language > is being confused for ontology. Citta, Cetasika, Rupa and Nibbana are ultimate reality. I think those are the main focus of the Abhidhamma even before the contribution of the commentaries - assuming somone could make a sense of the Abhidhamma without the commentaries and perhaps even the manuals...! Ciao, Fabrizio 58102 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Apr 20, 2006 8:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Are concepts impermanent? TGrand458@... Hi Fabrizio In a message dated 4/21/2006 1:14:49 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, f.bartolomucci@... writes: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > Concepts are not proper mental formations or else they could not be > shared with other people. In fact they embody vocal intimation > and/or body intimation and other derived matter in the form of > writings that > both belong to the rupa aggregate. > TG: This logic makes no sense to me. Dependent Origination shows > that all impinging conditions are "shared." Dependent Origination makes reference to just ultimate reality: there is nothing conventional - but for age, perhaps - in the list. TG: DO is a principle. The 12 fold chain is just one application of that principle. The most important one to be sure. There are several other DO examples taught by the Buddha that are not strictly dealing with the 12 fold chain. > Interesting conclusion that concepts are being called rupa. Within > the context of this post I do not agree. > Concepts are basically delusion. Even the Dhamma is a concept. Thus concepts are neutral in terms of ethical qualities. TG: I disagree. The more deluded the concept, the more unethical the states conjoining that concept tend toward. And vice versa. > Thus they are of course impermanent like all conditions, but their > condition are complex enough to make them much more stable than > proper mental formations. > TG: They are no more stable than the conditions that generate them ... > i.e., nama and rupa. Then I make a simile becuse sometimes intelligent people understand things by way of similes. Assume you have an important file in your computer and you may or you may not make a backup of it on a tape. Well, we may surely say that both the disk and the tape are subject to losing data but we may say without fear of error - or else I would lose my ICT job :-) - that a file stored both on the disk AND on the tape is less easily lost than one just stored on the disk. TG: Once again, whatever states arise are no more stable than the conditions that support them. I really don't understand the relevance of your simile. I must not qualify as "simile capable." > Concepts belong to the conventional reality, like me, you, the > president of the US and an apple. So they do not exist as ultimate > (paramattha) reality. > TG: I don't subscribe or believe in a "two reality" system. No problem. Minds are different: my mind is mathematical in kind and thus a bit reductionistic; if yours is holistic you may dispense of classifications, at least for some time. > TG: The Buddha is not addressing two different realities. The > Buddha is speaking to people in different terms due to their > respective levels of delusion. Please show a quote where the Buddha > speaks to two different realities.?. > I'm confident the closest you can find will be a quote dealing > with > "conventional language" and not a quote dealing with "two > realities." The two things are indeed connected. Conventional reality is the domain where conventional language makes sense; utimate reality is where ultimate language makes sense. Of course the Buddha applied very subtle modifications to his teachings to accomodate different levels of delusion: still I believe a clear mark may be drawn between talks in the ultimate reality and talks in the conditional reality. For instance I am not aware of talks in which conventional reality objects are quoted along ultimate reality ones. Things like the King's eyes consciousness, for example. TG: The Buddha does this all the time throughout the Suttas. You have stated a case in this very post...regarding the 12 fold chain and age. Off the top of my head, the Satipatthana Sutta has considerable examples. Conventional ideas are just that....conventional ideas. They are not somehow a separate reality. > TG: The Abhidhamma Pitaka is not focussed on "ultimate realities." > That is > an assumption based on commentaries. This is another case of mere > language > is being confused for ontology. Citta, Cetasika, Rupa and Nibbana are ultimate reality. I think those are the main focus of the Abhidhamma even before the contribution of the commentaries - assuming somone could make a sense of the Abhidhamma without the commentaries and perhaps even the manuals...! TG: And does the Abhidhamma Pitaka discuss them as "ultimate realities"? Or is the idea of "ultimate realities" being retroactively applied to the Abhidhamma Pitaka? I believe the latter is the case. The Buddha discussed these things as elements and aggregates, conditions and non-conditions. But he did not state they are ultimate realities. Ciao, Fabrizio TG 58103 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 0:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence sarahprocter... Hi Tep (Nina, Ven Dhammanando & all), --- indriyabala wrote: > >Nina: <..> > > Yet this, monks, what we call thought, what we call mind, what we > call consciousness (citta), by this the untaught manyfolk are not able > to feel repelled, they are not able to cease fancying it or to be > freed from it. Why so? For many a long day, monks, has it been for the > uninstructed many folk that to which they cling, that which they call > mine, that which they wrongly conceive, thinking- that is mine, this > I am, this is myself. Hence the untaught many folk are not able to > feel repelled by it, are not able to cease fancying it, are not able > to be freed from it.... But as to this, monks, what we call thought, > what we call mind, what we call consciousness: > > one citta arises when another perishes, day and night....> <...> Tep:> This is the only sutta I have found which states that 'consciousness', > 'mind' and 'thought' are interchangeable. > ....................................... .... S: I think there are others, but I don't have any to hand*. Vism X1V, 82 " 'Whatever has the characteristic of cognizing should be understood, all taken together, as the consciousness aggregate' was said above. And what has the characteristic of cognizing (vijaanana)? Consciousness (vi~n~naa.na); according as it is said, 'It cognizes, friend, that is why 'consciousness' is said (M i 292). The words vi~n~naa.na (consciousness), citta (mind, consciousness), and mano (mind) are one in meaning." Metta, Sarah *I think I recall Ven Dhammanando quoting one a long time ago, but I can't find it. =============== 58104 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: FW: question on Acharn Neb. sarahprocter... Dear Rob K, Chris, Howard, Marisa & Nina, --- rjkjp1 wrote: > Christine asked me about this recently too: " Acharn Naeb studied > under the Burmese monk, Pathunta U Vilasa at wat Prog in Bangkok, > and he later asked her to help promote Dhamma in thailand. .... S: Sometimes we read about the benefit of living in a Buddhist country or think about the value of Buddhist culture and so on, but of course it all comes down to moments of vipaka and accumulations. Chris and I have discussed this before - being with good friends, living in a Buddhist country and so on. It can all sound very appealing - 'if only...', we might think! On a recent day-trip for my mother, K.Sujin was asking me about what I first heard that made so much sense when I was living in the temple in Sri Lanka etc. (This is what prompted me to transcribe that early tape on 'toi rueng'.) We were talking about accumulations and I asked her whether she'd had any interest in the Buddha's teachings growing up in Thailand, whilst studying and so on. "Not at all" was her emphatic reply. It was not until later when she saw the newspaper ad for a course in Abhidhamma and started studying Abhidhamma that she had any interest at all in the teachings. Before she's told me about how, even then, the way it was taught, Abhidhamma and Practice were quite separate. So how did she appreciate that they must be in conformity, in daily life, at this moment, without guidance in this? Accumulations -- reading, questioning, considering. The Dhamma is the Refuge. Metta, Sarah p.s > I think also Khun sujin had another women teacher -who maybe went > blind later in life- but I forget the name? ... S: This doesn't ring a bell at all with Jon or I. ================= 58105 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:08am Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence ken_aitch Hi Howard, I will just pick out the questions you have asked - giving you the last word on the rest. For now! :-) -------------------- H: > So, what do you think, Ken? That's off the top of my head.That's a little more than only discovering that "the world is just a few conditioned dhammas " isn't it? (Not to minimize that in the slightest!!) --------------------- I honestly was not impressed. I am not saying that for debating purposes. My appreciation of "the world is just a few conditioned dhammas" is such that, for me, it sums up the entire Dhamma. When panna (or the highest possible level of mundane panna) sees the conditioned world as it really is, dispassion renunciation and enlightenment automatically follow. ------------ <. . .> H: > More sloganeering, Ken, without genuine content. Reading the suttas makes it crystal clear how wrong you are in this. What do you think right effort is all about? ------------- My understanding of right effort hasn't changed from the previous 2000 explanations (which you call sloganeering) I have given you. Samma-viriya does all the things the suttas say it does. And it does them in the space of a single citta. It follows from, arises in the same citta as, and mutually supports its leader, right understanding. You believe 'right effort' refers to various conventional activities. I do not know why you would prefer such banality when you could glimpse a world of conditioned dhammas. --------------------------- H: > Ken, what is your practice? None? Reading? Contemplating? --------------------------- Yuck! The idea of practice as being mine, or of I being the practitioner, or of practice being under my control, does not appeal to me. You might as well be a Jehovah's Witness at my front door; "Thanks but no thanks!" (Only I don't say Yuck to them.) :-) Ken H 58106 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:15am Subject: Psychological Issues (was: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ? ) buddhatrue Hi Sarah and Joop (and All), I am going to address something that is somewhat OT, but I hope to relate it back to Buddhism. I was somewhat embarrassed by this exchange: Sarah: p.s I assure you that few people would like to see us moderating threads and issuing further guidelines. Ask James OFF- LIST for his valued opinion for a start:)lol,l0l! Joop: I did send today my request off-list to the mods although generally speaking I prefer transparancy in decision-making and thus in on-list proposals (so I don't ask James; no reason to be afraid). I know that I deserve such banter and ribbing because I can be a real handful sometimes. Joop, I think that the moderators of this group have done a great job and have shown me great kindness. I was kicked out of different Buddhist groups by the moderators, but Jon and Sarah have been very patient with me. Due to my recent anxiety and mood-swings from having Dalmatian puppies coming and going out of my apartment, I have started to take the anti-depressant Zoloft. This medication has helped to balance my emotions considerably. One would think that with my meditation background and experience I wouldn't have such emotional outbursts, but there are some things that cause such deep damage to a person that meditation alone won't help. I was a victim of childhood emotional abuse. My natural mother abandoned me and my step mother didn't want me. The emotional abuse in my household was so severe that my brother and sister both turned to drugs and subsequently died. Here is some information I found off the Internet: "The consequences of emotional child abuse can be serious and long- term. Many research studies conclude that psychopathologic symptoms are more likely to develop in emotionally abused children. These children may experience a lifelong pattern of depression, estrangement, anxiety, low self-esteem, inappropriate or troubled relationships, or a lack of empathy." I am going to stay on the Zoloft and seek some counselling/therapy (I wonder if Dr. Phil would come to Cairo?? ;-)) So, to bring this back to Buddhism, there are some psychological issues which Buddhism can't address. If one is very damaged psychologically, he/she needs to deal with those issues before any real progress can be made on the Buddha's path. Metta, James 58107 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Are concepts impermanent? fbartolom --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi Fabrizio Hi. Perhaps, rather than losing ourselves in a doctrinal quarrel, we might focus on the reason why someone uses the classification of conventional and ultimate reality and also thinks the Buddha used that as a framework for his teachings: of course we might never be sure of that as reading the mind of a Buddha I think is a paradox... The point is that there are actually two sets of teachings that are contradictory to each other but, yet, both true. Example of elements in those sets are: ethics and the doctrine of anatta; mindfullness and the reality of kamma; rebirth and the conditionality of aggregates. Of course if someone may host all those concepts in his mind she is in the domain of the Buddhas; whoever tries to accomodate them without being in that domain risks instead to have his mind split in two: as Achaan Chah once remarked about an insistent questioning on those topics... Thus I think the possibility of believing in a two level reality is a help to keep our mental sanity in our way to liberation that was kindly offered as a gift to us by the Buddha our of His great compassion. 58108 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Attention to Conditions and Refinement in Skillful Action sarahprocter... Hi Tep (Dan D & all), I'm actually working backwards, so I hadn't considered this post with the quote of TB's when I replied on the 'skilful' comments: --- indriyabala wrote: > Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu. <...> > "The important element in this input is attention. Anyone who has > mastered a skill will realize that the process of attaining mastery > requires attention to three things: (1) to pre-existing conditions, > (2) to what one is doing in relation to those conditions, and (3) to > the results that come from one's actions. This threefold focus enables > one to monitor one's actions and adjust them accordingly. In this way, > one's attention to conditions, actions, and effects allows the results > of an action to feed back into future action, thus allowing for > refinement in one's skill. <...> > What is your thought? ... S: Wrong View. Metta, Sarah ======== 58109 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:29am Subject: Re: Psychological Issues (was: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ? ) fbartolom --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > So, to bring this back to Buddhism, there are some psychological > issues which Buddhism can't address. If one is very damaged > psychologically, he/she needs to deal with those issues before any > real progress can be made on the Buddha's path. I think this is one of the hottest topics in modern times about practice. For instance most teachers in the IMS group (notably Corrado Pensa from Italy) favor theraphy along or before practice for troublesome people. The logic behind this is that concentration might make some mental illnesses worse, what might in fact be true. This expecially if a particular teaching does not enforce an ethical practice along the meditation one. Yet the problem about theraphy is that it tends to fix the ego and thus naturally makes letting it go much more difficult than for a not scientifically cleaned one as the one most of us are originally provided with. The simile is with a car we wanted to get rid of, and someone that in secret repaints it. 58110 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Psychological Issues (was: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ? ) egberdina Dear James, The reality of human suffering is never off-topic for me. I wish you well, bro, and if you want to talk on or off list about what's happening, please feel free to do so. On 21/04/06, buddhatrue wrote: > > Hi Sarah and Joop (and All), > > I am going to address something that is somewhat OT, but I hope to > relate it back to Buddhism. > > -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58111 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Psychological Issues (was: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ? ) sarahprocter... Hi James (& Joop), Thanks for breaking up the string of my posts.... --- buddhatrue wrote: > Due to my recent anxiety and mood-swings from having Dalmatian > puppies coming and going out of my apartment, I have started to take > the anti-depressant Zoloft. This medication has helped to balance > my emotions considerably. > > One would think that with my meditation background and experience I > wouldn't have such emotional outbursts, but there are some things > that cause such deep damage to a person that meditation alone won't > help. ... S: I think this is a courageous step to a)get assistance and b)let us know. I'm very glad to hear it's helping and wish you very well. Medicine is like food - we all need different kinds of food at different times. As I just wrote in a post to Phil, I think it's good to see and know the damage. It's not just from this lifetime either. ... > I am going to stay on the Zoloft and seek some counselling/therapy > (I wonder if Dr. Phil would come to Cairo?? ;-)) > > So, to bring this back to Buddhism, there are some psychological > issues which Buddhism can't address. If one is very damaged > psychologically, he/she needs to deal with those issues before any > real progress can be made on the Buddha's path. ... S: There isn't any conflict. You can take the 'nutrition' you need, find the counselling AND make progress on the Buddha's path.....in baby steps as 'our Phil' would say:). Let us know how it goes, James. Courage, Patience and Good Cheer, to quote Azita's sign-off. Metta, Sarah ========= 58112 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Attention to Conditions and Refinement in Skillful Action fbartolom --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > S: Wrong View. I try to articulate Sarah's concise statement, if she does not mind. The point is that interpreting reality in terms of our position in the chain of events tends to foster the illusion in the existence of a distinct self. 58113 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Three Suttas about Atta sarahprocter... Hi Tep (& Matheesha), --- indriyabala wrote: > Tep: <...> > Because there are so numerous -- almost infinite, uncountable -- > neutral feelings, then how can one be precisely aware of the beginning > and the end of an interval of neutral feeling? ... S: Why does one want to be aware of them? .... > > In another post(see #57495) Matheesha told me his way for training > (meditation) a skill to do just that. What is your thought on such an > exercise/training? > > > > Matheesha: You must now be aware of the new sound arising, or the > new sensation arising. Focus more on the begining/start of each of > those new 'experiencings' (phassa). .... S: The first stage of insight is clearly distinguishing namas from rupas. Is there any understanding of nama now? Of rupa now? Focussing on the arising of sounds or sensations is not the development of awareness of dhammas as I understand it. By the time there is any focussing, such rupas have long since past. Math, you also referred in a recent post to sati lasting for a long period. Again, even for the Buddha, dhammas (inc. sati) arise and fall away at a faster rate than can possibly be imagined. That's why he spoke in suttas about how nothing is faster than the speed of cittas. Metta, Sarah ====== > - > - > - > - > - > > >Can you see each one starting? If you can then start noticing when > the vedana (neutral-ness/pleasantness/unpleasantness) > begins..[endquote of Matheesha's post] > ............ > > > Howard: > > There occurs to me a category of very natural, very common, > cases of attachment to neutral feeling: I think of persons whose lives > are largely ones of near-unrelenting and extreme difficulty, involving > for example ongoing serious illness, pain, poverty, disappointment, > and loss. ... Such people ... do crave and cling to the slightest > possibility of merely neutral feeling, feeling which for them would be > like finding an oasis in the midst of a burning desert. > > Tep: Good example, Howard. That answers my earlier question ( > >why > does one "seek delight" in it? I wouldn't.) Thanks. > > > Warm regards, > > > Tep > > ==== > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > (snipped) > > In a way, people who sail across samsara in a boat of > distress such as I described above are in a position to appreciate > the release of nibbana better than most of us, for their occasional > respite/release from suffering gives a clearer foretaste of > liberation than any of us are likely to experience. > > 58114 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 2:00am Subject: Re: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ? [was: [dsg] Re: How to radiate metta egberdina Hi Sarah, > If meditation is the same as mental development, which I don't have a > > problem with, and mental develpment is a learning of some kind (or > > unlearning as the case may be) you are saying that there can be no > > learning > > while trying to learn. Is it your intention to say that? > .... > S: Yes. As soon as there is a trying to have mental development at any > time, it's indicative of a wish for results (often with an idea of self). > Such wishing is lobha (attachment) not learning or mental devlopment. > > Hope that's cleared up:). Not quite, but all the signs are hopeful :-) What would clear it up is if you were prepared to say that the intention to learn prevents learning, or that the intention to learn doesn't prevent learning. Would you be prepared to say either? **** > And on the ballooning -- to try not to have interest, to try not to have > lobha whilst in the balloon, at the concert or in the surf would be > equally indicative of a wrong view that this is the way to go or that a > self really can stop lobha from arising. We may be talking about different things here. Some examples might clear up what I mean. A person with cerebral palsy may have the intention to brush their teeth, yet end up brushing their face. They lack the control, despite the intention. I might have the intention to slow my heart rate down, but no matter what I do, nothing has an effect. I don't know how to do it. But with the arising of the intention to stop projecting interest everywhere, that is entirely possible if it is known how to do that. An untrained/unguarded mind is like an incontinent mind, or a cerebral-palsied mind, but a trained/guarded mind can do what it knows how to do. The question really is "Is learning possible?" and if it is "What are we teaching ourselves?" I'm glad you both had a good Easter holiday. Please wish Vicki well:). Will do. