58800 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 2, 2006 11:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Defining 'Mental Phenomena' sarahprocter... Hi Herman, First things first, I'm so glad Vicki is home again today.....Hope all thsoe boys help take good care of her when they're around too:). --- Herman Hofman wrote: S:> > As for tinnitis, I'll pass for now, but would suggest it also depends > on ear-sense. ..... S: I happened to be visiting Dr Ma, our acupuncturist today, so asked him for some input. (He knows all about DSG and of course has met Bhikkhu Bodhi, Chris and I forget who else). He says tinnitis is caused by 'confused signals affecting hearing and balance'. As I thought, the ear-sense is still very much involved, but because of the 'cofused signals' the effect is either just pressure in the ear or a continuous kind of sound, like in an engine-room. I was also asking him if he could help the wife of a friend who suffered a case of almost blindness from an acid attack (v.nasty!) and a new treatment I'd read about which is like a transplant for the eyes, using a tooth removed from the patient, reimplanted somewhere. In these cases, the eye-sense is again very much involved with the regained sight when a channel/meridien is 'reopened'. Enough of that. ... > Thanks for the feedback. Where would nimitta be classified in the scheme > of > things? Nama, rupa, neither? .... S: Nimitta is used in different contexts with different meanings. Usually it refers to a concept (eg as object of samatha development or jhana) or when referred to in suttas such as 'paying attention to nimitta anupyanjanna (signs and details). There is another meaning of sankhara nimitta, the nimitta of conditioned dhammas, which refers to the 'shadow' of namas and rupas....And here we begin to get into some grey area....:). See more on 'nimitta' in U.P. or pursue it with me if you like... Metta, Sarah ======= 58801 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Tue May 2, 2006 11:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Do mind objects have an intrinsic nature? fbartolom --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi Nina, > > I don't understand your comment. The quote you gave doesn't seem to > relate to the issue of whether we can say javana consciousness is the > object of registration consciousness. Of course registration may not take the current javana consciousness as object. As a matter of fact each citta in a consciousness process share the same object and thus that would imply that the preceding javana should have itself as object, what is patently impossible. Of course a following consciousness process may take whichever past citta that has arisen, thus also any single citta in a past javana. 58802 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 2, 2006 11:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana sarahprocter... Hi Herman (& Scott), --- Herman Hofman wrote: > > Sa: There can be subtle kinds of noticing with an idea of self - still > > trying to catch dhammas which have fallen away already. When there is > > awareness of a reality, there's no trying or noticing involved. It > arises > > naturally like seeing or hearing or liking arise. > > > > Appreciating what the quality of awareness is and what the objects of > > awareness can be is the main condition for it to arise. The big > obstacle > > is any kind of wrong view concerned with a self trying to catch it or > make > > it happen. > > > H:> Are you saying there can be no awareness of trying? lobha? wanting > things to > be a certain way? .... S: Thanks for reading and adding your good questions. No, I'm not saying this at all. There certainly can be awareness of trying, of lobha, of wanting things to be a certain way. This is the kind of stuff that makes up a large part of our day and is therefore just the kind of dhamma awareness can be aware of. Sometimes I find myself laughing at such wanting -- it's so ridiculous really to want things to be other than they are....but then, that's lobha! Herman, I was impressed that even when you were so concerned about Vicki, you were still reflecting on Dhamma. It helps a lot, doesn't it? Metta, Sarah ======== 58803 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 2, 2006 11:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana sarahprocter... Hi James (and Scott), Thanks for adding some good questions and comments: --- buddhatrue wrote: > > Sa: There can be subtle kinds of noticing with an idea of self - > still > > trying to catch dhammas which have fallen away already. When there > is > > awareness of a reality, there's no trying or noticing involved. It > arises > > naturally like seeing or hearing or liking arise. > > James: Are you saying that if such awarenesss arises "naturally" > there is no idea of self involved? It was my understanding that the > subtle kind of idea of self you are describing is only eliminated at > arahanthood. In other words, isn't self going to be present > regardless of if awareness is planned or spontaneous? .... Sar: Good and important questions. While it's true that the wrong idea of self is not eradicated until sotapannahood and subtle clinging with mana is not eradicated until arahanthood, these kinds of attachment do not arise whenever there is awareness at any level. In other words, when there is any kind of generosity, morality or mental development (samatha or vipassana), there is still the latent tendency of attachment, wrong view and conceit. But at these times, they do not 'arise'. They are dormant. So, this is why we can say that when there is awareness of a reality, there's no trying to have it another way or subtle noticing of what's fallen away. There's no attachment at all. Good and bad qualities cannot arise together. Please ask if I'm not being clear here. .... > > Appreciating what the quality of awareness is and what the objects > of > > awareness can be is the main condition for it to arise. The big > obstacle > > is any kind of wrong view concerned with a self trying to catch it > or make > > it happen. > > James: I think you are putting a distinction where none exists. .... Sar: Could you elaborate? .... > James: Thanks for mentioning me and the encouraging words. It takes > courage, and I mean great courage, to face up to your problems and > to try to do something about them. The courage is because of the > negative evaluations from self and others. It is good when someone > doesn't offer that negative evaluation. .... Sar: I agree. I'm glad you're doing well. I think we all need good support. I'm certainly very fortunate in this regard. .... > > Do you find it helpful to reflect on all the lifetimes we must have > > expereinced great traumatic events, on and on? Does this inspire > you at > > all? > > James: Speaking for myself, I think it is helpful to reflect on the > pain and suffering we must have experienced in past lifetimes. And > it is equally important to reflect on all the pain and suffering we > have caused others in past lifetimes. .... Sar: I agree. I asked because I find the same. I have no doubt that we've experienced great traumas over and over again, life-time after life-time. What is traumatic now will be forgotten in the next life as we face new traumas. On and on in samsara. When I reflect on this, it makes me feel so grateful to have heard the Buddha's teachings. Without these, there's no way out at all. It's not awareness of realities when we reflect like this, but it can be wise reflection on the Dhamma or on the Buddha's virtues. Also, reflecting on kamma can help us not to have any self-pity when we face great difficulties, I think. Thanks, James. I've found it helpful to join in this thread of yours and Scott's. Metta and peace, Sarah ========= 58804 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 3, 2006 0:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do mind objects have an intrinsic nature? nilovg Hi Larry, Registration-consciousness, tadaaramma.na citta or tadalambana-citta, is vipaakacitta experiencing the sense-object that was experienced by the preceding cittas in that same process. It hangs on a little longer to the same object. It could never take the previous javana cittas as object. The Pa.t.thana example illustrates that a previous lust is object of akusala citta with lust, obviously, not arising in that same process. It can only arise with another series of javanacittas, never with tadaaramma.na citta which is vipaakacitta. Nina. op 03-05-2006 01:04 schreef LBIDD@... op LBIDD@...: > -------- > N: the Pa.t.thaana (Condiitonal Relations): Akusala can condition > akusala > citta by way of object-predominance-condition. We read in the > "Paììhåna'',in the same section,§415: Œ(One)esteems, enjoys > and delights in lust. Taking it as estimable object, arises lust, arises > wrong views. (One)esteems, enjoys and delights in wrong views. > Taking it as estimable object, arises lust, arise wrong views.> > It is not object of registration vipaakacitta, but object of akusala > citta rooted in lobha, arising in a following process. --------- 58805 From: "Dan D." Date: Wed May 3, 2006 0:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] a "happy" proposition onco111 Dear Herman, You write: > There is no moral obligation to be happy. But there is action and > consequence. And there is the possibility to know this. And there is the > possibility to know that action is voluntary, not involuntary. And there is > the possibility to know that consequence is involuntary, not voluntary. The > thereness of mind (becoming) is given. The laws that govern mind are also > given. That is involuntary. But no state of mind is absolutely involuntary. > (If it were, then the Dhamma would be a sick joke). And anxiety is a > necessary consequence of the voluntary belief that a self has acted > succesfully to usurp the way things are. > > -- > Kind Regards To which I say, "Huh?", which is short for: Of course there's a moral obligation to be happy, or, in the inimitable Theravada Buddhist terminology, dosa is akusala. The rest of your paragraph looks like a non-sequiter to me. By the structure of the paragraph, it looks like you are discussing the "action and consequence" and the "voluntary" in support of your opening sentence; but I don't see any link between that first sentence and anything else in the paragraph. Is there some connection? With appreciation, Dan 58806 From: "Dan D." Date: Wed May 3, 2006 0:24am Subject: [dsg] Re: Please don't run away yet, DAN 1.ii onco111 Hi Sarah, Comments interspersed… > > If a master teacher tells you something that draws your attention to > > a presently arising citta or even to an honest-to-goodness awareness > > of a citta in the past, a lesson is learned. If instead, you hear > > more and more theory and cling to a conceptual model and crave a > > deeper intellectual understanding and think that real understanding > > somehow arises from that conventional cultivation of theoretical > > understanding, how does that really differ from sitting in a corner, > > eyes close, directing the attention to such-and-such object in the > > hopes that real understanding will somehow arise from that > > conventional cultivation of attention? > .... > S: I've never said it does:-) Attachment is attachment. Wrong view is > wrong view, no matter the trimmings, as I keep saying. Of course you've never said it does, but, as Howard has rightly pointed out, reading, discussing, listening to Dhamma talks are conventional activities just as sitting in a corner "meditating". Either can be conducive to attachment or to right effort. > .... > >I think Howard is right about > > the "conventional" affinity between development of