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58115 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 2:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy bad? sarahprocter... Hi Tep & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > Howard made an interesting point that might be disagreeable to both > Sarah and Dan D. : > > >Howard : > >It happens, BTW, that in the cases under discussion, though the > conditioning actions involved (such as the fasting) are quite > conventional, the resultan t phenomena, namely metta and hunger > sensations, happen to be paramattha dhammas. .... S: What we read as the conventional conditioning actions (eg fasting), actually is a kind of shorthand for a multitude of paramattha dhammas which condition other states by way of natural decisive support and other conditions. Not disagreeable:). .... > > > >Sarah : > > >When there is some understanding that all dhammas are anatta, we > can also see that metta is also anatta, a conditioned dhamma that > cannot be made to arise at will. > > Tep: Howard also referenced AN XI.16 Metta Sutta without providing a > detail. So I visited the source at ATI and, not surprisingly, found > the following short passage, that I think, may contradict to Sarah's > and Dan's belief. > > "Monks, for one whose awareness-release through good will is > cultivated, developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, > given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken, eleven > benefits can be expected. Which eleven? [endquote] > > Tep: This sutta clearly states that awareness-release(ceto- vimutti), a > paramattha-dhamma, can be "made to arise at will". How should such > wrong understanding of mine be corrected? {:>) .... If there is wrong understanding that any such development occurs 'at will', at 'self-will' can only be corrected by the development of understanding of all such dhammas as anatta, as conditioned, not in the control of your will or anyone's will (;>). I appreciate that others gave you more pleasing replies! Metta, Sarah p.s I know that somewhere I have a couple of your posts written just before you last took a sabbatical from the list and you may still have a few of mine from that time too...:-). ========= 58116 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 2:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's not-self strategy bad? fbartolom --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarahprocterabbott" wrote: > I appreciate that others gave you more pleasing replies! Right: it is interesting to note how the wing of compassion, that once was a feminine quality, now has entered the domain of men; while the one of wisdom, that once was embodied by males, now has become the favorite domain of women. 58117 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:59am Subject: Happy Habit ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: Morality is the Creator of No Regrets and thus Gladness!!! What are the Advantages of Morality? The Gladness of No Regrets and No Remorse Wealth well acquired by righteous diligence The Fame of a Good Reputation Assured & Natural Self-Confidence in any assembly Neither confusion nor panic at the death moment A Happy & occasionally even Divine Destiny after death What are the Similes of Morality? Morality is like a good foothold Morality is like a purifying bath Morality is like a solid cement foundation Morality is like a key to success Morality is like a cool breeze Morality is like a hidden fortune Morality is like a scent drifting even against the wind Morality is like a staircase to heaven Morality is like an aura of fine radiance Morality is like an innocent & rapturous joy Morality is like a much respected fame Source: The Path of Purification: Visuddhimagga. Written by 'the great explainer' Ven. Buddhaghosa in 5th century AC. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=771100 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PS: Please include the word Samahita in any comment, since then will my automatic mail filters pick it up and I will see it & respond!! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. Friendship is the Greatest ... Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!! <...> 58118 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:19am Subject: Re: Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu's ... ? Contradicting Compromise? sarahprocter... Hi Tep again, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > > > Hi Sarah and all - > > >Sarah: > >We speak about anatta but still cling to an idea that we can > develop metta and other good qualities, when really it's just the > conditioned dhammas, such as metta, which develop when there are the > right causes for them to develop. ... And without > understanding cittas, cetasikas and rupas as being `the world', there > will always be an idea of doing something or setting a rule for > ourselves to follow with an idea of `Someone'. ..... > Tep: Wait a minute ! Without someone's saddha in those 11 benefits > there will be no intention (or turning to) metta bhavana in order for > developing metta ceto-vimutti. ..... S: I may be missing your point here (v.rushed now). As I see it, the benefits are benefits. For example, a result of metta is said to be that one sleeps well at night. True, I think. But we don't develop metta or see its benefit in order to sleep well at night. If so, that isn't metta. .... >The right resolve (samma-sankappo) of > that "someone" is a "right cause" for development of metta > ceto-vimutti. I don't believe this right cause just happens by > itself. ... S: There is samma sankappa (vitakka cetasika = right 'thinking') whenever there is right understanding. No, it doesn't just happen by 'itself' - it needs the right conditions, esp. right understanding for it to arise. .... >Understanding (right view) of that "someone" is one condition > for the right resolve to develop, and there are right mindfulness and > right effort too (see MN 117). ... S: Yes, exactly! .... > >S: Yes, metta can be and `should' be developed. But it is only > developed with detachment and by clearly understanding its quality and > value. It's never by wishing to develop it or trying to make it arise. > > Tep : This sounds like a little compromise that is a little > contradiction to what you wrote above(?). .... S: Ah, that would depend on how it's read:). No contradiction intended:). Tep, thank you for your patience in waiting for replies and also indicating that it doesn't matter if they never happen:). Same applies to any of my posts - never a hurry or obligation to respond by you or anyone at all. Metta, Sarah ======= 58119 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 0:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Defining 'Mental Phenomena' upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 4/21/06 1:33:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > S: What exactly is experienced when you think 'wetness' is experienced? > ==================== Something other than just coldness. I don't know how to answer "what" it is. It *seems* to be what we uniquely call "wetness". Of course, there is the possibility that it is a combination of tactile experiences perceptually summed up (pa~n~natti) as "wetness". But it *seems* to be unique. 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) 58120 From: "matheesha" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Three Suttas about Atta matheesha333 Hi Sarah, > > Tep: <...> > > Because there are so numerous -- almost infinite, uncountable -- > > neutral feelings, then how can one be precisely aware of the beginning > > and the end of an interval of neutral feeling? > ... > S: Why does one want to be aware of them? M: I'm struggling to understand why you asked this question.:) Craving is the problemm with sukkha vedana, aversion with dukkha vedana. Avijja is the problem with neutral vedana, but then you know that. Being aware of the begining and the end means knowing when they arise and pass away. Seeing this means seeing anicca. This opens the door to seeing the rest of the tilakkana. subsequently to nibbida, to magga and to vimukti! > > > > In another post(see #57495) Matheesha told me his way for training > > (meditation) a skill to do just that. What is your thought on such an > > exercise/training? > > > > > > Matheesha: You must now be aware of the new sound arising, or the > > new sensation arising. Focus more on the begining/start of each of > > those new 'experiencings' (phassa). > .... > S: The first stage of insight is clearly distinguishing namas from rupas. > Is there any understanding of nama now? Of rupa now? M: yes. as it is arising now. no observer, just the observed, because of purely focusing on something which is happening now, there is no room for thought. If a thought does arise, even that would be seen to arise and pass away- impermanant. S:Focussing on the > arising of sounds or sensations is not the development of awareness of > dhammas as I understand it. M: I wonder if it is any clearer now? > >S: Math, you also referred in a recent post to sati lasting for a long > period. Again, even for the Buddha, dhammas (inc. sati) arise and fall > away at a faster rate than can possibly be imagined. That's why he spoke > in suttas about how nothing is faster than the speed of cittas. M: Cittas do change very quickly. The Buddha says that they change faster than rupas. Is that abhidhammically correct? Since vinnana etc arises with rupa, I think he was talking in a different sense. That of content: rupa arises again and again - but it is the same hardness if you like. But thoughts change more drastically. When I speak of sati lasting a long time, I am speaking ofcourse in a conventional sense. Obviously it arises and passess away like everything else. That is not to say that it cannot be made to arise again and again. In fact you are doing that now, when you keep awareness focused on this email. However it might have arisen and passed away a thousand times by the time it took to get to the last word in this sentence. The 'continuity' is an illusion obviously, but it does arise again and again and it remains focused on this email. I think it is also important to note that the Buddha did not speak of a specific number (thousand,million) but is a commentarial addition. When focused in vipassana there is hardly any time sense, which is ofcurse another illusion. The Buddha asks us to be aware of the five aggregates arising and passing away. To me this means that it is possible to be aware of these things, and experience suggests that it is. But not with a normal untrained mind. There has to be development of the mind for this to be possible. :) metta Matheesha > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== > > > - > > - > > - > > - > > - > > > >Can you see each one starting? If you can then start noticing when > > the vedana (neutral-ness/pleasantness/unpleasantness) > > begins..[endquote of Matheesha's post] > > ............ > > > > > Howard: > > > There occurs to me a category of very natural, very common, > > cases of attachment to neutral feeling: I think of persons whose lives > > are largely ones of near-unrelenting and extreme difficulty, involving > > for example ongoing serious illness, pain, poverty, disappointment, > > and loss. ... Such people ... do crave and cling to the slightest > > possibility of merely neutral feeling, feeling which for them would be > > like finding an oasis in the midst of a burning desert. > > > > Tep: Good example, Howard. That answers my earlier question ( > >why > > does one "seek delight" in it? I wouldn't.) Thanks. > > > > > > Warm regards, > > > > > > Tep > > > > ==== > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > > (snipped) > > > In a way, people who sail across samsara in a boat of > > distress such as I described above are in a position to appreciate > > the release of nibbana better than most of us, for their occasional > > respite/release from suffering gives a clearer foretaste of > > liberation than any of us are likely to experience. > > > 58121 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 0:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Are concepts impermanent? upasaka_howard Hi, TG & Fabrizio - In a message dated 4/21/06 3:46:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... ends with: > TG: And does the Abhidhamma Pitaka discuss them as "ultimate realities"? > > Or is the idea of "ultimate realities" being retroactively applied to the > Abhidhamma Pitaka? I believe the latter is the case. The Buddha discussed > these > things as elements and aggregates, conditions and non-conditions. But he > did not state they are ultimate realities. > ========================= I think the term 'ultimate reality' is redundant. The adjective should be dropped. And the term 'conventional reality' is useful but misleading. No reality is conventional. It is, however, a convention to treat and speak of certain unrealities as real, and it is these that are *called* conventional realities. They are not realities of a certain sort, however. They are, in fact, nonexistent. On the other hand, the terminological distinction of ultimate (literal) versus conventional (figurative) when it comes to speech is fine. We can and do speak conventionally (figuratively) of people, puppies, philosophies, and powder rooms quite meaningfully and even truthfully so long as we understand that the speech is figurative. Speech may be literal or figurative or somewhere in between, but reality is just that. There is not a variety of "realities". 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) 58122 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 0:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 4/21/06 4:08:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > --------------------------- > H: >Ken, what is your practice? None? Reading? Contemplating? > --------------------------- > > Yuck! The idea of practice as being mine, or of I being the > practitioner, or of practice being under my control, does not appeal > to me. You might as well be a Jehovah's Witness at my front > door; "Thanks but no thanks!" (Only I don't say Yuck to them.) :-) > ====================== No comments on the sutta reference I provided: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an05-073.html ? 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) 58123 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 0:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Psychological Issues (was: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ... upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Sarah & Joop) - In reading the following post of Sarah's I realize that I had somehow missed your original post. From my knowing people who take Zoloft, I believe that you (or your doctor) have made a good choice. (Just stay the hell away from Paxil!) All the very best with this, James! We are so fortunate to be living in this day and age, aren't we? :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/21/06 4:36:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > > Hi James (& Joop), > > Thanks for breaking up the string of my posts.... > > --- buddhatrue wrote: > >Due to my recent anxiety and mood-swings from having Dalmatian > >puppies coming and going out of my apartment, I have started to take > >the anti-depressant Zoloft. This medication has helped to balance > >my emotions considerably. > > > >One would think that with my meditation background and experience I > >wouldn't have such emotional outbursts, but there are some things > >that cause such deep damage to a person that meditation alone won't > >help. > ... > S: I think this is a courageous step to a)get assistance and b)let us > know. I'm very glad to hear it's helping and wish you very well. > > Medicine is like food - we all need different kinds of food at different > times. > > As I just wrote in a post to Phil, I think it's good to see and know the > damage. It's not just from this lifetime either. > ... > >I am going to stay on the Zoloft and seek some counselling/therapy > >(I wonder if Dr. Phil would come to Cairo?? ;-)) > > > >So, to bring this back to Buddhism, there are some psychological > >issues which Buddhism can't address. If one is very damaged > >psychologically, he/she needs to deal with those issues before any > >real progress can be made on the Buddha's path. > ... > S: There isn't any conflict. You can take the 'nutrition' you need, find > the counselling AND make progress on the Buddha's path.....in baby steps > as 'our Phil' would say:). > > Let us know how it goes, James. > > Courage, Patience and Good Cheer, to quote Azita's sign-off. > > Metta, > > Sarah /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) 58124 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Defining 'Mental Phenomena' fbartolom --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Sarah - > > In a message dated 4/21/06 1:33:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > > > S: What exactly is experienced when you think 'wetness' is experienced? > > ==================== > Something other than just coldness. I don't know how to answer "what" > it is. It *seems* to be what we uniquely call "wetness". Of course, there is > the possibility that it is a combination of tactile experiences perceptually > summed up (pa~n~natti) as "wetness". But it *seems* to be unique. Well... to become a bit zen and nasty in my answer... that depends whether you are male or female: in the latter case that may be a sign very different to the one you mentioned... 58126 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:54am Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence ken_aitch Hi Eric, I was very pleased to read this post. Thanks for being so open about your beliefs. I may not agree with many of them, but at least I know where you stand. You are obviously happy with your current practice, so I won't try to convert you to the dry, soulless Abhidhamma. Had you insisted your ideas were identical with Theravada Buddhism, you wouldn't have got off so lightly. :-) I was interested to read this: ------------------ E: > No-self Self Both Neither These are just the possible logical outcomes of dualistic thinking in Indian thought. That's it! ------------------- Yes, that might be the explanation. The point might have been, "Non- Buddhist logical thinking seems to be all encompassing, but it does not include the Middle Way. Even if it hits on the same words (e.g., "There is no self") as found in the Dhamma, it is still speculation, and the Middle Way will never be seen by speculation." Thanks again. Ken H 58127 From: "Dan D." Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:21am Subject: Re: No Selfness = No Self? onco111 Hi Richard, A straightforward way to do the diacriticals is to use a unicode font (I use Palatino linotype, but I believe any complete TrueType font works too) and a program that translates keystrokes into the proper character with the desired diacriticals. I use Tavultesoft keyman for Greek and find it very easy and convenient. It can also do Pali and Sanskrit with Romans characters and diacriticals and can also do Burmese, Sinhalese, Tibetan, and, if you are so inclined, elvish (a la Tolkein), Chinese, or just about anything else you can think of. Also, before I cleaned my hard drive and upgraded my operating system, I used to use a program called palitrans for Pali. It wasn't quite as slick as Tavultesoft, but it can do a few things that Tavultesoft cannot. http://www.tavultesoft.com/keyman/downloads/keyboards/ I hope this helps. Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Richard (& Connie) > > I'm not going to be much help, but I'd like to welcome you here anyway:). > > --- Richard Smith wrote: > > > I apologize in advance for not knowing how to represent the diacriticals > > correctly. > > > > During my studies, I came across the term "nairaatmyaastitaa" in > > conjunction with "anatta". I understand the concept of No-Self, but am a > > bit confused about the idea of "fact of no-selfness". > ... > S: I can't 'catch' the word and I don't know if it's Pali or Sanskrit. > Where did you come across it? My best very wild guess would be something > like 'no atma (self) standing/remaining'. Maybe someone with more Pali > expertise like Connie will be able to help....(She's also good at making > up languages:-)). > .... > > > > Am I oversimplifying matters by thinking both terms are the same? Or are > > there indeed differences that I am not seeing? "No-Self" and "Fact of > > No-Selfness" just seem the same to me right now. Or is there a variant > > translation of nairaatmyaastitaa that might clarify things? > ... > S: It's all the same - anatta, the characteristic of all dhammas. However > it's dressed up or whatever words are used, the reality is the same. Just > namas and rupas. > > Can I encourage you to also tell us a little about yourself such as your > background interest in the Buddha's teachings, where you live, or anything > else? > > Connie may also be able to give a brief summary or link on representing > the diacriticals. I can't at the moment find one. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======== > 58128 From: "Richard Smith" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:13am Subject: Intro ... richard@... My name's Richard. I've been a "non-secular" Buddhist for 2 years. The past month has found me concentrating more on the Theravada tradition. Although I used to study linguistics for a hobby (yes, a strange hobby!), I am finding Pali difficult. Whether that is due to having no script of its own or simply my ignorance ... I don't know. I have dabbled in Latin, Greek, Hindi (no sanskrit), as well as a couple of european languages. I just can't see the pattern in Pali yet, so am bombarding myself with the terminology and just doing my best. This group was suggested to me by an online acquaintance. The barrage of emails was a bit surprising, as I am used to only getting maybe 10 total for an entire day! But as I read through them and find much helpful information, they are more than welcome to continue flooding in. Metta, Richard 58129 From: "Richard Smith" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] No Selfness = No Self? richard@... That actually clears things up a bit. Thank you. By the way ... I had found it in "What The Buddha Taught". Metta, Richard ----- Original Message ----- From: LBIDD@... <...> This is a sanskrit word used in mayahana philosophy. This is what I googled: "The teaching of Anatta dispels the darkness of false beliefs, and produces the light of wisdom. It is not negative, as Asanga aptly says: 'There is the fact of No-selfness' (nairatmyastita). (P66)" L: One might argue that the primary meaning of 'anatta' in the suttas _is_ negative insofar as the Buddha doesn't talk about anatta-ness. Although there may be some linguistic subtleties in the pali I'm not aware of. Anatta usually means 'this is not me or mine'. "The fact of no-selfness" could be construed as the experience of things as collections of parts; kind of holie if not holy. Not only is Asanga (or this commentator?) rejecting a grammatical negative he is also rejecting a value negative. Often in the suttas you find the formula, 'what is impermanent is dukkha and what is dukkha is anatta'. In mahayana anatta is the highest good. There is not much interest in nirvana as the cessation of all conditioned arising. <...> 58130 From: "Dan D." Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:48am Subject: [dsg] Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement in Skillful Action onco111 Great comments again, Tep. I think Thanissaro is very clear in his writing, and you and I wholly agree with each other on what he wrote and the intended meaning. Our difference seems to be that I don't think the writing that you quoted is Theravadin or even particularly Buddhist. Instead, it seems to me to be a thoroughly conventional moralism, tired and sterile, but expressed in the guise of Theravada Buddhist doctrine. The problem, as I see it, is that the Buddha and ancient Theras used words like kusala (wholesome), sati (mindfulness), kamma (action), vipaka (result of action), sankhara (reaction), vedana (perception), sañña (perception in a different sense), patthana (conditional relations) to refer to mental states. Thanissaro uses them to refer to people and activity envelopes. Comments interspersed... %%%%%%%%%% "The fact of skillfulness also implies that some results are preferable to others, for otherwise there would be no point in trying to develop skills. In addition, the fact that it is possible to learn from mistakes in the course of developing a skill, so that one's future actions may be more skillful, implies that the cycle of action, result, and reaction is not entirely deterministic, and that acts of perception, attention, and intention can actually provide new input as the cycle goes through successive turns. "The important element in this input is attention. Anyone who has mastered a skill will realize that the process of attaining mastery requires attention to three things: (1) to pre-existing conditions, (2) to what one is doing in relation to those conditions, and (3) to the results that come from one's actions. This threefold focus enables one to monitor one's actions and adjust them accordingly. In this way, one's attention to conditions, actions, and effects allows the results of an action to feed back into future action, thus allowing for refinement in one's skill. "These implications of the fact of skillfulness account for the main framework of the Buddha's doctrine as expressed in the teachings on the four noble truths, dependent co-arising, and this/that conditionality. Other facets of skillful action also account for more detailed points within this framework. For instance, the Buddha's exploration of stress and its origination, in the light of skillful action, provided the analysis of mental and physical events ("name-and-form," nama-rupa) that plays a central role in the second noble truth as expressed in terms of dependent co-arising. The first lesson of skillfulness is that the essence of an action lies in the intention motivating it: an act motivated by the intention for greater skillfulness will give results different from those of an act motivated by greed, aversion, or delusion. Intention, in turn, is influenced by the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the act of attention to one's circumstances. [end of extract] %%%%%%%%%% >T: Boy, I only asked one naive question, "What is your thought?", and > look at what you gave me -- a term paper on "Why Skillfulness is the > Worst Translation of 'Kusala' and Must be Banned", or something like > that !! > {:>|) I must admit that I gave you the "term paper" as an easy way out because I didn't have much time. It wasn't a case of "I'm sorry I wrote such a long letter; I didn't have enough time to write a short one," which Abraham Lincoln is alleged to have written; I just performed the miracle of cut-and-paste from a couple of posts four or five years ago. My thought? Thanissaro's writing has a strong "recipe book" feel to it, which would be to miss the heart of Dhamma. He cannot be unaware that the commentaries and tradition reject "skillful" as a definition of "kusala" when applied to mental states, but he uses it incessantly. It has the effect of magnifying and highlighting the "recipe book" interpretation of Dhamma that has been strongly argued against in orthodox Theravada tradition since the time of the Buddha. > >Dan : > >Why on earth would Asl. make such a careful distinction and not > apply 'skilful' to mental states? One obvious possibility is that > 'skilful' could just as easily be applied to the abilities of > accomplished murderers, butchers, misers, theives, mechanics, cooks, > etc., which have nothing to do with the sense of 'kusala' of > kusalacittani. Thus, the use of 'skilful' in reference to states of > consciousness tends to blur the critical moral distinction between > kusala and akusala. > > Tep: I think Ven. Thanissaro Bhukkhu only talked about the process of > attaining mastery that involved "the cycle of action, result, and > reaction" in the course of developing "future skillful actions". He > stated that an act (bodily, verbal or mental) that was motivated by > the "attention for greater skillfulness" would lead to different > results from "those of an act motivated by greed, aversion, or > delusion". I don't think he used skilfulness "in reference to states > of consciousness" as you have assumed. Bingo. He uses Buddhist language to propound non-Buddhist ideas. > >Dan : > >First, a quick question: How should I practice so that I can get good > at (skillful) making desirable dhammas arise? > > Tep: This is another misunderstanding you have about Ven. Thanissaro > Bhikkhu's wise idea on developing a skillful action! A skillful act > arises as a result of one's attention for greater skillfulness. He did > not say anything about getting "good at making desirable dhammas arise". That's right. "Skilful" has nothing to do with "kusala" or Dhamma because Dhamma is about dhammas and purification of the mind, not about acquiring skills. > >Dan: > >You mean to apply "skillful" just to the dhammas themselves... But > how would that work? When a citta rooted in alobha, adosa, amoha > arises, is it "skillful"? I.e., does it have or demonstrate skill? > > Tep: No, skillful is a quality of "an act" ( bodily, verbal or mental) > not to be "applied" to the dhammas. The other questions you asked are > not meaningful. > ............................ Again, we are in agreement. "Skillful" does not apply to dhammas. Despite Thanassaro's use of Buddhist-sounding terminology, his words clearly do not have the same meaning when used by Buddha and the Theravada tradition. > >Dan: > >The dictionary defines skill as "the ability to do something well, > arising from talent, training, or practice." I'm curious. What talent, > training, or practice has that citta engaged in to give it that > ability to do what it does well? Obviously, it doesn't do any such > thing; it is there for just a brief moment before passing away. > > Tep: There you go again! Here the dictionary uses "conventional > exposition"(vohaara desanaa) and you again jump to the "ultimate > exposition"(paramattha-desanaa) about the citta as the ultimate > reality. Look, your sa?? on ultimate realities has played a trick on > you again. Thanissaro is not only using "conventional exposition", he is using it to describe conventional, pedestrian, hum-drum ideas that are not particularly Buddhist because he does not intend his Buddhist- sounding words to have a Buddhist meaning. > Tep: I have a simple exposition to reconcile our opposing views ("seeing"). > Think of the conventional reality as the world of non-ariyans who > have the clinging on the khandhas as "me, mine, my-self", and think of > the ultimate reality as the world of the ariyans who truly see the > khandhas as 'this is not mine, this I am not, this not my self'. Then > think of the Noble Eightfold Path as the way that connects the two > worlds that appear separate to the eyes of the uninstructed > worldlings. Once you are able to be on the Path you will see all > sankhata dhammas as 'anatta', and when you get to the far-away end you > will see Nibana as anatta. That makes good sense. I'd put just a touch more about the mundane Path, though. When the non-ariyan walks on the path, there is a glimpse of seeing some dhamma without clinging, with awareness, without wrong view of "me, mine, myself". As these moments grow in number and depth, eventually the Noble Eightfold Path is tread for a moment or two, and the two "worlds" are bridged. Very much appreciative of the comments, Tep. Dan 58131 From: "Richard Smith" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No Selfness = No Self? richard@... Thank you for this link, Dan. I will certainly give it a try. Metta, Richard Hi Richard, A straightforward way to do the diacriticals is to use a unicode font (I use Palatino linotype, but I believe any complete TrueType font works too) and a program that translates keystrokes into the proper character with the desired diacriticals. I use Tavultesoft keyman for Greek and find it very easy and convenient. It can also do Pali and Sanskrit with Romans characters and diacriticals and can also do Burmese, Sinhalese, Tibetan, and, if you are so inclined, elvish (a la Tolkein), Chinese, or just about anything else you can think of. Also, before I cleaned my hard drive and upgraded my operating system, I used to use a program called palitrans for Pali. It wasn't quite as slick as Tavultesoft, but it can do a few things that Tavultesoft cannot. http://www.tavultesoft.com/keyman/downloads/keyboards/ I hope this helps. Dan 58132 From: "anonymous_4_200_2006" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:57am Subject: (No subject) anonymous_4_... <..> Samahita (I was anonymous_3_17_2006, and anonymous_4_11_2006; this anonymous_4_200_2006 was trying to make an ID using the day's date -- April 20 -- as the ID name, but I added one more zero by accident, I guess, so it is '...4_200...', instead of '...4_20...'), Please verify. You believe the buddha taught 'no self', right? 'No self' meaning no self, not 'not self', right? Thanissaro does not believe Buddha taught 'no self', right, or wrong? *************************************************** *************************************************** *************************************************** See the writing found in the General Index of http://accesstoinsight.org , under 'Anatta (not-self)': The Not-self Strategy by Thanissaro Bhikkhu Books on Buddhism often state that the Buddha's most basic metaphysical tenet is that there is no soul or self. However, a survey of the discourses in the Pali canon the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings suggests that the Buddha taught the anatta or not-self doctrine, not as a metaphysical assertion, but as a strategy for gaining release from suffering: If one uses the concept of not-self to dis-identify oneself from all phenomena, one goes beyond the reach of all suffering & stress. As for what lies beyond suffering & stress, the Canon states that although it may be experienced, it lies beyond the range of description, and thus such descriptions as "self" or "not-self" would not apply. ,,, *************************************************** *************************************************** *************************************************** According to buddhism is Thanissaro correct or not? *************************************************** *************************************************** *************************************************** Here is something I wish to say, but may be not true: If anatta is emptiness, this emptiness is the same emptiness as in Mahayana buddhism. The perfection of wisdom -- 'prajnaparamita' -- is the coursing in anatta/emptiness. There is no self, others according to the anatta doctrine and the prajnaparamita literature. But if Thanissaro is correct saying the buddha never implied there is no self (I emphasize: NO self), then there is doubt. from, anonymous_4_200_2006 58133 From: "Dan D." Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:06am Subject: Re: No Selfness = No Self? onco111 And one other note -- no one at dsg uses diacriticals in their posts. If you post in a unicode font, any characters with diacriticals will come out as gibberish on virtually everyone's screen. An alternative is to just do a Roman kluge of, say, aa for long a, .m, ~n, etc., even the most hardcore language purists here will be happy. Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Smith" wrote: > > Thank you for this link, Dan. I will certainly give it a try. > > Metta, > Richard > Hi Richard, > > A straightforward way to do the diacriticals is to use a unicode font > (I use Palatino linotype, but I believe any complete TrueType font > works too) and a program that translates keystrokes into the proper > character with the desired diacriticals. I use Tavultesoft keyman for > Greek and find it very easy and convenient. It can also do Pali and > Sanskrit with Romans characters and diacriticals and can also do > Burmese, Sinhalese, Tibetan, and, if you are so inclined, elvish (a > la Tolkein), Chinese, or just about anything else you can think of. > > Also, before I cleaned my hard drive and upgraded my operating > system, I used to use a program called palitrans for Pali. It wasn't > quite as slick as Tavultesoft, but it can do a few things that > Tavultesoft cannot. > > > http://www.tavultesoft.com/keyman/downloads/keyboards/ > > > I hope this helps. > > Dan > > 58134 From: "ericlonline" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:00am Subject: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence ericlonline Hi Herman, E> The tetralemma was to show the logical > > outcomes (views) of any postulated statement > > X. Lets take your belief in no-self. > > > > No-self > > Self > > Both > > Neither > > > > These are just the possible logical > > outcomes of dualistic thinking in Indian > > thought. That's it! > > > > The Middle Way as postulated in the > > 4NT's is not based on these 4 logical > > outcomes in reference to Self. Now, if > > you are hung up on (attached to) Self, > > then investigate No-Self and Both and > > Neither until you see that they are just > > views and can be relinquished and the > > Middle Path can then appear and open up. > > Read the Sutta and ponder it! > > > > H> Very much agreed. It just is not necessary to take a position on the existence of anything. What about your 'ego' below? :-) > -- > Kind Regards > > > Herman > > > There is ego, but not a self who has it. > (Hofman H. 2005) > 58135 From: "ericlonline" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:15am Subject: [dsg] Re:what is sati. ericlonline Hi Sarah, --- ericlonline wrote: > (agreements snipped) > > S: Right - lots of agreement in this thread. Can 'you' really do > anything about them?? > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/wings/part3.htm > l#part3-e > > Thanissaro says (I think it is somewhere there > above or linked) that 'he trains thus' in the > Anapanasati Sutta means that this practice > is willed. It seems to me that is what skillful > means is. You learn about this/that causality > in order to effect it for the better i.e. > towards unification of mind. .... S: Who or what affects it for the better?. Willed by who or what? Lets please not get into the need for non-dual speak Sarah. The one who wills is the one who looks in the mirror in the morning. Conventionally existing YOU. .... > > PS Also here he talks about Jhana in two > ways and does indeed say it is spreading > rapture throughout the body from head to > toe. ..... S: Just to repeat a point - rapture (piiti) is a mental state, a mental factor which arise with the first 2 jhanas (and also commonly with attachment). Mental states or factors cannot be spread 'throughout the body', but as discussed, mental states and jhana factors can and do condition bodily rupas in different ways. Again Sarah, you will never know what this is until you experience it. This is the problem with an abstract intellectual approach to the teachings. The 'organic' experience in this fathom long body gets excised out and you have nothing but an intellectuals philosophy. .... >And he also mentions the creation > of the visual nimitta as another way to > jhana. BTW I know a monk (took over Bhikkhu > Bodhi's kuti when he left Sri Lanka) here > in Chicago who teaches by this method. So > it seems we may not be that far off there > also. .... S: Out of curiosity only, are you referring to B.Mettavihara or B.Guttasila or who? He goes by the name of B. Subhuti. S> Eric, I don't really mind who teaches what, but I think we need to really consider and look deeply at the texts. Back to the fundamentalist position. Because, it says so in the Bible!! Sooner or later, alive or dead, you are going to have to let go of your beloved book collection. S> For a while, everyone seemed to be sotapannas. Now everyone seems to have jhana attainments. Of course it's all very appealing to lobha, but I think we have to keep questioning what the path really is at this moment, otherwise we'll be led astray all the time. Again Sarah, maybe have the experience and then see what you think. You are talking to someone about diving and you havn't even waded into the shallow end yet. Metta, 58136 From: "ericlonline" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:28am Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence ericlonline Hi Ken H, K> I was very pleased to read this post. Thanks for being so open about your beliefs. I may not agree with many of them, but at least I know where you stand. > >You are obviously happy with your current practice, so I won't try to convert you to the dry, soulless Abhidhamma. Had you insisted your ideas were identical with Theravada Buddhism, you wouldn't have got off so lightly. :-) :-) How can my ideas now be indentical with something from the middle ages? K>I was interested to read this: ------------------ E: > No-self Self Both Neither These are just the possible logical outcomes of dualistic thinking in Indian thought. That's it! ------------------- K> Yes, that might be the explanation. The point might have been, "Non- Buddhist logical thinking seems to be all encompassing, but it does not include the Middle Way. You are not going far enough. All thinking or concocting is to be not clung too. K>Even if it hits on the same words (e.g., "There is no self") as found in the Dhamma, it is still speculation, and the Middle Way will never be seen by speculation." Agreed, the Buddha was pointing Kaccanagotta away from speculation to Dependent Origination which has less to do about speculation (thought and views about self. Where is self or no-self mentioned in DO?) then about the soteriological seeing of DO. PEACE 58137 From: mlnease@... Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] missed ya mlnease Hi Connie, > :) mike! > i was beginning to regret not having said as long as the funeral wasn't > yours... > but then again??? may your next be the last, > or close to it... i hear there's a milk route. You mean the sitting-cross-legged-on-the-floor route? > no wiser here on the ways > of ditto Thanks for the best of wishes and Back At Ye Ma'am, mike 58138 From: "icarofranca" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Are concepts impermanent? icarofranca Hi Howard! The "Pestering other Puthujjanas about how very Paramattha are my wonderful reality viewpoints!" Post... -------------------------------------------------------------------- > I think the term 'ultimate reality' is redundant. The >adjective should > be dropped. And the term 'conventional reality' is useful but >misleading. No > reality is conventional. It is, however, a convention to treat and >speak of > certain unrealities as real, and it is these that are *called* >conventional > realities. They are not realities of a certain sort, however. They >are, in fact, > nonexistent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Exact. I just can think about how a Paramattha Dhammas scheme can works out at a more complete reference frame: you can get the first glimpse of an external object - a book, for example - and all correlated notions that come to your mind about it. Thats a so called "Conventional Reality"... a term that sometimes cannot fit well in other Buddhistic teachings, since such teachings sign for practices that lead one to see "things as they really are". An "Utlimate Reallity"frame - Mind, Mind formations, Form and Nibbana - could be the elocubration stage of all internal notions - manasikaro, if you prefer some Pali. So, you can call the "Paramattha Sacca" scheme as a refined form of Idealism... the other levels of perception could be only "Inexistent"or"Illusory". --------------------------------------------------------------------- > On the other hand, the terminological distinction of ultimate > (literal) versus conventional (figurative) when it comes to speech is fine. We can and > do speak conventionally (figuratively) of people, puppies, philosophies, and > powder rooms quite meaningfully and even truthfully so long as we understand > that the speech is figurative. Speech may be literal or figurative or somewhere > in between, but reality is just that. There is not a variety of "realities". --------------------------------------------------------------------- Our dear James is getting by the medicine pills... but you seem too much happy, great Howard...I just suspect that these Paramattha Saccas theme arises too many on you!!! Keep Boostin man! Mettaya, caro 58139 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:what is sati. upasaka_howard Hi, Eric & Sarah - In a message dated 4/21/06 11:17:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ericlonline@... quotes Sarah saying the following: > S: Just to repeat a point - rapture (piiti) is a mental state, a > mental factor which arise with the first 2 jhanas (and also commonly > with attachment). Mental states or factors cannot be > spread 'throughout the body', but as discussed, mental states and > jhana factors can and do condition bodily rupas in different ways. > > ========================== Sarah, there is the following from AN V.28, also found in many other suttas: __________________ "There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal." __________________ Please note in particular the sentence "He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal." This, of course, is figurative speech given that there is no literal "he" to be doing anything . The reality is that cetana in cooperation with other operations manages to do what is conventionally referred to permeating, pervading, suffusing, and filling the body. But it really makes no sense to me to do this "dance" every time conventional language is used, or when it suits one. The Buddha didn't do that. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 58140 From: "Dan D." Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:01am Subject: Re: Happy Habit ... !!! onco111 Dear Ven Bhikkhu Samahita! Can you say a word or two about the difference between the "Creator of No Regrets" and the morality of our dear ol' auntie Fern? She has been described as follows: "Now let us look at the person who does good. Take my dear ole' Auntie Fern who does good. Ya look up abstinence in the dictionary it is right likely you'll find her picture right next to the definition (all smilin' and such). Heck, I think, she would have people arrested for runnin' around stark raving nude underneath there clothin'. Such a fittin' person gets all them good results from all them so called good actions. She be gettin' wealth, perstige, and all those things she be a wishin' fer (a right pillar of the community). But if you examine her 'delicate' mental condition,why heck, you would realize she is full of worry (anxiety attacks). It seems to be a fact that if someone happens to be attached and finds satisfaction it sure is right bound to cause distress."[8673] Metta, Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Bhikkhu Samahita" wrote: > > Friends: > Morality is the Creator of No Regrets and thus Gladness!!! > > What are the Advantages of Morality? > ? The Gladness of No Regrets and No Remorse? > ? Wealth well acquired by righteous diligence ? > ? The Fame of a Good Reputation? > ? Assured & Natural Self-Confidence in any assembly? > ? Neither confusion nor panic at the death moment? > ? A Happy & occasionally even Divine Destiny after death? > > What are the Similes of Morality? > ? Morality is like a good foothold? > ? Morality is like a purifying bath? > ? Morality is like a solid cement foundation? > ? Morality is like a key to success? > ? Morality is like a cool breeze? > ? Morality is like a hidden fortune? > ? Morality is like a scent drifting even against the wind? > ? Morality is like a staircase to heaven? > ? Morality is like an aura of fine radiance? > ? Morality is like an innocent & rapturous joy? > ? Morality is like a much respected fame? > > Source: The Path of Purification: Visuddhimagga. > Written by 'the great explainer' Ven. Buddhaghosa in 5th century AC. > http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=771100 > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ > > PS: Please include the word Samahita in any comment, since then > will my automatic mail filters pick it up and I will see it & respond!! > > Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. > > Friendship is the Greatest ... > Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!! > <...> > 58141 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:13am Subject: Re: Psychological Issues (was: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ? ) buddhatrue Hi Fabrizio, Thank you for your post. You are a new member and I welcome that. You add some new insights and freshness to the discussion. BTW, I have been to Italy and I really loved it! I went to Florence and Rome, two truly noble and dignified cities worth seeing. However, I overall found the Italian people too pushy and too bitchy- I hope that isn't the case with you. :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > wrote: > > > So, to bring this back to Buddhism, there are some psychological > > issues which Buddhism can't address. If one is very damaged > > psychologically, he/she needs to deal with those issues before any > > real progress can be made on the Buddha's path. > > I think this is one of the hottest topics in modern times about > practice. For instance most teachers in the IMS group (notably Corrado > Pensa from Italy) favor theraphy along or before practice for > troublesome people. The logic behind this is that concentration might > make some mental illnesses worse, what might in fact be true. This > expecially if a particular teaching does not enforce an ethical > practice along the meditation one. James: I'm not sure what the IMS group is, but this seems like good advice to me. One does need to follow the five precepts in order to afford some benefit from meditation practice- all eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path must be followed. As for myself, I was always lacking in one area or another, so that wasn't such good luck for me. But it is important to keep your eyes on the prize. > Yet the problem about theraphy is that it tends to fix the ego and > thus naturally makes letting it go much more difficult than for a not > scientifically cleaned one as the one most of us are originally > provided with. > The simile is with a car we wanted to get rid of, and someone that in > secret repaints it. > James: I am so glad that you brought this up!! This is touching on an area that many need to examine. As for myself, I believe that the ego must first be healed in order to be overcome (and you can quote me on that! ;-)). Many of those who scream loudest "No Self, No Self" are dealing with personal, psychological issues stemming from a damaged psyche- but somehow want to bypass the damage with the Buddha's anatta teaching. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way! Actually, the Buddha gave many newcomers to the sangha the meditation object of metta to work on FIRST. Why was that? I believe it was because they needed to heal their damaged ego from so much abuse- present day and past life. I also have this problem, and that is another reason why I emphasize the importance of metta meditation so often in my posts. However, I don't have the luxury to work on this issue in solitude, day in and day out; as a householder I have a lot of responsibilities and a lot of pressures. So, I decided to take the quick route for now- anti-depression medication. BUT, I know that it is just a quick stop, it is not a solution. I have much to work through. Thank you Fabio (or is it Fabrizio?? ;-)) (just teasing) for pointing out the important issues. Metta, James 58142 From: "matheesha" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:16am Subject: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence matheesha333 Yes, excellent sutta selection. nail on the head --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Ken - > > In a message dated 4/21/06 4:08:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > ken_aitch@... writes: > > > --------------------------- > > H: >Ken, what is your practice? None? Reading? Contemplating? > > --------------------------- > > > > Yuck! The idea of practice as being mine, or of I being the > > practitioner, or of practice being under my control, does not appeal > > to me. You might as well be a Jehovah's Witness at my front > > door; "Thanks but no thanks!" (Only I don't say Yuck to them.) :- ) > > > ====================== > No comments on the sutta reference I provided: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an05- 073.html ? > > With metta, > Howard > 58143 From: "indriyabala" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:17am Subject: Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence indriyabala Hi, KenH & Eric: I think there is striking similarity in the two dialogues below. Do you see what I saw? Eric to KenH (#58064) : Read the sutta and let it roll around your mind. Duality of existence/non-existence. This is how the mind works and the Buddha was offering a way out via the middle. A way out of the suffering caused by this dualistic seeing & thinking. Tep to KenH (# 57872): Tep: Your humble opinion is wrong. The true Dhamma about 'anatta' is summarized as follows: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self'. This seeing 'anatta' in 'dhatus' and 'khandhas' helps us to eradicate wrong views(sakkhaya-ditthi) that cause the clinging to the five aggregates. It also helps us abandon other wrong views about the worlds. The main goal is in eradication of dukkha, not about what kind of realities things are. ......................... Sincerely, Tep, your friend. ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ericlonline" wrote: > > Hi Ken H, > > -------------- > E: > Take any 'x' and place it below. > > > > 'x' exists: That is one extreme. 'x' > > doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two > > extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:... > > Read the sutta and let it roll > around your mind. Duality of > existence/non-existence. This > is how the mind works and the > Buddha was offering a way out > via the middle. A way out of > the suffering caused by this > dualistic seeing & thinking. > ------------- > > K> That is one interpretation, but it is not the Theravada > interpretation. Even so, it is adopted by many people, including > many monks, who insist they are Theravada Buddhists. They say the > Buddha never taught, "There is no self." But he did. :-) > > (snipped) 58144 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:26am Subject: Re: Psychological Issues (was: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ? ) buddhatrue Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Dear James, > > The reality of human suffering is never off-topic for me. > > I wish you well, bro, and if you want to talk on or off list about what's > happening, please feel free to do so. > Thank you so much for your supportive post! It means a lot to me. I know that you also started to take anti-depressants, and you announced it on-list. You may not know this, but you gave me some courage to talk about my problems and issues on-list. I do consider you a dhamma brother. I think I will contact you off-list to discuss some stuff particular to the medication, and such- but probably later. You are truly an interesting individual. I'm so glad that you decided to rejoin in the discussions here at DSG and I welcome your warm thoughts for others. Metta, James 58145 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Psychological Issues (was: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ? ) buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi James (& Joop), > > Thanks for breaking up the string of my posts.... > > --- buddhatrue wrote: > > Due to my recent anxiety and mood-swings from having Dalmatian > > puppies coming and going out of my apartment, I have started to take > > the anti-depressant Zoloft. This medication has helped to balance > > my emotions considerably. > > > > One would think that with my meditation background and experience I > > wouldn't have such emotional outbursts, but there are some things > > that cause such deep damage to a person that meditation alone won't > > help. > ... > S: I think this is a courageous step to a)get assistance and b)let us > know. I'm very glad to hear it's helping and wish you very well. > > Medicine is like food - we all need different kinds of food at different > times. > > As I just wrote in a post to Phil, I think it's good to see and know the > damage. It's not just from this lifetime either. James:Thank you for your encouraging words. You are truly a remarkable lady!! You can balance the needs, desires, and wants of so many different people, and still keep the machine running. It is remarkable. > ... > > I am going to stay on the Zoloft and seek some counselling/therapy > > (I wonder if Dr. Phil would come to Cairo?? ;-)) > > > > So, to bring this back to Buddhism, there are some psychological > > issues which Buddhism can't address. If one is very damaged > > psychologically, he/she needs to deal with those issues before any > > real progress can be made on the Buddha's path. > ... > S: There isn't any conflict. You can take the 'nutrition' you need, find > the counselling AND make progress on the Buddha's path.....in baby steps > as 'our Phil' would say:). > > Let us know how it goes, James. > > Courage, Patience and Good Cheer, to quote Azita's sign-off. James: Yes, I will take your advice and try to incorporate everything. There is really no need for me to think I need to suddenly `drop the Buddha's path' simply because I have started to face this obstacle for the first time. I love you so much for pointing this out to me. You are one in a million. I will take your advice and try to keep my eye on the Buddha's path. It will be difficult, and tiring, but I will try to remember your encouragement. Thank you, again! > > Metta, > > Sarah > ========= > Metta, James 58146 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:03am Subject: The Four Great References (Mahapadesa) sunnaloka Hi all, It's been a long time! I bring this post to DSG because the members here are knowledgeable of the Sutta Pitaka and Vinaya Pitaka.... Speaking for myself, the more I read the suttas the more I appreciate both the practicality of the Buddha's teachings and the subtlety of what he chooses to say and chooses to leave unsaid. Everything he says is precisely for orienting one on the path, and everything he leaves unsaid is precisely for abandoning unnecessary metaphysical speculation and other forms of infatuation with discursive thinking. He was indeed the foremost teacher of gods and humans. And while no one who is a practitioner of Dhamma-vinaya would ever say otherwise, the position of the Mahavihara commentarial tradition (the entire written tradition of Sinhalese commentaries and later Pali commentaries and texts based on these commentaries from the Mahavihara monastery, Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka) implies that the Buddha's own teaching method was not sufficient to describe what is necessary for discernment (panna), as well as what is and is not the experience of meditation (jhana). Commenting on the latter, Ajahn Thanissaro says: "Some Theravadins insist that questioning the commentaries is a sign of disrespect for the tradition, but it seems to be a sign of greater disrespect for the Buddha � or the compilers of the Canon � to assume that he or they would have left out something absolutely essential to the practice." (Thanissaro Bhikkhu: Wings to Awakening Part III: The Basic Factors) Fortunately, the Buddha himself gave us the following injunction for ascertaining the validity of any Dhamma teaching. *The Four Great References (Mahapadesas)-- Maha Parinibbana Sutta* 'And there the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Now, bhikkhus, I shall make known to you the four great references. Listen and pay heed to my words." And those bhikkhus answered, saying: "So be it, Lord." Then the Blessed One said: "In this fashion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might speak: 'Face to face with the Blessed One, brethren, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a community with elders and a chief. Face to face with that community, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name live several bhikkhus who are elders, who are learned, who have accomplished their course, who are preservers of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with those elders, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a single bhikkhu who is an elder, who is learned, who has accomplished his course, who is a preserver of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with that elder, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation.' "In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu � or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu � or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve."' (DN 16: Maha-parinibbana Sutta; trans. Sister Vajira & Francis Story) *Notions Contained In The Sinhalese Mahavihara Commentarial Tradition Not Found In The Sutta Pitaka Or Vinaya Pitaka* In the above injunction on how to ascertain the authoritative accuracy of Dhamma teachings, the Blessed One is clear that the sole authority lies in the suttas (discourses) and vinaya (discipline). It does not mention the Abhidhamma Pitaka nor the Sinhalese Mahavihara commentarial tradition as being any standard for deciding what is or is not authoritative. That said, it would be interesting to take a look at a list of some teachings that are considered unquestionable doctrine by the hardline proponents of the Mahavihara commentarial tradition which are, nevertheless, nowhere to be found in the suttas and vinaya, and therefore must legitimately be questioned as to their accuracy as Dhamma teachings, by using the Buddha's own criteria. 1. The notion that the Abhidhamma is among the "four great references" for ascertaining the validity of a Dhamma teaching 2. The notion that conditioned dhammas are "ultimate things" (paramattha) 3. The notion that paramattha dhammas possess "own-nature" (sabhava) (this being a direct contradiction of the Sunnata Katha of the Patisambhidamagga) 4. The notion of the pluralistic momentariness of dhammas and the momentary present (khanapaccuppanna) 5. The notions of learning sign (uggahanimitta) and counterpart sign (patibhaganimitta) in the process of practicing jhana (see Wings to Awakening Part III F: Concentration and Discernment by Thanissaro Bhikkhu) 6. The notion that the sign (nimita) of anapanasati is a visible object (this is a clear and obvious literalization of a simile from the Patisambhidamagga; see Mystery of the Breath Nimita by Bhikkhu Sona) 7. The notions of access concentration (upacara samadhi), fixed concentration (appana samadhi), and momentary concentration (khanika samadhi) 8. The notion that "dry vipassana" without samatha can lead to liberation (see One Tool Among Many: The Place of Vipassana in Buddhist Practice by Thanissaro Bhikkhu) 9. The notion that the heart is the seat of consciousness 10. The metaphysical location of an arahant after physical death Given that none of these notions are to be found in the suttas or the vinaya (as far as I know; I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong on this statement), it is completely valid for one to conclude, regarding any one of these teachings, that: "'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu � or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it." Furthermore, I would suggest -- humbly suggest -- that as the Mahavihara commentarial tradition has based so much of their doctrine on theories and practices that are nowhere to be found in the suttas or the vinaya, that that brings their entire paradigm of what constitutes "Theravadin orthodoxy" into question. Why? Because the Buddha said so. And he was the original Thera. What do you think? Metta, Geoff. 58147 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:06am Subject: Patisambhidamagga refutation of own-nature (sabhava) sunnaloka Hi all, What follows is an essay I wrote which begins with the Canonical refutation of the notion of own-nature (sabhava), that as you all know later crept into some post-canonical commentarial literature. I also try to outline why this view of own nature is counterproductive to the development of both experiential discernment of all conditioned phenomena (dhamma-thiti-nana), which by definition are temporal and impermanent, as well as the fruitional experiential discernment of the unconditioned (Nibbana-nana), which by definition is non-temporal and permanent. The Sunnata Katha of the Patisambhidamagga, from the Khuddaka Nikaya, specifically states that the five aggregates are empty of own-nature (sabhavena-sunnat): "How is emptiness [understood in relation to] change? [Because it is] produced, form is empty of own-nature; ceased, form is changed and [therefore] empty. Produced, feelings ... perceptions ... fabrications ... consciousness ... are empty of own-nature; ceased, [they are] changed and empty." The passage then goes on to list 194 other conditioned phenomena (comprising the five aggregates, twelve sensory spheres, and eighteen elements) which is an exhaustive list of all possible conditioned phenomena including kama-dhatu, rupa-dhatu, and arupa-dhatu phenomena, stating that all these phenomena are empty of own-nature. This seems to me to be a definitive statement regarding own-nature. Therefore, the Sutta Pitaka view regarding own-nature is that phenomena don't have own-nature, period. Of the 200 times the term sabhava occurs in the Sutta Pitaka (that I'm aware of) 199 of those occurrences are in the above mentioned passage from the Patisambhidamagga. The only other canonical mention of sabhava is in the Buddhavamsa, where it states "Of him comprehending these phenomena having their own natures, tastes, and characteristics." This text is considered a very late addition to the canon, and as such may have been influenced by the commentarial introduction of the term. Nevertheless, in light of the Patisambhidamagga, I would suggest that this Buddhavamsa statement be interpreted as referring to the comprehending of phenomenal own-natures and thereby discerning that phenomena are empty of own-nature. But one might ask: "So what's the harm in ascribing own-nature to paramattha dhammas anyway, since visual consciousness has the nature of 'knowing' and visible form doesn't?" Yes, this is a valid temporal discernment of what differentiates mind (nama) from form (rupa), but as such it is still based on the temporal (sankhata) understanding of temporal conditioned phenomena (sankhata dhamma), and therefore only represents 'mere' phenomena according to 'mere' conventional designations. Ascribing own-nature to these conditioned temporal phenomena gives rise to exactly the wrong approach regarding how discernment relates to such conditioned phenomena. This wrong turn suggests that conditioned paramattha dhammas are 'ultimate realities.' In my opinion, this represents a gross misunderstanding of the distinction between conventional/relative/temporal truth (vohara-sacca) and ultimate truth (paramattha-sacca). Conditioned phenomena are 'merely' ultimately irreducible empirical phenomena, and as such have no inherent own-nature because they are dependently arisen. Furthermore, the analysis of all conditioned phenomena is entirely based on temporal linear discernment employing temporal linear causal relationships and conventional mental labels. Therefore this mode of knowledge which results in 'knowledge of the regularity of phenomena' (dhamma-thiti-nana), as valid as it is from the temporal linear perspective, still only represents relative truth. For the discernment of ultimate truth one needs to transcend the temporal mode of analysis altogether by direct valid cognition of nontemporal dhamma, which is the deathless element (amata dhatu), and which eventually results in direct realization of Nibbana (Nibbana-nana). Therefore, the nontemporal discernment of the deathless element (which is immediately present 'nowness') and the resultant fruition of Nibbana is the only Ultimate Truth (Paramattha-sacca). Also, concerning how the theory of own-nature represents a wrong turn by way of the methodology of clear seeing (vipassana) resulting in discernment (panna), what this notion of own-nature does is set up a substantialistic philosophy concerned with the never-ending analysis of conditioned phenomena. This approach effectively blocks the arising of the necessary attitude of nonfashioning (atammayata) required to surrender linear discernment altogether and remain with the nonlinear discernment of deathlessness which is the pathway to the fruition of the entire process that we call Dhamma. The own-nature approach, I believe, represents not only and illogical philosophy (i.e. the theory of own-nature is refuted by valid logical inference) rooted in non-Buddhist substantialism, it also represents an extremely unskillful (akusala) methodology concerning the functional efficacy of conditioned linear discernment which mistakenly views the fruition of the path (i.e. the unconditioned, Nibbana) in rigidly dualistic and ridiculously nihilistic terms. The own-nature theory spins an ever increasing web of relative diversity and complexity, which is simply more complication, becoming, and stress, which is in no way liberational because it keeps one trapped in the linear, temporal causal mode of discernment which completely blocks transcendent intuition (i.e. nontemporal consciousness) from emerging/being realized. Awareness which only realizes linear temporal consciousness without the (paradoxically) simultaneous realization of nonlinear-nontemporal-nonlocalized-transcendent consciousness (vinnana anidassana) is nihilistic in that it posits the complete cessation of consciousness as the goal of practice. In my opinion, this view is so utterly ridiculous as to be disregarded outright if it weren't for the fact that the commentarial literature promoting this nihilistic view is seen by many as representing the Sutta Pitaka, when in actual fact it represents a clear misinterpretation of the Pali Sutta Pitaka, which, as has already been established, refutes any notions of conditioned dhammas having own-nature. This own-nature view is not only nihilistic, but at the same time substantialistic in that is ignorantly reifies duration and location which is rooted in the deep seated infatuation (raga) with memory recognition (sanna) and discursive fabrication (vicara-sankhara). In spite of what the proponents of the own-nature theory assert is the ability of their view to distinguish 'concept' from 'reality,' they forever remain stuck within the conceptual reification of time and space, which is the root cause of the origin of the 'world' from which they are attempting to free themselves. By not transcending the conditioned aggregates of perception (sanna) and fabrication (sankhara) they remain within the very conditioned phenomena that the Buddha, in the Phena Sutta, calls "an idiot's babbling." What do you think? Metta, Geoff. 58148 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:12am Subject: Re: Psychological Issues (was: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ... buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, James (and Sarah & Joop) - > > In reading the following post of Sarah's I realize that I had somehow > missed your original post. James:I know the feeling!! Gosh, there are just too many posts to this group! The members should keep in mind quality, not quantity! From my knowing people who take Zoloft, I believe > that you (or your doctor) have made a good choice. (Just stay the hell away > from Paxil!) All the very best with this, James! We are so fortunate to be living > in this day and age, aren't we? :-) James: Thank you for your encouraging words. I am not so sure I am especially "lucky" to be living in this day and age- I think it is all relative. Different problems, different times- all the same. But thank you again for your encouragement. What I am definitely sure of is that I am lucky to have a friend like you. > > With metta, > Howard Metta, James 58149 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:14am Subject: Ultimately empty of own-nature (sabhava) sunnaloka Hi all, Let's explore both the logical validity and direct valid cognition regarding the "ultimate own-nature" (paramattha-sabhava) of any given conditioned phenomenon.... All conditioned phenomena are dependently arisen. This is undisputed by all who practice Dhamma-vinaya. That which is dependently arisen cannot possess any ultimate own-nature because by definition an ultimate own-nature would be inherent and that which is inherent is not dependent. Let's take tactile consciousness (specifically the tactile consciousness element, as the eighteen dhatus are very useful for ascertaining emptiness) and the "object" of tactile consciousness: the felt sense of your hand on the computer mouse (tactile sensation element). Your tactile consciousness element right now has arisen in complete dependence upon contact between the body element (your hand) and the tactile sensation element (the felt sense of the relative "hardness" of the computer mouse as it is being experienced in the present moment). Now the abhidhammikas stop right here and conclude that "knowing" is an inherent ultimate own-nature, as is "hardness." The problem is that they haven�t gone far enough and their conclusion is illogical as well as completely conceptual. It is illogical because any inherent ultimate own-nature, by definition, is not dependent upon anything -- it is inherent. But it is obvious that there can be no tactile consciousness element without contact between the body element and tactile form element. There is nothing inherent in tactile consciousness independent of these other two elements. Thus to speak of an "ultimate own-nature" is a completely unskillful use of language in that it sets up the fallacy of reification of inherent individual characteristics, which, although relatively valid, have no ultimate existence. Furthermore, it is completely conceptual because during the actual tactile experience resulting from the coming together of the tactile form element, the body element, and the tactile consciousness element, any notion of "knowing" as being anything, or in any way distinguishable from "that which is known" is completely conceptual, and therefore relative. This is so obvious as to make me laugh out loud every time a hardline abhidhammika states that their system "distinguishes concept from reality." What a load of nonsense. And the only reason that I cannot remain laughing is that people are actually buying this as valid, and as the Dhamma of the Blessed One -- which it is not. The Buddha is very clear: "Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer. When hearing.... When sensing.... When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer. Thus, monks, the Tathagata -- being the same with regard to all phenomena that can be seen, heard, sensed, & cognized -- is 'Such.' And I tell you: There's no other 'Such' higher or more sublime." (AN IV.24: Kalaka Sutta; trans. Thanissaro Bhikkhu) Right now, close your eyes while keeping your hand on your computer mouse. While doing so, try to nonconceptually distinguish any differentiation between "knowing" (i.e. tactile consciousness) and "the known" (i.e. the hardness of the computer mouse). If you can do this without reference to any conditioned expectations of what you should experience, it will become completely obvious that there is no "knowing" that can in any way be directly and nonconceptually distinguished from "the known." Take you time and investigate again and again -- the ignorant reification of subjective/objective duality is a persistent and long running habit for all of us. But if you can remain open and mindful, it can be readily experienced. This is the direct valid cognition of the emptiness of any sort of inherent ultimate own-nature regarding conditioned phenomena, and what is true of these elements just explored is true of all conditioned dhammas. Now I am very aware the the abhidhammikas have gone to great lengths to try to try to qualify their position once the genie was out of the bottle (so to speak) regarding the introduction of the term sabhava, but all any of that adds up to is more and more completely unskillful proliferation of discursive fabrication (vicara sankara) and mental labeling of the perception aggregate (sanna khandha). The Buddha was emphatically clear that these phenomena should be abandoned. To catalogue and then analyze every relative aspect of conditioned existence is both pointless and counterproductive -- the product of an academia that had diverged from the practicality and intent of the Buddha�s injunctions. The ramifications of this divergence from the Blessed One's Dhamma, I would suggest, is the cause of the decline of the teachings. To prevent all such unnecessary verbal and mental proliferation, the Sunnata Katha says: "[Because they are] produced, form ... feelings ... perceptions ... fabrications ... consciousness ... are empty of own-nature (sabhavena-sunat). [Because it is] produced, the eye is empty ..., the ear is empty ..., the nose is empty ..., the tongue is empty ..., the body is empty of own-nature. [Because it is] produced, visible form is empty ..., sound is empty ..., odor is empty ..., flavor is empty ..., tactile sensation is empty of own-nature. [Because it is] produced, visual consciousness is empty ..., auditory consciousness is empty ..., olfactory consciousness is empty ..., gustatory consciousness is empty ..., tactile consciousness is empty ..., mental consciousness is empty of own-nature." Any notion that conditioned dhammas possess any ultimate sabhava or ultimate existence or that any such statement is a statement of ultimate truth is completely baseless and untrue conceptual fabrication, and as such is not the discernment (panna) taught by the Blessed One. Metta, Geoff. 58150 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patisambhidamagga refutation of own-nature (sabhava) upasaka_howard Hi, Geoff - In a message dated 4/21/06 1:08:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, sunnaloka@... ends his post by asking: > What do you think? > ======================= I think we see things similarly, Geoff! :-) Let me just add: There is considerable use of the term 'sabhava' here. Though I think it is a very poor term, as it used here for the most part it means "characteristic" or "quality" (close in meaning to 'lakkhana') more than "own-nature". With metta, Howard 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) 58151 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patisambhidamagga refutation of own-nature (sabhava) TGrand458@... >>>What do you think? >>>Metta, >>>Geoff. Hi Geoff I think its brilliant!!!! Excellent work!!! TG In a message dated 4/21/2006 11:08:00 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sunnaloka@... writes: Hi all, What follows is an essay I wrote which begins with the Canonical refutation of the notion of own-nature (sabhava), that as you all know later crept into some post-canonical commentarial literature. I also try to outline why this view of own nature is counterproductive to the development of both experiential discernment of all conditioned phenomena (dhamma-thiti-nana), which by definition are temporal and impermanent, as well as the fruitional experiential discernment of the unconditioned (Nibbana-nana), which by definition is non-temporal and permanent. The Sunnata Katha of the Patisambhidamagga, from the Khuddaka Nikaya, specifically states that the five aggregates are empty of own-nature (sabhavena-sunnat): "How is emptiness [understood in relation to] change? [Because it is] produced, form is empty of own-nature; ceased, form is changed and [therefore] empty. Produced, feelings ... perceptions ... fabrications ... consciousness ... are empty of own-nature; ceased, [they are] changed and empty." The passage then goes on to list 194 other conditioned phenomena (comprising the five aggregates, twelve sensory spheres, and eighteen elements) which is an exhaustive list of all possible conditioned phenomena including kama-dhatu, rupa-dhatu, and arupa-dhatu phenomena, stating that all these phenomena are empty of own-nature. This seems to me to be a definitive statement regarding own-nature. Therefore, the Sutta Pitaka view regarding own-nature is that phenomena don't have own-nature, period. Of the 200 times the term sabhava occurs in the Sutta Pitaka (that I'm aware of) 199 of those occurrences are in the above mentioned passage from the Patisambhidamagga. The only other canonical mention of sabhava is in the Buddhavamsa, where it states "Of him comprehending these phenomena having their own natures, tastes, and characteristics." This text is considered a very late addition to the canon, and as such may have been influenced by the commentarial introduction of the term. Nevertheless, in light of the Patisambhidamagga, I would suggest that this Buddhavamsa statement be interpreted as referring to the comprehending of phenomenal own-natures and thereby discerning that phenomena are empty of own-nature. But one might ask: "So what's the harm in ascribing own-nature to paramattha dhammas anyway, since visual consciousness has the nature of 'knowing' and visible form doesn't?" Yes, this is a valid temporal discernment of what differentiates mind (nama) from form (rupa), but as such it is still based on the temporal (sankhata) understanding of temporal conditioned phenomena (sankhata dhamma), and therefore only represents 'mere' phenomena according to 'mere' conventional designations. Ascribing own-nature to these conditioned temporal phenomena gives rise to exactly the wrong approach regarding how discernment relates to such conditioned phenomena. This wrong turn suggests that conditioned paramattha dhammas are 'ultimate realities.' In my opinion, this represents a gross misunderstanding of the distinction between conventional/relative/temporal truth (vohara-sacca) and ultimate truth (paramattha-sacca). Conditioned phenomena are 'merely' ultimately irreducible empirical phenomena, and as such have no inherent own-nature because they are dependently arisen. Furthermore, the analysis of all conditioned phenomena is entirely based on temporal linear discernment employing temporal linear causal relationships and conventional mental labels. Therefore this mode of knowledge which results in 'knowledge of the regularity of phenomena' (dhamma-thiti-nana), as valid as it is from the temporal linear perspective, still only represents relative truth. For the discernment of ultimate truth one needs to transcend the temporal mode of analysis altogether by direct valid cognition of nontemporal dhamma, which is the deathless element (amata dhatu), and which eventually results in direct realization of Nibbana (Nibbana-nana). Therefore, the nontemporal discernment of the deathless element (which is immediately present 'nowness') and the resultant fruition of Nibbana is the only Ultimate Truth (Paramattha-sacca). Also, concerning how the theory of own-nature represents a wrong turn by way of the methodology of clear seeing (vipassana) resulting in discernment (panna), what this notion of own-nature does is set up a substantialistic philosophy concerned with the never-ending analysis of conditioned phenomena. This approach effectively blocks the arising of the necessary attitude of nonfashioning (atammayata) required to surrender linear discernment altogether and remain with the nonlinear discernment of deathlessness which is the pathway to the fruition of the entire process that we call Dhamma. The own-nature approach, I believe, represents not only and illogical philosophy (i.e. the theory of own-nature is refuted by valid logical inference) rooted in non-Buddhist substantialism, it also represents an extremely unskillful (akusala) methodology concerning the functional efficacy of conditioned linear discernment which mistakenly views the fruition of the path (i.e. the unconditioned, Nibbana) in rigidly dualistic and ridiculously nihilistic terms. The own-nature theory spins an ever increasing web of relative diversity and complexity, which is simply more complication, becoming, and stress, which is in no way liberational because it keeps one trapped in the linear, temporal causal mode of discernment which completely blocks transcendent intuition (i.e. nontemporal consciousness) from emerging/being realized. Awareness which only realizes linear temporal consciousness without the (paradoxically) simultaneous realization of nonlinear-nontemporal-nonlocalized-transcendent consciousness (vinnana anidassana) is nihilistic in that it posits the complete cessation of consciousness as the goal of practice. In my opinion, this view is so utterly ridiculous as to be disregarded outright if it weren't for the fact that the commentarial literature promoting this nihilistic view is seen by many as representing the Sutta Pitaka, when in actual fact it represents a clear misinterpretation of the Pali Sutta Pitaka, which, as has already been established, refutes any notions of conditioned dhammas having own-nature. This own-nature view is not only nihilistic, but at the same time substantialistic in that is ignorantly reifies duration and location which is rooted in the deep seated infatuation (raga) with memory recognition (sanna) and discursive fabrication (vicara-sankhara). In spite of what the proponents of the own-nature theory assert is the ability of their view to distinguish 'concept' from 'reality,' they forever remain stuck within the conceptual reification of time and space, which is the root cause of the origin of the 'world' from which they are attempting to free themselves. By not transcending the conditioned aggregates of perception (sanna) and fabrication (sankhara) they remain within the very conditioned phenomena that the Buddha, in the Phena Sutta, calls "an idiot's babbling." What do you think? Metta, Geoff. 58152 From: "indriyabala" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:03pm Subject: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence indriyabala Hi Matheesha - You wrote: > > Yes, excellent sutta selection. nail on the head > > Tep: Why did you thinks so, considering the context of the debate between Howard and Ken H? This "excellent sutta" is AN V.73 : "Now, monk, I have taught you the person who is keen on study, the one who is keen on description, the one who is keen on recitation, the one who is keen on thinking, and the one who dwells in the Dhamma. Whatever a teacher should do seeking the welfare of his disciples, out of sympathy for them that have I done for you. Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monk. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you." [AN V.73] Warm regards, Tep, your old pal. ============ > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > > Hi, Ken - > > > > In a message dated 4/21/06 4:08:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > > ken_aitch@ writes: > > > > > --------------------------- > > > H: >Ken, what is your practice? None? Reading? Contemplating? > > > --------------------------- > > > > > > Yuck! The idea of practice as being mine, or of I being the > > > practitioner, or of practice being under my control, does not > appeal > > > to me. You might as well be a Jehovah's Witness at my front > > > door; "Thanks but no thanks!" (Only I don't say Yuck to them.) :- > ) > > > > > ====================== > > No comments on the sutta reference I provided: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an05- > 073.html ? > > > > With metta, > > Howard 58153 From: "anonymous_4_200_2006" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:16am Subject: Two sides to this debate..... anonymous_4_... Bhikkhu Samahita & all, There are two sides to this debate (but I could be wrong): 1. Anatta means 'no self'. The buddha taught there was no self/no soul. I think Bhikkhu Samahita is on this side. 2. Anatta does not mean 'no self', but 'not self' ('not', instead of 'no'). The buddha did not teach there was no self. Instead the buddha taught 'not self'. The buddha's anatta teaching is the teaching to see 'not self' in everything we come upon, as to let go of everything; that implies letting go of views of 'there is a self', and 'there is no self' ('there is no self' would be the first side that I said Bhikkhu Samahita was on maybe). Thanissaro Bhikkhu is on this side I think. ********************************** ********************************** ********************************** I now add the 'prajnaparamita' doctrine to this "fight"/argument: Prajnaparamita ('prefect wisdom' or 'the perfection of wisdom' in english) is a Mahayana doctrine. Walpola Rahula has said that the anatta doctrine is same as the teaching of emptiness in Mahayana (or something like that he said?)? Therefore, I made the statement (though it may be an untrue statement) that anatta=emptiness=prajnaparamita. The prajnaparamita doctrine says there is no being, no others, which I say (though it may be untrue) is the same thing as 'there is no self' (the first side of the anatta debate); so that means prajnaparamita doctrine is the on the first side of the anatta debate. ********************************** ********************************** ********************************** So to conclude, but it may be untrue what I say, there are two sides: 1. anatta=no self=emptiness=prajnaparamita. Walpola Rahula and Bhikkhu Samahita are on this side. 2. anatta=not self=let go of all views, including 'there is a self' and 'there is no self'. Thanissaro Bhikkhu is on this side. from, anonymous 58154 From: "indriyabala" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:24pm Subject: [dsg] Re:what is sati. Cetana is a pleasure-filling device. indriyabala Hi Howard (and Sarah) - >Howard: > The reality is that cetana in cooperation with other operations manages to do what is conventionally referred to permeating, pervading, suffusing, and filling the body. Tep: Your conventional explanation above sounds as if cetana is a device that can fill the body with rapture and pleasure. Sincerely, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Eric & Sarah - > > In a message dated 4/21/06 11:17:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > ericlonline@... quotes Sarah saying the following: > > > S: Just to repeat a point - rapture (piiti) is a mental state, a > > mental factor which arise with the first 2 jhanas (and also commonly with attachment). Mental states or factors cannot be > > spread 'throughout the body', but as discussed, mental states and > > jhana factors can and do condition bodily rupas in different ways. > > > > > ========================== > Sarah, there is the following from AN V.28, also found in many other suttas: > __________________ > > "There is the case where a monk " quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn > from unskillful qualities " enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and > pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and > evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the > rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body > unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal." > __________________ > > Please note in particular the sentence "He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal." This, of course, is figurative speech given that there is no literal "he" to be doing anything (snipped) But it really makes no sense to me to do this "dance" every > time conventional language is used, or when it suits one. The Buddha didn't do that. > > With metta, > Howard > 58155 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Four Great References (Mahapadesa) egberdina Hi Geoff, Bravo! Encore! Hear, hear. I would be very interested to read in more detail about the 10 points you list further below. My image of things is that the Buddha was a realist / ontologist. His suttas are a commentary on what he studied directly ie reality. We too can study reality directly, but may find it impossible, and the Buddha's commentaries (suttas) are invaluable in this respect. Others have come and studied the suttas, and have systemised and commented on them. This puts those later works in the realm of the study of study, academia, not the study of reality. I am happy for people to delight in academia, but it would help from time to time if they announced that they understood they were delighting in academia, and that they understood there is no necessary connection between that and the Buddha's program, the study of reality. I just now notice your other posts, and I join those who have thanked you for them. On 22/04/06, sunnaloka wrote: > > Hi all, > > It's been a long time! I bring this post to DSG because the members > here are knowledgeable of the Sutta Pitaka and Vinaya Pitaka.... > > Speaking for myself, the more I read the suttas the more I appreciate > both the practicality of the Buddha's teachings and the subtlety of > what he chooses to say and chooses to leave unsaid. Everything he says > is precisely for orienting one on the path, and everything he leaves > unsaid is precisely for abandoning unnecessary metaphysical > speculation and other forms of infatuation with discursive thinking. > He was indeed the foremost teacher of gods and humans. And while no > one who is a practitioner of Dhamma-vinaya would ever say otherwise, > the position of the Mahavihara commentarial tradition (the entire > written tradition of Sinhalese commentaries and later Pali > commentaries and texts based on these commentaries from the Mahavihara > monastery, Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka) implies that the Buddha's own > teaching method was not sufficient to describe what is necessary for > discernment (panna), as well as what is and is not the experience of > meditation (jhana). > -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58156 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Two sides to this debate..... egberdina Hi, anonymous, I think you will soon discover that there is actually only one side to this debate :-) On 22/04/06, anonymous_4_200_2006 wrote: > > Bhikkhu Samahita & all, > > There are two sides to this debate (but I could be wrong): -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58157 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 3:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence egberdina Hi Eric, > H> Very much agreed. It just is not necessary to take a position on > the existence of anything. > > > What about your 'ego' below? :-) Well pointed out. "When there is the arising of ego, it arises in dependence on non-ego factors that also arise dependently" sort of looses something in the translation, don't you reckon. Brevity is the soul of wit. :-) > -- > > Kind Regards > > > > > > Herman > > > > > > There is ego, but not a self who has it. > > (Hofman H. 2005) -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58158 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 0:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:what is sati. Cetana is a pleasure-filling device. upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Sarah) - In a message dated 4/21/06 6:25:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: > Hi Howard (and Sarah) - > > >Howard: > >The reality is that cetana in cooperation with other operations > manages to do what is conventionally referred to permeating, > pervading, suffusing, and filling the body. > > Tep: Your conventional explanation above sounds as if cetana is a > device that can fill the body with rapture and pleasure. > > Sincerely, > > > Tep > ======================== You are right, Tep. It is difficult to use natural language without using agency terminology. Cetana is not an actor or doer. It is the doing, the willing. When other conditions are present in a supportive roll, all that is further required is the willing. It like moving a finger, 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) 58159 From: "Dan D." Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Two sides to this debate..... onco111 My, but you have a way with words, Herman. Well put. Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi, anonymous, > > I think you will soon discover that there is actually only one side to this > debate :-) > > > On 22/04/06, anonymous_4_200_2006 wrote: > > > > Bhikkhu Samahita & all, > > > > There are two sides to this debate (but I could be wrong): > > > > > > -- > Kind Regards > > > Herman > > > There is ego, but not a self who has it. > (Hofman H. 2005) 58160 From: "Andrew" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 4:38pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The place of "meditation" ... Viharati (corrected) corvus121 Hi Jon I hope you are well. I've been thinking about this post and especially these little bits: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: whatever the level of an individual's attainment of > jhana, there would still need to be the right understanding of the > development of insight if the path is to be developed. > > That right understanding does not come out of the blue just because one has attained jhana. > What I'm lacking, I believe, is developed insight, rather than developed > samatha ;-)). AT: I was reading BB's translation of parts of the AN last night and read in the 5's chapter that "tranquility" is one of the 5 "helpers" for right view (the others were things like wide learning, discussion of what is learnt ... samadhi was not on the list). Do you know the Pali term being translated as "helpers"? I'm not so naive to think that this will bridge the gap between you and Eric as the passage can be read in any number of ways - as a "doing" (get tranquil first) approach or as an understanding of the present approach. Just interested ... Best wishes Andrew T 58161 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:12pm Subject: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence ken_aitch Hi Howard Math and all, Howard wrote: ------------- > No comments on the sutta reference I provided: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an05- > 073.html ? -------------- No, I didn't respond to that. As old DSG members, we have been over certain suttas so many times that each knows what the other will say. I assumed this was one of those precious moments of silent communication. :-) In order to validate their practices, adherents of formal meditation point to the fact that the Buddha taught a method ("the gradual method"). But does the fact of a method mean the Middle Way is reached by wanting (lobha) or by conceit (mana) or by wrong view (miccha-ditthi)? No, of course it doesn't! And yet those are the arguments (sometimes expressed, sometimes implied) that we are hearing. The real way taught by the Buddha and recorded in the Tipitaka has been largely forgotten over recent centuries. But we can still see it in the Tipitaka, thanks to the ancient commentaries - and thanks to K Sujin who bothered to study the ancient commentaries. And, I should add, thanks to K Sujin's students who pass it on to us here at DSG. (And no thanks to me who puts it in an opinionated way that "irritates the hell" out of people.) :-) Getting back to the sutta: I don't know whether the Buddha was talking here to jhana meditators or to developers of bare insight. In either case, it doesn't affect the issue of formal meditation. However, it might affect the question of jhana ("Is mundane jhana necessary for enlightenment?"). The sutta ends with the following: "He doesn't neglect seclusion. He commits himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who dwells in the Dhamma. "Now, monk, I have taught you the person who is keen on study, the one who is keen on description, the one who is keen on recitation, the one who is keen on thinking, and the one who dwells in the Dhamma. Whatever a teacher should do seeking the welfare of his disciples, out of sympathy for them that have I done for you. Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monk. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you." There are two issues to be resolved: 'What is meant here by 'seclusion?'' and 'What is meant here by 'practise jhana?'' When the Buddha spoke of seclusion he was (1) sometimes referring to the physical kind required in jhana development, and (2) sometimes making a point about vipassana. RobK in message 46423 quotes: ". . . The Blessed One said: "And how is living alone perfected in its details? There is the case where whatever is past is abandoned, whatever is future is relinquished, and any passion & desire with regard to states of being attained in the present is well subdued. That is how living alone is perfected in its details." I think there are other DSG posts (probably in the Useful Posts file) that explain living alone as existing [momentarily] without the "evil companions" lobha, dosa and moha. But I can't recall the details off hand. As for the "is jhana necessary" question: when the Buddha spoke about jhana he was (1) sometimes referring to the concentrative absorptions, (2) sometimes referring to vipassana and (3) sometimes referring to both concetrative absorptions and vipassana. RobK, again (this time in message 46424), writes: > The atthakatha says "o bhikkhus meditate by the two kinds of meditative absorptions" And the tika notes that this is twofold in "the sense of meditative absorption that arises depending on an object and meditative absorption that arises dependent on characteristics" The tika later explains this by saying that the first is (p506 note 6 of carter and palihawadana) "the eight attainments (Mundane jhanas) to be obtained by training the mind in concentrating on one of the thirty eight objects such as kasina [or metta, or Buddha or Dhamma or breath etc] and the second means 'insight wisdom, path and fruit'..to be obtained by reflecting on the three characteristics'" I have a question that you sutta scholars might be able to help me with. Is there a translation of the above sutta in which "Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings," is replaced by, "I have given you the roots of trees; I have given you empty dwellings?" I seem to remember seeing that somewhere. If the second version is correct, the Buddha (not being a property owner) could only have been referring to the kind of seclusion uniquely made possible by the Dhamma. Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "matheesha" wrote: > > Yes, excellent sutta selection. nail on the head > > > <...> > > ====================== > > No comments on the sutta reference I provided: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an05- > 073.html ? > > > > 58162 From: "indriyabala" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:40pm Subject: Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? indriyabala Hi, Dan D. - You good-intentionally summarized our discussion on Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu's "guise of Theravada Buddhist doctrine" as follows: "Our difference seems to be that I don't think the writing that you quoted is Theravadin or even particularly Buddhist. Instead, it seems to me to be a thoroughly conventional moralism, tired and sterile, but expressed in the guise of Theravada Buddhist doctrine." Tep: It in not clear to me why Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu(Geoffrey DeGraff) who was ordained in Thailand under Phra Ajaan Fueng Jotiko, a true forest monk who remained in the monkhood to the last day of his life, should be quickly judged as non-Theravadin monk and more. >Dan D. : >The problem, as I see it, is that the Buddha and ancient Theras used words like kusala (wholesome), sati (mindfulness), kamma (action), vipaka (result of action), sankhara (reaction), vedana (perception), saaa (perception in a different sense), patthana (conditional relations)to refer to mental states. Thanissaro uses them to refer to people and activity envelopes. Tep: Was your judgment based on just the writing I quoted, or did you conclude so after you had carefully studied his numerous books, articles and talks? If you want to 'get more data' about him, please explore the following collection. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/index.html Surely there could be a real bias in your evaluation that was based on a single quote taken from one article. Sincerely, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > Great comments again, Tep. > > I think Thanissaro is very clear in his writing, and you and I wholly > agree with each other on what he wrote and the intended meaning. Our > difference seems to be that I don't think the writing that you quoted > is Theravadin or even particularly Buddhist. (snipped) > My thought? Thanissaro's writing has a strong "recipe book" feel to > it, which would be to miss the heart of Dhamma. He cannot be unaware > that the commentaries and tradition reject "skillful" as a definition of "kusala" when applied to mental states, but he uses it > incessantly. It has the effect of magnifying and highlighting > the "recipe book" interpretation of Dhamma that has been strongly > argued against in orthodox Theravada tradition since the time of the > Buddha. > (snipped) > > Thanissaro is not only using "conventional exposition", he is using > it to describe conventional, pedestrian, hum-drum ideas that are not > particularly Buddhist because he does not intend his Buddhist- > sounding words to have a Buddhist meaning. > (snipped) 58163 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 2:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: It isn't me! / ... the Abhidhamma The Anatta Fence upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Matheesha) - Okay, Ken, I get it. You don't want to meditate. With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/21/06 8:13:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > > Hi Howard Math and all, > > Howard wrote: > > ------------- > >No comments on the sutta reference I provided: > >>http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an05- > >073.html ? > -------------- > > No, I didn't respond to that. As old DSG members, we have been over > certain suttas so many times that each knows what the other will > say. I assumed this was one of those precious moments of silent > communication. :-) > > ========================= I am, indeed, speechless, Ken. 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) 58164 From: connie Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:58pm Subject: re: niamitampoko nichiconn tepster: "What is the use of Buddhism?" connie: what is "need"? Tep: Coventionally speaking, what's wrong with "need" and "train the mind" ? connie: you know as well as i. needed by whom? for what? GUIDE 134. Now in the case of the two ideas, namely 'barb' and 'harassment' (#128), there is oneness of meaning; for no difference is construable between the meanings of 'wishes' and 'craving' (#129). When craving's intent is not fulfilled, anger and spite arise with respect to the nine Grounds for Annoyance (see A.v,408). 136. However, when the Blessed One calls this by the two names, 'wishes' and 'craving', it is in virtue of the external grounds which are its object that it is called by him by the two names, 'wishes' and 'craving'; for all craving has the single characteristic of cleaving to. Just as all fire has the single characeristic of heating, though it has various other names according to its consumption [assumed], that is to say, 'log-fire' and 'grass-fire' and 'brushwood-fire' and 'cowdung-fire' and 'chaff-fire' and 'rubbish-fire' (cf. M.i,259), yet all fire has only the characteristic of heating, so too, all craving has only one characteristic, namely the characteristic of cleaving to, [24] though it is called by various other names according to the fuel-consumption [assumed] that is its object, that is to say, 'wishes' and 'craving' and 'barb' and 'harassment' and 'the Current' and 'attachment' and 'affection (moisture)' and 'torment' and 'the Creeper' and 'conceiving [in terms of "I" and "mine"]' and 'responsibility' and 'need' and 'thirst' and 'expectant-relishing'; yet all craving has only one characteristic, namely the characteristic of cleaving to, according as it is stated in the [Mode of Conveying] Synonyms (see ##285ff.): 137. (Pe 17; cf. S.i,181; see #286). 286. According as the Blessed One demonstrates a single idea by means of many synomyms. [For example:] (#137). 287. What is called 'need' (aasaa) is any longing (aasi.msanaa) for a benefit about to be; 'need' arises in one thus 'Surely it will come'. 288. What is called 'longing' is any aspiration for a presently arisen benefit, or else, on seeing someone better, 'longing' arises in one thus 'May I be like that'. 289. Fostering the production of a benefit is what is called 'expectant relishing', or one expects thus a dear relative, or one expects thus a dear idea, or one expects, or one expects [something] thus as unrepulsive. 290. 'The several elements' are the eye element, form element, and eye-consciousness element; ear element, sound element, and ear-consciousness element; nose elemement, odour element, and nose-consciousness element; tongue element, flavour element, and tongue-consciousness element; body element, tangible element, and body-consciousness element; mind element, idea element, and mind-consciousness element (cf. M.iii,62). 291. 'Enticements': some believe in forms, some believe in sounds, some believe in odours, some believe in flavours, some believe in tangibles, some believe in ideas (cf.#568). 292. Herein, the twenty-four terms, namely the six kinds of grief with the house-life as support (see M.iii,218), the six kinds of joy with the house-life as support (see M.iii,217), the six kinds of grief with the renunciation as support (see M.iii,218), the six kinds of joy with renunciation as support (see M.iii,217), being on the side belonging to craving, are synonyms for craving. But the six kinds of onlooking equanimity with the house-life as support (see M.ii,219) are on the side belonging to views. That same [onlooking-equanimity] in the mood of aspiration, as relishing of the True Idea, love of the True Idea, cleaving to the True Idea, is synonymous with craving (cf#506). 293. Cognizance, [54] mind, and consciousness, are synonyms for cognizance (cf.S.ii,94). Tep: Thank you for "the guide". Is it from the Vism? connie: The Guide is Nanamoli's xltn of netti-ppakara.na.m., "which was spoken by Mahaa Kaccaana, approved by the Blessed One, and chanted at the original council." 58165 From: connie Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:58pm Subject: steering committee nichiconn the adverting consciousnesses, panca and mano dvaravajana cittas, turn to their object, respectively, thru the sense or mind door. "there" is manasikara cetasika, which << has the characteristic of driving associated states towards the object, the function of joining (yoking associated states to the object, the manifestation of facing the object. It is included in the sankharakkhandha, and should be regarded as the charioteer of associated states because it regulates the object.>> vsm and co. a footnote from Aanandajoti Bhikkhu's 'Ways of Attending to Mindfulness' long discourse translation reads, "aayatana and aayati are both derived from aa + .t yam, with the basic meaning of stretching out. The aayatana stretch out between the sense organ and its object; aayati stretches out into the future." i just like that. but diacritics - velthuy? velthuys? velthuis? scheme on google? peace, connie. 58166 From: connie Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:58pm Subject: Re: It isn't me! nichiconn Tep: What did the Buddha teach, dear Connie? connie: gods and men, dukkha and it's end. Pitaka Disclosure: The Ninefold Thread - General 147. This Thread [in general] is taught of three types of persons: of the ordinary man, of the Initiate, and of the Adept. That dealing with corruption and that dealing with morality [are taught] of the ordinary man, that dealing with seeing and that dealing with keeping-in-being of the five kinds of Initiates (#146) of all arahants. 148. Now ...{large snip}... ( ). [149...] 150. No one can demonstrate how the Thread's meaning is without having lent an ear(?).{1} 58168 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 7:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] steering committee egberdina On 22/04/06, connie wrote: > > > the adverting consciousnesses, panca and mano dvaravajana cittas, turn to > their object, respectively, thru the sense or mind door. "there" is > manasikara cetasika, which << has the characteristic of driving associated > states towards the object, the function of joining (yoking associated > states to the object, the manifestation of facing the object. It is > included in the sankharakkhandha, and should be regarded as the charioteer > of associated states because it regulates the object.>> vsm and co. Well, Connie, that's another fine conceptual mess you got us into :-) > -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58169 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhist Logic (was James' Long Response) egberdina Hi Sarah and James (and Howard), I'm sure you both were really hanging out for my take on the matter.:-) On 18/04/06, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi James, > > Thanks for all your considered comments in your long response to several > of us. Pls excuse the snipping: > > --- buddhatrue wrote: > > Well, to break it down, again from the Nidanasamyutta Sutta: > > > > "And what, bhikkhus, is craving? There are these six classes of > > craving: craving for forms, craving for sounds, craving for odours, > > craving for tastes, craving for tactile objects, craving for mental > > phenomena. This is called craving." > > > > Is sati a form? > > Is sati a sound? > > Is sati an odour? > > Is sati a taste? > > Is sati a tatile object? > > Is sati a mental phenomena (like a thought, feeling, or emotion)? > ... > S: The last. Sati is a mental phenomena. Here, I believe, mental phenomena > refers to anything experienced through the mind-door. Like feeling, > awareness is a mental factor which not only accompanies consciousness, but > can also be experienced. When it's experienced, it can be with wise or > unwise attention. Do you not agree? The following was prompted by my reading of the above exchange. The lower down towards the foundation of a building one gets, the more important the function of each building block. If a brick is not aligned properly, all those on top of it will be misaligned as well. So too with systems of thinking about the world. If the basic connections between reality and the thoughts about it are misconstrued, the entire system of thought is ripe for the garbage bin. A basic cornerstone of Buddhist thought about reality is anicca. That can be represented as - for anything real, it cannot be said that it is real, but that it was real. Whatever it was, it is no more. This is in stark contrast with Greek kinda logic, the basic premise of which is - x=x. A thing is identical to/with itself. The strength of Buddhism is in that it understands that this formulation holds only for concepts. Now to the discussion about sati. What is sati? Well, if you're going to be Greek, then sati is sati, and then you can put it into a category, which is also identical with itself, and build up an enormous taxonomy. An enormous taxonomy of what? Of nothing more than your own definitions, which have no connection with reality. Because the only thing that can be said about sati is that it is no more. It is gone. Greek kinda science gives the world of existents, Buddhist science gives the world as typified by Howard's signature line. Greek kinda science gives footholds for craving, Buddhist science removes every foothold for craving. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58170 From: "sukinder" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:48pm Subject: RE: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ? [was: [dsg] Re: How to radiate metta sukinderpal Hi Herman and Sarah, Welcome back Herman, hope you don't mind my butting in. I actually wanted to respond to a similar point you made in another post, but felt too lazy at that time. It was a reference to your listening to Bach's St. Matthews's Passion I think, which I remember liking very much the one time I heard it 20 years ago, and how you decided to shift your attention to other 'concepts', resulting in an experience you then seemed to be so excited about. :-) More comments below. ================================ > If meditation is the same as mental development, which I don't have a > > problem with, and mental develpment is a learning of some kind (or > > unlearning as the case may be) you are saying that there can be no > > learning > > while trying to learn. Is it your intention to say that? > .... > S: Yes. As soon as there is a trying to have mental development at any > time, it's indicative of a wish for results (often with an idea of self). > Such wishing is lobha (attachment) not learning or mental devlopment. > > Hope that's cleared up:). Herman: Not quite, but all the signs are hopeful :-) What would clear it up is if you were prepared to say that the intention to learn prevents learning, or that the intention to learn doesn't prevent learning. Would you be prepared to say either? Sukin: Intention arises with all cittas, so I think the more important point to consider is whether there is understanding or not. Lobha is clearly akusala and accompanied by ignorance. So yes, to any intention accompanied by panna, but no, to one that is accompanied by lobha. =================================== Sarah: > And on the ballooning -- to try not to have interest, to try not to have > lobha whilst in the balloon, at the concert or in the surf would be > equally indicative of a wrong view that this is the way to go or that a > self really can stop lobha from arising. Herman: We may be talking about different things here. Some examples might clear up what I mean. A person with cerebral palsy may have the intention to brush their teeth, yet end up brushing their face. They lack the control, despite the intention. I might have the intention to slow my heart rate down, but no matter what I do, nothing has an effect. I don't know how to do it. But with the arising of the intention to stop projecting interest everywhere, that is entirely possible if it is known how to do that. An untrained/unguarded mind is like an incontinent mind, or a cerebral-palsied mind, but a trained/guarded mind can do what it knows how to do. Sukin: Yes, this is the point aspiring meditators ought to keep in mind. When the Buddha's words conditioned in his audience satipatthana or even direct insight, it was because the mind of those folks were ripe due to prior development. We at this day and age are not like them, but like your cerebral palsy patient, we 'think' one thing, i.e. all those idealistic goals we project from hearing about the Dhamma and practice, but actually end up going completely wrong, starting with the very idea of 'another place, time and posture'. ;-) The cerebral palsy patient of yours however, still 'knows' what went wrong. But in the case of the meditator, the mind is so tricky, re: the various akusala factors, including desire and wrong view, that if there is no understanding of the present moment, then invariably there is akusala being mistaken for kusala, lobha for sati and 'thinking differently' for panna. And this brings me to your own experience with the St. Matthew's Passion. Firstly no two persons in the audience will ever be listening or not-listening to the music alike. Much of this is dependent on the 'thinking about' in between the actual perception of sounds. A devout Christian will be listening with a different ear from one who is primarily interested in Bach and his music. You with your knowledge of the Dhamma, happen to decide to 'think' differently that evening, the intention to do so was conditioned by various factors. The result was different from what otherwise was your normal reaction, but I can assure you that it was still a form of 'thinking' nevertheless. And what you may have perceived and judged as being some level of detachment was more a matter of lobha taking on a different object and supported by wrong view. The same process happens day in and day out for us putthujanas. There is a thought, followed by another one, all day, and in between there are yet other thoughts giving rise to the impression that there is a causal relationship between them. Some thoughts seem to be different from others and if we happen to judge the one as being undesirable, then another which is not, may be seen as not only good, but even 'right' and wise. The thought about lifting up the cup of tea and putting it against the lips and drinking the tea does give also to the impression that what followed as being the result of the initial intention. This is true to some extent. However, and here lies the problem, because there is no satipatthana at anytime and esp. when the intention was verbalized, there is an identification with the activity as being 'mine' and within the control of 'my self'. Likewise your "intention to stop projecting interest everywhere" is what gave me the impression that there was no panna involved. Such thought can occur only with self-view. Panna doesn't make any such decisions. It knows an object and detaches without any idea about what 'should be'. Besides there is thinking after every sense door experience, your description of what took place, i.e. seeming uninterested in the music, is unrealistic and so I assume that you were deluded. (I'm being blunt because it is convenient to be so ;-), please don't mind). In conclusion, if we have an idea of having to do something to get somewhere in terms of Dhamma and development, then its inevitable, that projections will come to influence one's outlook. Meanwhile wrong view and desire have had their influence taking us ever further away from the goal. =================================== Herman: The question really is "Is learning possible?" and if it is "What are we teaching ourselves?" Sukin: Learning is possible. And because this can ever happen only in the present moment, "what are we teaching ourselves" are the characteristics of realities, including the fact that they are impermanent, suffering and not-self. We also learn that they are conditioned in various ways. In other words, we learn exactly what the Buddha pointed out in his Teachings. Metta, Sukinder. Ps: This post was a bit rushed and not as expected, having been interrupted by wife and kids about 30 times in the course of writing. :-/ But I will respond to whatever is your reaction. 58171 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 0:40am Subject: Beyond Release ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: Satisfaction, Mental Liberation, and the Ultimate Release of the Beyond!!! The Blessed Buddha once said: There is the a satisfaction of the flesh, there is a mental liberation not of this world, and there is an ultimate release far beyond even such subtle unworldly liberation And what, Bhikkhus, is carnal satisfaction? Satisfaction with any of the various forms, is carnal satisfaction. And what is the mental liberation, which is not of this world? Mental liberation from any formless state is liberation, which is not of this world Finally, Bhikkhus, what is the ultimate release far beyond even such unworldly liberation? When a bhikkhu, whose mental fermentations are eliminated, reviews his stilled mind liberated from all lust, freed from any hatred, and entirely released from all confusion, there occurs a transcendental deliverance. This is called the release beyond that release, which is not of this world... Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book IV [235-7] section 36:11 On Feeling: Vedana. Joys beyond this world ... http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/index.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PS: Please include the word Samahita in any comment, since then will my automatic mail filters pick it up and I will see it & respond!! Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. Friendship is the Greatest ... Let there be Calm & Free Bliss !!! <...> 58172 From: "matheesha" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 1:41am Subject: [dsg] Re:what is sati. Cetana is a pleasure-filling device. matheesha333 Hi Tep, Howard, >H: Cetana is not an actor or doer. It is the doing, the willing. When > other conditions are present in a supportive roll, all that is further required > is the willing. It like moving a finger, Tep. M: ...useful to see cetana through vipassana arising, just before a movement. cetana..lifting a leg..cetana..moving forward ...cetana..keeping the foot on the ground. Recently read that initial information processing occurs in two streams in the brain. One quicker than the other. The quicker one is processed linked to emotion centers in the brain. The other is linked to those centres which give meaning. The end result is you can run away from somethign before you fully grasp what it is. These two processes seem to be vedana and sanna, and in vipassana we can see that they arise slightly apart vedana first, sanna later, but always paired. metta Matheesha 58173 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ADL ch 1, paramattha dhammas. nilovg Hi Phil, A good idea. When people read about paramattha dhammas, about naama and ruupa, it sounds very cold and harsh. The term paramattha dhamma seems to be something abstract, away from real life. Shall we try to give the link to our personal experience and to satipatthaana while we go over again what Larry posted? I want to elaborate on paramattha dhammas. Paramattha means: in the highest sense (parama: highest, attha: sense). This is more than a label or a name. With regard to conditioned dhammas, not taking into consideration nibbaana, paramattha dhamma refers to what is really there, and only for an extremely short moment. For example, I am insulted by someone else. When I think of persons and situations, I dwell for a long time with akusala citta on his words, I am actually the loser. But what is really there in the highest sense? The citta which hears arises and hears sound. Sound is ruupa, it impinges on another ruupa that is earsense, and thus there are conditions for hearing. Kamma produces the vipaakacitta that is hearing. Many conditioning factors are needed for hearing an unpleasant sound. Thinking about the meaning arises later on, and this may be kusala citta or akusala citta. All these realities arise only for a moment and then they are gone. Also the akusala cittas of the person who insulted me are gone immediately, they are no more. When we consider citta, cetasika and ruupa, which are dhammas in the highest sense, rather than persons and events, it helps us not to dwell on the past, but to attend to what is real at the present moment. Naama and ruupa, these are the objects of right understanding, of satipa.t.thaana. ****** Nina. op 18-04-2006 16:25 schreef Phil op philco777@...: > Chapter 1 >> >> THE FOUR PARAMATTHA DHAMMAS >> >> There are two kinds of reality: mental phenomena (nama) and > physical >> phenomena (rupa). Nama experiences something; rupa does not > experience >> anything. Seeing is, for example, a type of nama; it experiences > visible >> object. Visible object itself is rupa; it does not experience > anything. >> What we take for self are only nama and rupa which arise and fall > away. 58174 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The place of "meditation" .concentration. nimitta, nibbaana. nilovg Hi Sarah, thank you, this means a lot to me. Lodewijk was so keen on hearing about nimitta, that, in his enthusiasm, he kicked me when Kh. Sujin spoke about it, and said: take good note, take good note. Therefore, something went wrong with my taping at times. I was distracted by his kicks. Nina. op 18-04-2006 08:59 schreef sarah abbott op sarahprocterabbott@...: > N:> A. Sujin explained that we can only really understand nimitta through >> insight. At the stage of the first principal insight the arising and >> falling >> away of realities is realized. Then paaa understands that there is a >> reality without nimitta and that is nibbaana. > ..... > S: I understood her to be saying something that realities are only clearly > known as realities when there is this knowledge of the arising and falling > away of dhammas. Before that, it is the nimittas of realities which are > known. 58175 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 3:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The place of "meditation" ... Viharati (corrected) nilovg Hi Andrew, it could be upakaarako. Nina. op 22-04-2006 01:38 schreef Andrew op athel60@...: > Do you know the Pali term being translated as "helpers"? 58176 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 3:25am Subject: [dsg] Re: ADL ch 1 philofillet Hi Herman > I agree with what you are saying re Samyutta and Abhidhamma. Ph: Yes, samyutta nikaya is all about paramattha dhammas, from what I can see. (Which is very, very little.) I guess all suttas are, at heart, though I find it harder to see this when I read the suttas in anguttara nikaya, all the references to "4 kinds of people" and whatnot. > > I wonder if it is conceptual understanding we start of with, or whether it > is just pure craving for existence? Ph: Bing bango, right on the nose. This is the big thing. Why do we practice? Are we really seeking liberation from samsara or are we seeking to fulfill the potential of this one lifetime, because we cling to the need to be more refined, or more peaceful, or wiser, or whatever. I find it hard to believe that any one of us here is free from this sort of clinging except for in very rare moments. Thus I appreciate Acharn Sujin's teaching because she helps us to appreciate the importance of patience and small steps taken with understanding. There must be understanding and moments of detachment (as there is with all kusala) from the beginning. So conceptual understanding (pariyatthi) is nothing to scoff at as "academic" - it is as real as we can get it, for now. It is not in the book, it is in moments of seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling and thinking that are understood correctly. And it is not had easily. No crib sheets, no memorizing lists. Why do we create concepts and hold onto > to them so tightly, but for wanting to be? We don't create them, of course. Citta processes do. Largely beyond our control. The Buddha said in his third discourse that "the all" (in this case ayatanas) are burning with lobha, moha and dosa. And only the noble disciple (ariyan) develops the revulsion (nibiddha, I think it is in Pali, not at all the revulsion that we think of) that conditions a beginning to the end of this akusala inferno. When we realize this we can relax and not expect too much or demand too much of Dhamma. And, voila, as a result of doing so there are some nice conditioned surprises. Re concepts, helpful to remember that there are concepts that are about real things (seeing, hearing, metta, bhavanga cittas or whatever paramattha dhamma) and concepts that are about things that are not real. (people, grapes, justice etc.) Maybe. I am so lazy. I could go and get the wonderful little book "Concepts and Realities" and give you the Pali but now I have to go cook. Damn. So the concepts that are referring to realities were taught to us by the Buddha for the purpose of our liberation. The concepts that are churned about endlessly in daily life conditioned by ignorance and lobha after every single moment of seeing, hearing, tasting, touching etc...that is just the way cittas work and there is nothing wrong with it. Even arahants see people etc. Gradually we can begin to understand in a way that liberates us from clinging to or being hurt by things that are just concepts, not dhammas. Bit of a ramble there. Phil 58177 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:38am Subject: Re: Psychological Issues (was: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ? ) philofillet Hi James > I am going to stay on the Zoloft and seek some counselling/therapy > (I wonder if Dr. Phil would come to Cairo?? ;-)) Well, you pay the air fare and I'll think about it - no promises though. I am very fond of you for some reason and am wishing you well. Love, Phil 58178 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 3:01am Subject: [dsg] Re: ADL ch 1, paramattha dhammas. philofillet Hi Nina and all > A good idea. When people read about paramattha dhammas, about naama and > ruupa, it sounds very cold and harsh. Or they think it is academic, all in a book, which couldn't be further from the truth. Well, I suppose it is possible to get trapped in books instead of realizing that rupa and nama is "the all" as defined in the SN 35. (I am so lazy about getting my anthology to give exact references - sorry all.) >The term paramattha dhamma seems to be > something abstract, away from real life. Shall we try to give the link to > our personal experience and to satipatthaana while we go over again what > Larry posted? I am going to be going literally sentence by sentence for the next month or so, at least. Each sentence contains enough grist for a very big mill. > > I want to elaborate on paramattha dhammas. > Paramattha means: in the highest sense (parama: highest, attha: sense). This > is more than a label or a name. With regard to conditioned dhammas, not > taking into consideration nibbaana, paramattha dhamma refers to what is > really there, and only for an extremely short moment. > For example, I am insulted by someone else. When I think of persons and > situations, I dwell for a long time with akusala citta on his words, I am > actually the loser. Ph: Yes, this is exactly what I just posted to Sarah about. A man mutters something insulting about me. It can be understood as conditioned nama and rupa, story over. Freedom from dwellling on it. So many countless experiences like that. Letting go of nagging worries, concerns, irritations by remembering that it is naught but conditioned nama and rupa. The more this happens, the deeper the liberation becomes, gradually. "First everything is dhamma intellectually, then a nama or a rupa that is understood, until the moment that everything is dhamma." (Or words to that effect from Acharn Sujin.) > But what is really there in the highest sense? The citta which hears arises > and hears sound. Sound is ruupa, it impinges on another ruupa that is > earsense, and thus there are conditions for hearing. Kamma produces the > vipaakacitta that is hearing. Many conditioning factors are needed for > hearing an unpleasant sound. Thinking about the meaning arises later on, and > this may be kusala citta or akusala citta. All these realities arise only > for a moment and then they are gone. Also the akusala cittas of the person > who insulted me are gone immediately, they are no more. > When we consider citta, cetasika and ruupa, which are dhammas in the highest > sense, rather than persons and events, it helps us not to dwell on the past, > but to attend to what is real at the present moment. > Naama and ruupa, these are the objects of right understanding, of > satipa.t.thaana. Ph: I am feeling confident these days that reflecting on this sort of thing is a fulfillment of one's opportunity to benefit from the Buddha's teaching. Phil 58179 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:52am Subject: [dsg] Re: Beliefs philofillet @@g Sarah and all > Hi Phil (& Herman), > > I like the 'Baby steps for baby minds!' - I'll be in on that one:). Yes, I really think it is true, though in paramattha dhamma terms there is no "mind" of course. Moments of shallow understanding appreciated by cittas deeply rooted in lobha and moha. I always like what Jon says in one talk, though I can never remember the exact words - an appreciation of the value of even a shallow understanding of present dhammas is of such value that it does away with the need to aspire to greater things, of words to that effect. I'm very happy (most of the time) for people who are experiencing jhanas and igniting piti and whatnot, but it is of no ultimate concern for me. "My" cittas are where they are, and that can't be changed by will power, no way. We simply *cannot* overcome accumulated ignorance and greed (lobha) by trying to think hard about it, "concentrating" on it. No way, no way, no way. ADL - > just go as slow as you like.... Yes, I will. I'll be posting once or twice a week. > S: :-) (Trying not to be too friendly!!) Ph: Forget it. You've accumulated that annoying habit to a stagggeringly deep degree. Nothing that can be done about it. :) > ... > > > > I find it very, very interesting - thanks to Dhamma (I assume) the > > things that used to cause me intense aversion "out there" in daily > > life and even drove me to drinnk no longer bother me whatsoever. But > > when I come to DSG, which you'd think would be a kind of refuge, I > > get pissed off almost immediately. This doesn't bother me because I > > can see it as a kind of > > confirmation of understanding Dhamma. All the dosa I have > > accumulated has to find an object, so it naturally floods to the > > area where I have the strongest clinging - Dhamma. I'm confident it > > will pass. > ... > S: You will love the India 05 discussions (getting close:-)), Ph: I check my letter box every day! especially > one track near the very end when Betty brings up just this same > point....what had bothered her the previous year in India, no longer did, > but a whole new set of issues were now arising.....so true. Dosa looking > for its object. Ph: Yes, that's it. Very interesting. Dosa needs its object. And for some reason for me it is usually DSG. Very interesting. A man muttered something about me in Japanese to a cohort on the train today. In the past it would have infuriated me. Nothing, absolutely nothing. I think it's appreciating that all that arises through the sense doors is vipaka. It is not about Phil, or the man, or his cohort - it is all about cittas playing out as they are conditioned to. What a load off one's shoulders that is! > > K.Sujin's response (from memory) was all smiles and along the lines of > 'isn't good to know, good to see....otherwise we may think we're better > than before we started studying the teachings'. People are always looking > for indications of great personal progress rather than honestly seeing the > truth which is a lot of akusala. Ph: Yes, well, that's the way of the world. I've heard you in a talk saying that you don't believe we can talk of cultural conditioning, saying that in the west we are this or that, but I definitely disagree. In the west we are conditioned from childhood in a much stronger way to set goals and seek to achieve them, and that extends naturally enough to Dhamma. It's not about parents - it's much more pervasive than that. "Great personal progress" - that is the big stumbling block we have to be aware of. Phil 58180 From: Bhikkhu Samahita Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 3:29am Subject: Re: Incomplete Happy Habit ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Dear Dan D. Maybe our dear ol' auntie Fern had practiced only verbal and bodily morality but had an occasionally evil mentality, which is why she later gets anxiety! -- Friendship is the Greatest ... Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. <...> 58181 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Beliefs sarahprocter... Hi Phil, Han, Chris & all, Just a brief clarification here, --- Phil wrote: > Ph: Yes, well, that's the way of the world. I've heard you in a > talk saying that you don't believe we can talk of cultural > conditioning, saying that in the west we are this or that, but I > definitely disagree. .... S: I wouldn't have said that we can't 'talk of cultural conditioning....' because it's not what I've ever believed. What I think you've heard me say is that the problems people have when it comes to understanding the dhamma are not because of cultural conditioning in the west as some believe. I think it may have been Chris on one tape you have who was talking about western conditioning to make plans, take steps, reach goals and so on, but how it's frustrating because this isn't possible when it comes to the Buddha's teachings. However, as I see it, wrong view is wrong view, belief in a self that can control and do is just the same in the East or West, no matter how it's packaged up. Han may have more to add on this. Recently he wrote: "My conceit must have been the result of accumulation over the years. When I was younger, I was a no-nonsense, go-getter person. I would not like to take No from anyone, not even from my superiors. I must get what I want, and I got most of what I wanted. Besides, in Burma, we are always pushed by the motto: if you try hard enough you can become a Buddha. Now, that was history, and the age and the dhamma has mellowed me considerably." .... P:>In the west we are conditioned from childhood > in a much stronger way to set goals and seek to achieve them, and > that extends naturally enough to Dhamma. It's not about parents - > it's much more pervasive than that. "Great personal progress" - that > is the big stumbling block we have to be aware of. ... S: No, I think the problems are just lobha, dosa, moha -- especially wrong view, wherever we are. Whenever people start mentioning Western difficulties or something along these lines to K.Sujin, she always just shakes her head and says it's just the same in Thailand, even amongst friends who visit the Foundation....strong clinging to self is the way of the world. That's why the teachings are universal. So maybe, we do just disagree here as you set out to say:)). I'd like to hear more comments from Han and maybe Chris who often brings up this point and agrees with you, I think. Lodewijk too as I recall. Others too may have their ideas. Metta, Sarah 58182 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 3:33am Subject: ADL ch.1 nama and rupa philofillet Hi all >> There are two kinds of reality:mental phenomena (nama) and > physical >> phenomena (rupa). Nama experiences something; rupa does not > experience >> anything. It is easy to think we understand this. But really understanding it is the first vipasanna-nana. Sometimes I have heard that we will (conditions permitting) understand nama as just nama, and rupa as just rupa. Other times I have heard that it is about understanding each nama as a particular nama, each rupa as a particular rupa. Probably both. I am really soaking in appreciating the importance of understanding nama and rupa. Not pressing hard to do so, but it comes up again and again and again, this appreciation. Another commment. Getting ahead of myself here, but I have trouble understanding (still) how the nama that is cetasika experiences something. I can understand citta experiencing something, vaguely, but cetasika seems more like the flavouring that accompanies citta. Again, no need to figure this out in a hurry. Phil 58183 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 6:28am Subject: Re: ... Contradicting Compromise? All In One indriyabala Hi, Sarah (and Dan D., KenH, Matheesha, Eric, Han) - Let me reply to your six posts altogether. I hope you don't mind. #58094: >S: >Connie just quoted this: >The Guide: 238. (Pe 54, 91; Dh. 183; D.ii,49).< **** Here profitable skill is a translation of kusalassa. Maybe 'cultivating good' is better, but I don't think that as skill and skilful are commonly used in translations that there is necessarily any more idea of self view than when other terms are used. Tep: Right. The idea of self view should be well balanced with other teachings, otherwise clinging to the self view idea may occur (repeatedly and too boringly often). ............ #58103 >S: >Vism X1V, 82 " 'Whatever has the characteristic of cognizing should be understood, all taken together, as the consciousness aggregate' was said above. And what has the characteristic of cognizing (vijaanana)? Consciousness(vi~n~naa.na); according as it is said, 'It cognizes, friend, that is why 'consciousness' is said (M i 292). The words vi~n~naa.na (consciousness), citta (mind, consciousness), and mano (mind) are one in meaning." Tep: What is the reference M i 292 ? ......... #58108 > Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu. <...> > "The important element in this input is attention. Anyone who has > mastered a skill will realize that the process of attaining mastery > requires attention to three things: (1) to pre-existing conditions, > (2) to what one is doing in relation to those conditions, and (3) to > the results that come from one's actions. This threefold focus enables one to monitor one's actions and adjust them accordingly. In this way, one's attention to conditions, actions, and effects allows the results of an action to feed back into future action, thus allowing for refinement in one's skill. <...> > >Tep: What is your thought? ... >S: Wrong View. Tep: I don't think so, Sarah. Why is it wrong? .............. # 58113 > >Tep: <...> > Because there are so numerous -- almost infinite, uncountable -- > neutral feelings, then how can one be precisely aware of the beginning > and the end of an interval of neutral feeling? ... >S: Why does one want to be aware of them? Tep: There is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness. "There is the case where feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. " [AN IV.41 Samadhi Sutta] ............... >S: The first stage of insight is clearly distinguishing namas from rupas. Is there any understanding of nama now? Of rupa now? Focussing on the arising of sounds or sensations is not the development of awareness of dhammas as I understand it. By the time there is any focussing, such rupas have long since past. Tep: Please compare your thinking with AN IV.41 above. See some light now? {:>|) ............. # 58115 > >"Monks, for one whose awareness-release through good will is > cultivated, developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken, eleven benefits can be expected. Which eleven? [endquote] > > >Tep: This sutta clearly states that wareness-release(ceto-vimutti), a paramattha-dhamma, can be "made to arise at will". How should such wrong understanding of mine be corrected? {:>) .... >S: If there is wrong understanding that any such development occurs 'at will', at 'self-will' can only be corrected by the development of understanding of all such dhammas as anatta, as conditioned, not in the control of your will or anyone's will (;>). Tep: When there is the understanding that 'good will' is the same as right intention, that understanding is right; because good will is a part of samma sankappo ["The intention of good will opposes the intention of ill will, thoughts governed by anger and aversion.", Bhikkhu Bodhi in 'The Noble Eightfold Path The Way to the End of Suffering']. The quoted sutta above says that this 'good will' supports the cultivation of awareness-release. I do not see anything about "control" of will in that quote. ............... #58118 >S: > Tep, thank you for your patience in waiting for replies and also indicating that it doesn't matter if they never happen:). Same applies to any of my posts - never a hurry or obligation to respond by you or anyone at all. Tep: I feel the same about "no hurry" too, Sarah. Warm regards, Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarahprocterabbott" wrote: > > Hi Tep again, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Sarah and all - > > > > >Sarah: > > >We speak about anatta but still cling to an idea that we can > > develop metta and other good qualities, when really it's just the > > conditioned dhammas, such as metta, which develop when there are > the > > right causes for them to develop. ... And without > > understanding cittas, cetasikas and rupas as being `the world', > there > > will always be an idea of doing something or setting a rule for > > ourselves to follow with an idea of `Someone'. > ..... > > Tep: Wait a minute ! Without someone's saddha in those 11 benefits > > there will be no intention (or turning to) metta bhavana in order > for > > developing metta ceto-vimutti. > ..... > S: I may be missing your point here (v.rushed now). As I see it, the > benefits are benefits. For example, a result of metta is said to be > that one sleeps well at night. True, I think. But we don't develop > metta or see its benefit in order to sleep well at night. If so, > that isn't metta. > .... (snipped) 58184 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 7:13am Subject: Re: Psychological Issues (was: A great debate on Scholars & Meditators ? ) buddhatrue Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Hi James > > > I am going to stay on the Zoloft and seek some counselling/therapy > > (I wonder if Dr. Phil would come to Cairo?? ;-)) > > Well, you pay the air fare and I'll think about it - no promises > though. James: :-) I meant Dr. Phil from television, but it would be great to see you also. > > I am very fond of you for some reason and am wishing you well. James: Thank you. I'm fond of you also...and your rambling posts. ;-) > > Love, > Phil Metta, James > 58185 From: "Larry" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 7:43am Subject: Re: The Four Great References (Mahapadesa) lbidd2 Hi Geoff, Here's my response to your argument that abhidhamma is not found in the sutta pitaka: 1. The notion that the Abhidhamma is among the "four great references" for ascertaining the validity of a Dhamma teaching L: Abhidhamma is nama and rupa. Nama and rupa are found in the sutta pitaka. 2. The notion that conditioned dhammas are "ultimate things" (paramattha) L: "Paramattha" refers to nama and rupa. 3. The notion that paramattha dhammas possess "own-nature" (sabhava) (this being a direct contradiction of the Sunnata Katha of the Patisambhidamagga) L: "Sabhava" in the Patisambhidamagga refers to the assumption of permanence in dhammas. Buddhaghosa's usage is just the opposite and this conforms to the suttas. 4. The notion of the pluralistic momentariness of dhammas and the momentary present (khanapaccuppanna) L: An exposition of impermanence. 5. The notions of learning sign (uggahanimitta) and counterpart sign (patibhaganimitta) in the process of practicing jhana (see Wings to Awakening Part III F: Concentration and Discernment by Thanissaro Bhikkhu) L: Try practicing jhana using _only_ the instructions found in the suttas. 6. The notion that the sign (nimita) of anapanasati is a visible object (this is a clear and obvious literalization of a simile from the Patisambhidamagga; see Mystery of the Breath Nimita by Bhikkhu Sona) L: There is evidence in Vism. that it was a mental image (not visible object) for some practitioners. 7. The notions of access concentration (upacara samadhi), fixed concentration (appana samadhi), and momentary concentration (khanika samadhi) L: Again, simply practical guidelines. There is scant jhana instruction in the suttas. 8. The notion that "dry vipassana" without samatha can lead to liberation (see One Tool Among Many: The Place of Vipassana in Buddhist Practice by Thanissaro Bhikkhu) L: "Dry vipassana" means without a daily regimen of jhana practice. I believe there are instances cited in the suttas of people becoming enlightened who had no extensive jhana training. 9. The notion that the heart is the seat of consciousness L: An exposition of nama and rupa. 10. The metaphysical location of an arahant after physical death L: Don't know what this refers to. Larry 58186 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 7:48am Subject: [dsg] Re:what is sati. Cetana is a pleasure-filling device. indriyabala Hi, Matheesaha and Howard (& Sarah) - Okay, Howard. You say 'cetana' is the willing together with supporters/conditions (cetasikas?) that make the finger moving. An overly-simplified model of the mind, maybe? Okay, Matheesha. You have tried to extend beyond Howard's model to include "information processing" in the brain via perceptions and feeling. So far the brain has been a forgotten element in this Buddhist group's discussion -- citta is the supreme knower, while the forgotten brain is just a part of the rupa (kaya?), say like a finger. So what's next? Yours truly, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "matheesha" wrote: > > Hi Tep, Howard, > > >H: Cetana is not an actor or doer. It is the doing, the willing. When > > other conditions are present in a supportive roll, all that is > further required > > is the willing. It like moving a finger, Tep. > > M: ...useful to see cetana through vipassana arising, just before a > movement. cetana..lifting a leg..cetana..moving > forward ...cetana..keeping the foot on the ground. > > Recently read that initial information processing occurs in two streams in the brain. One quicker than the other. The quicker one is processed linked to emotion centers in the brain. The other is linked to those centres which give meaning. The end result is you can run away from somethign before you fully grasp what it is. These two processes seem to be vedana and sanna, and in vipassana we can see that they arise slightly apart vedana first, sanna later, but always paired. > 58187 From: "Dan D." Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:34am Subject: Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? onco111 Tep, I know you understand the difference between discussing Dhamma interpretations and a person's character and standing. Please bring that understanding to bear in our discussion... > Tep: It in not clear to me why Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu(Geoffrey > DeGraff) who was ordained in Thailand under Phra Ajaan Fueng Jotiko, a > true forest monk who remained in the monkhood to the last day of his > life, should be quickly judged as non-Theravadin monk and more. I have great respect and admiration for the life and work of the Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu. If there is anything in my writing that indicates anything to the contrary, I apologize profusely in advance--but I really don't there is anything that remotely approaches me calling him or judging him as a "non-Theravadin monk." Absurd. The passage you cited, though, I do think has a non-Theravada ring to it. By that I mean that terms like kusala (wholesome), sati (mindfulness), kamma (action), vipaka (result of action), sankhara (reaction), vedana (perception), sanya (perception in a different sense), patthana (conditional relations) are used in reference to people and activity envelopes, whereas in a Theravadin interpretation (Abhidhamma, suttas, and commentaries) these refer to mental states. > Surely there could be a real bias in your evaluation that was based on a single quote taken from one article. You asked about a single passage. I commented on that passage. My opinion of Thanissaro himself is that he has led an exemplary life and has done invaluable work promoting Dhamma. Metta, Dan 58188 From: "Dan D." Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:40am Subject: Re: Incomplete Happy Habit ... !!! onco111 Dear Ven. Bhikkhu Samahita, I love our dear ol' auntie Fern. There is something to be said for earnestness and committment to doing the right thing, even when the effort is mostly misguided. In appreciation and metta, Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Bhikkhu Samahita wrote: > > Dear Dan D. > > Maybe our dear ol' auntie Fern had practiced only > verbal and bodily morality but had an occasionally > evil mentality, which is why she later gets anxiety! > -- > > Friendship is the Greatest ... > Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. > <...> > 58189 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhist Logic (was James' Long Response) upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Sarah & James) - In a message dated 4/21/06 11:26:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > > > The following was prompted by my reading of the above exchange. > > The lower down towards the foundation of a building one gets, the more > important the function of each building block. If a brick is not aligned > properly, all those on top of it will be misaligned as well. So too with > systems of thinking about the world. If the basic connections between > reality and the thoughts about it are misconstrued, the entire system of > thought is ripe for the garbage bin. > > A basic cornerstone of Buddhist thought about reality is anicca. That can be > represented as - for anything real, it cannot be said that it is real, but > that it was real. Whatever it was, it is no more. This is in stark contrast > with Greek kinda logic, the basic premise of which is - x=x. A thing is > identical to/with itself. The strength of Buddhism is in that it understands > that this formulation holds only for concepts. > > Now to the discussion about sati. What is sati? Well, if you're going to be > Greek, then sati is sati, and then you can put it into a category, which is > also identical with itself, and build up an enormous taxonomy. An enormous > taxonomy of what? Of nothing more than your own definitions, which have no > connection with reality. Because the only thing that can be said about sati > is that it is no more. It is gone. > > Greek kinda science gives the world of existents, Buddhist science gives the > world as typified by Howard's signature line. > Greek kinda science gives footholds for craving, Buddhist science removes > every foothold for craving. > ========================== Still, there is a difference between mental phenomena and physical ones. Cartainly nothing, mental or physical, lasts at all, has own-being, own-nature, or own-anything, or is a source of genuine satisfaction. Nonetheless, events occur (dependently and inseparably), and some are physical (sights, sounds, tastes, smells, and bodily sensations) and all the rest are mental. Note that none of sights, sounds, tastes, odors and bodily sensations are operations. However, vi~n~nana, vedana, sankhara (the various formational operations including cetana, thought processes, emotional processes, and more), and sa~n~na all are operations. Whether that is the basis for distingishing mental from physical I really don't know. (It's just a guess.) But the mental/physical distinction is a clear one to me. When there is a sound heard, I know, without labeling it as such, that that sound is physical. When I feel that sound as pleasant, I know that feeling-as-pleasant to be a mental operation. When I observe that feeling-as-pleasant as the content of mind, I know that it is a mental phenomenon that is being observed, and not a physical one, but I know the pleasant sound to be physical. It seems to me that recognizing the fundamental importance of the tilakkhana doesn't require ignoring all other facts about phenomena. Knowing and known are inseparable; they are interdependent; but they are not identical. For most of us, it is mental phenomena that we take to be "ourself", and rarely sights, sounds, tastes, odors, or bodily sensations. Those last seem to us, for the most part, to be merely the content of a passing show on the "screen that is ourself". We need to concern ourselves most of all with that screen (citta) and the projector mechanisms (cetasika), and that won't happen if we conflate hardness, for example, with the experiential presence of that hardness. Sa ti's error for the most part is our error, and, thus, looking carefully at mental phenomena, separating them out analytically, and seeing that they, most specifically, are actually fleeting, conditioned, empty, and quite impersonal is crucially important. 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) 58190 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 6:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:what is sati. Cetana is a pleasure-filling device. upasaka_howard Hi, Matheesha - In a message dated 4/22/06 4:42:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dhammachat@... writes: > Recently read that initial information processing occurs in two streams > in the brain. One quicker than the other. The quicker one is processed > linked to emotion centers in the brain. The other is linked to those > centres which give meaning. The end result is you can run away from > somethign before you fully grasp what it is. These two processes seem > to be vedana and sanna, and in vipassana we can see that they arise > slightly apart vedana first, sanna later, but always paired. > ==================== Yes, and if my understanding of what the Buddha is reported to have said is correct, he predated that finding by 2500 years. What one feels, one perceives (or recognizes), i.e. "sa~n~nizes". 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) 58191 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhaatukathaa, Elements nilovg Hi Icaro, Could you post something from this work, to our benefit? Nina op 18-04-2006 18:22 schreef icarofranca op icarofranca@...: > I am > reading this in Pali...and I am understanding it! - the > Dhatukhatapali. A Great book, that owns nothing to any other big > classic on Buddhism, Theravada, Mahayana or Vajrayana! 58192 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.1 nama and rupa nilovg Hi Phil, As you know the citta is the chief in experiencing an object, and the cetasikas share the same object. The cetasikas, experience it, but each in their own way. Feeling experiences its flavour, thus, it still experiences it. Saaa marks or remembers it, thus, it also experiences it. Lobha clings to it, is attached to it, to what else but the object it experiences? Paaa understands it, what else but the object? Nina. op 22-04-2006 12:33 schreef Phil op philco777@...: > I have > trouble understanding (still) how the nama that is cetasika > experiences something. I can understand citta experiencing > something, vaguely, but cetasika seems more like the flavouring that > accompanies citta. 58193 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] More questions about Ajaan Sujin nilovg Dear Marisa, I was away for a few days, so I could not answer. op 17-04-2006 23:43 schreef mwesthei8 op marisa.westheimer@...: > > One thing that I noticed in the responses of many was the > de-emphasized role of meditation, whether one agrees or disagrees with > this. I was hoping to get a bit more clarification on this, is there > anywhere where Ajaan Sujin specifically addresses the role of > meditation, and if so, what is her stance? ------- N: She explained that there are two kinds of meditation: samatha and vipassanaa. These have different ways of development and different goals. Samatha is the development of calm, vipassana the development of the wisdom that sees realities as they are. For both ways right understanding is indispensable. The development of samatha leads to the temporary suppression of defilements which is achieved by the attainment of jhaana, absorption concentration. Right understanding is needed which knows by means of which meditation subject and in which way this can be achieved. Vipassanaa is to be developed in daily life by awareness of whatever reality appears, be it kusala, akusala, pleasant or unpleasant. Through the development of vipassanaa eventually all defilements can be eradicated. It is important that one does not confuse the ways of development of samatha and vipassana. If one thinks that vipassana must be developed in a quiet place in order to become calm first, one misleads oneself. One is led by lobha, by subtle clinging to an idea of self. This point she stresses time and again. The development of vipassana has to be with detachment from the beginning until the end. --------- M: Secondly, does Ajaan Sujin ever articulate the goal of Buddhism as > being Nirvana? -------- N: She will ask: do people know what nibbaana is? They cannot know this if they do not develop understanding of the reality appearing right now. If this is not clearly known, nibbaana is only a word about which one can speculate. If one continues to develop right understanding and one is on the right Path it will lead to enlightenment, and that is, the experience of the four noble Truths. Nibbaana is the third noble Truth. ------- M: Thirdly, does Ajaan Sujin ever hold discussion on the idea of rebirth? ------- N: She explains that each cause brings its appropriate result. The result of jhaana is rebirth in the brahma planes. She does not speculate on how rebirth will be, that is only thinking. As Sarah also said: at each moment of citta that arises and falls away there is birth and death. The last moment of this life and the first moment of the next life is just like now. -------- M: While I feel I have an overall strong idea of the basic work of Ajaan > Sujin, I am still trying to figure out how her work stands on its own > and in comparison to others. ------ N: As Sarah explained, she will say that what she says is not her own teaching, her own work. She thoroughly checks all she says with the Tipitaka and Commentaries. She will go over delicate points with her assistants who look up the Pali for her. And if she is not sure she stands to be corrected. Nina. 58195 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:18am Subject: Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? indriyabala Dear Dan D. - Please compare the two versions of your opinion about Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu below. I think they are different like black and white. > Dan D. (#58130, 4/21/06): > Our difference seems to be that I don't think the writing that you quoted is Theravadin or even particularly Buddhist. Instead, it seems to me to be a thoroughly conventional moralism, tired and sterile, but expressed in the guise of Theravada Buddhist doctrine. >Bingo. He uses Buddhist language to propound non-Buddhist ideas. >Again, we are in agreement. "Skillful" does not apply to dhammas. Despite Thanassaro's use of Buddhist-sounding terminology, his words clearly do not have the same meaning when used by Buddha and the Theravada tradition. >Thanissaro is not only using "conventional exposition", he is using it to describe conventional, pedestrian, hum-drum ideas that are not particularly Buddhist because he does not intend his Buddhist- sounding words to have a Buddhist meaning. ............................ >Dan D. (#58187, 4/22/06): >I have great respect and admiration for the life and work of the Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu. If there is anything in my writing that indicates anything to the contrary, I apologize profusely in advance--but I really don't there is anything that remotely approaches me calling him or judging him as a "non-Theravadin monk." Absurd. >My opinion of Thanissaro himself is that he has led an exemplary life and has done invaluable work promoting Dhamma. ........................ Sincerely, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > Tep, I know you understand the difference between discussing Dhamma > interpretations and a person's character and standing. Please bring > that understanding to bear in our discussion... > (snipped) > > The passage you cited, though, I do think has a non-Theravada ring to it. By that I mean that terms like kusala (wholesome), sati > (mindfulness), kamma (action), vipaka (result of action), sankhara > (reaction), vedana (perception), sanya (perception in a different > sense), patthana (conditional relations) are used in reference to > people and activity envelopes, whereas in a Theravadin interpretation > (Abhidhamma, suttas, and commentaries) these refer to mental states. > > > > > Surely there could be a real bias in your evaluation that was based > on a single quote taken from one article. > > You asked about a single passage. I commented on that passage. > 58196 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:34am Subject: Re: It isn't me! ... Previous Devotion ... indriyabala Hi, Connie - Your style of writing is unique and standing out. Like Sarah said, you are good at creating words. Tepster is an example. {:>) > > Tep: What did the Buddha teach, dear Connie? > > connie: gods and men, dukkha and it's end. > Tep: That's is good! What about the 'Middle Way' introduced by KenH? ........... > Pitaka Disclosure: The Ninefold Thread - General >... Ones, arahants and fully enlightened, teach the True Idea, that is, > Thread, song, ... etc. ... The Teachers [do so] conceiving that > those possessed of previous devotion will easily attain mastery > and conceiving that the previous devotion will [conduce] to >creatures' remembering> . Tep: It is a great reminder that the "previous devotion" has a huge impact on creatures' remembering (of the Teachings?). Sincerely, Tep ======= 58197 From: "Dan D." Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:33am Subject: Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? onco111 Hi Tep, Can you see no distinction between critique of a writing or an idea and judgement of a person? In the first quotes, I am commenting on his writings and ideas, which I think miss the mark. In the second quotes, I am commenting on the man, whom I admire and respect, even if I do not agree with everything he says. Can you not see that? Metta, Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > > > Dear Dan D. - > > Please compare the two versions of your opinion about Ven. Thanissaro > Bhikkhu below. I think they are different like black and white. > > > Dan D. (#58130, 4/21/06): > > > Our difference seems to be that I don't think the writing that you > quoted is Theravadin or even particularly Buddhist. Instead, it seems > to me to be a thoroughly conventional moralism, tired and sterile, but > expressed in the guise of Theravada Buddhist doctrine. > > >Bingo. He uses Buddhist language to propound non-Buddhist ideas. > > >Again, we are in agreement. "Skillful" does not apply to dhammas. > Despite Thanassaro's use of Buddhist-sounding terminology, his words > clearly do not have the same meaning when used by Buddha and the > Theravada tradition. > > >Thanissaro is not only using "conventional exposition", he is using > it to describe conventional, pedestrian, hum-drum ideas that are not > particularly Buddhist because he does not intend his Buddhist- > sounding words to have a Buddhist meaning. > > ............................ > > >Dan D. (#58187, 4/22/06): > > >I have great respect and admiration for the life and work of the Ven. > Thanissaro Bhikkhu. If there is anything in my writing that indicates > anything to the contrary, I apologize profusely in advance--but I > really don't there is anything that remotely approaches me calling > him or judging him as a "non-Theravadin monk." Absurd. > > >My opinion of Thanissaro himself is that he has led an exemplary life > and has done invaluable work promoting Dhamma. > > ........................ > > Sincerely, > > > Tep > ====== > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > > > Tep, I know you understand the difference between discussing Dhamma > > interpretations and a person's character and standing. Please bring > > that understanding to bear in our discussion... > > > (snipped) > > > > The passage you cited, though, I do think has a non-Theravada ring > to it. By that I mean that terms like kusala (wholesome), sati > > (mindfulness), kamma (action), vipaka (result of action), sankhara > > (reaction), vedana (perception), sanya (perception in a different > > sense), patthana (conditional relations) are used in reference to > > people and activity envelopes, whereas in a Theravadin interpretation > > (Abhidhamma, suttas, and commentaries) these refer to mental states. > > > > > > > > > Surely there could be a real bias in your evaluation that was based > > on a single quote taken from one article. > > > > You asked about a single passage. I commented on that passage. > > > 58198 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 1:14pm Subject: Re: Attention to Conditions and Refinement ... Too Quick to Judge? indriyabala Hi, Dan - I hope we can reach a peaceful conclusion rapidly. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > Hi Tep, > Can you see no distinction between critique of a writing or an idea > and judgement of a person? In the first quotes, I am commenting on > his writings and ideas, which I think miss the mark. In the second > quotes, I am commenting on the man, whom I admire and respect, even > if I do not agree with everything he says. Can you not see that? > Tep: No, I cannot! In the conventional real world it is not possible to separate a person from what he reads, says and writes. Haven't you heard "you are what you read" and "you are what you eat" ? What about "you'll get a job or not, it very much depends on your resume"? {:>) BTW How is it possible for you to "admire and respect" Thanissaro Bhikkhu as a Buddhist, given that you think his writing shows "conventional, pedestrian, hum-drum ideas that are not particularly Buddhist" ? You wrote and I quote: "Despite Thanassaro's use of Buddhist-sounding terminology, his words clearly do not have the same meaning when used by Buddha and the Theravada tradition" So, how is it possible for you to admire and respect this "not particularly" Buddhist monk, whose ideas are not in the Buddha's Teaching domain? Doesn't he sound like a faked monk to you? Well, I only want to say what's right and what's wrong. We are dhamma friends, aren't we? Warm regards, Tep ======== > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" > wrote: > > > > > > Dear Dan D. - > > > > Please compare the two versions of your opinion about Ven. > Thanissaro > > Bhikkhu below. I think they are different like black and white. > > > > > Dan D. (#58130, 4/21/06): > > (snipped) 58199 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Apr 22, 2006 1:55pm Subject: Re: ADL ch 1, paramattha dhammas. scottduncan2 Hello, Good idea to keep looking at this! Dear Nina, All, N: "With regard to conditioned dhammas, not taking into consideration nibbaana, paramattha dhamma refers to what is really there, and only for an extremely short moment. For example, I am insulted by someone else. When I think of persons and situations, I dwell for a long time with akusala citta on his words, I am actually the loser." I still have questions about this aspect of things. How does "dwelling" work? In the above example it seems as if I am in control of this process of "dwelling" on the insult. I am aware of thinking about it over and over, of elaborating it, of experiencing the anger or other feelings, but the point is it seems to remain. I know there is no one thinking. Apparently akusula dhammas continue to arise in a stream with one focus. What is this? What conditions it? What breaks it? Perhaps suddenly I catch myself in the loop of experience and try to shake myself out of it. What has arisen then, because at that point (as earlier) there is no one to stop the arising of akusula and yet something else arose. What would that be? What would condition it? Thanks for the chance to consider this! Sincerely, Scott.