intellectual > > understanding and development of a ritual meditation practice. Of > > course, thinking so doesn't make it right and I don't yet have time > > to express or think through it clearly; when I do, we might be able > > have a more fruitful and interesting discussion of the issue. > .... > S: Again, as I keep saying, it's the citta that counts. We can think about > cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana with right view, wrong view, > ignorance, plain attachment, aversion, conceit or whatever. > > I think you're straying into some Dan 'straw man 'arguments here with > me:). No straw man, and no arguments. I just wanted to give you another opportunity to say again: "It's the citta that counts…", which is music to my ears. Sometimes it seems like you rush out like junkyard dog after meditators and get all cuddly with bookworms. I know that inside you are really a cuddly junkyard dog with everyone… > > Our (worldlings) theoretical understandings of the 4NT are wrong. We > > don't know what they are. Yes, we know the words. Yes, we can > > formulate the concepts. Yes, we have an "idea" of what they mean, but > > we don't really *know*. Ideas about the 4NT are not the 4NT and do > > not in any way bring about knowledge of them. Intellectual > > understanding is a dead horse--it doesn't go anywhere. > .... > S: Firstly, there are worldlings and worldlings. For those who have/had > developed higher insights, the sacca nana is/was so firm, there was no > doubt or misapprehension about the 4NT, even though nibbana has not yet > been realised. Eradication of doubt and wrong view BEFORE stream entry?! This is one I haven't heard yet. Where are you pulling this from? > If you think that it's only with wrong view that you read, > consider, discuss or post comments or suttas on the 4NT, then why bother? First, I read, consider, discuss, and comment on the 4NT sometimes with wrong view, sometimes dissociated from wrong view, and sometimes with right view; however, before I act I never consider which of the three I acted with. > There'd be no way out. When B.Samahita posted a sutta on nibbana the other > day, does it mean it's necessarily posted or read with wrong view? It may > be enough to remind us of just how little understanding we have and how > much there is to develop. This question makes so little sense to me that I have no idea what you are talking about. We act. We do things. Most of the time we act with akusala. When we realize this, we don't stop doing things in an effort to avoid akusala. By all means, do things. Akusala and kusala will arise. Let them come as they may. > > Different meanings of "wrong"... If the words are said with kusala > > citta, they are morally faultless (i.e., not morally wrong) even > > though they are incorrect because what we mean by 'nibbana' is not > > the same as what Buddha meant by 'nibbana'. When we say that word, we > > don't know what it means. > .... > S: No, we don't know what it means, but it can still be considered with > kusala cittas and at such times, it cannot be said to be incorrect or > wrong in any sense. If we mistake such reflection for any kind of > realisation, that would be wrong. I agree that it's pretty useless to > think much at all about nibbana. Baloney! If I have an incorrect idea about nibbana, it is still incorrect even if I have kusala citta when I discuss it. > S: It may be the right words with akusala cittas rooted in ignorance or > attachment. Or it may be the right words with kusala cittas. Right. The object of the consciousness is not what determines whether it is kusala or akusala. But correct/incorrect applies to concepts and have nothing to do with kusala/akusala. > As I > mentioned, for those who have developed higher insight and for whom there > is more and more turning away from conditioned dhammas, more and more > understanding of the futility of them, such reflection is more likely to > be with kusala cittas. Of course. Reflections about nibbana and 4NT and that aggressive driver and that chocolate milkshake are all more likely to be with kusala cittas. > Now, as I write about the topic, there are kusala and akusala cittas > arising. As Phil has pointed out, we don't know for others, but if you > tell me yours are wrong, fine. I was not telling you anything about kusala/akusala cittas; I was telling you about correct/incorrect (right/wrong, accurate/inaccurate) concepts. My concepts about nibbana are wrong and will always be until that day when I experience it. > >An analogy: A > > lot of people would argue that working hard at meditation is right > > effort. You (Sarah) always ask them what they mean by "meditation" > > and "right". If they answer the questions right, you agree with them; > > more often, though, they aren't able to satisfy you with their > > answers, and you say that what they are saying is wrong because they > > don't have an understanding of what 'bhavana' and 'samma vayama' > > are. Likewise, if I were to say "nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma" > > and an enlightened person were to question me on it, he or she would > > have to conclude that I am wrong, that I don't understand nibbana, > > that I have the wrong view of nibbana (if I am assuming that what I > > say about it being the unconditioned element is actually correct), > > that I have the wrong concept of nibbana, that I am just plain wrong. > ..... > S: Definitely there would not be direct understanding of it. Whether your > comments, thoughts and words were wrong or not would depend on the view > behind them. No. I can say "2+2=5" with kusala cittas, but I'd still be wrong. > >Either way, it is very > > difficult for me to see clear distinctions between them. If > > conceptual, I don't see them as anything but a vague, conventional > > description of some generalized process of development of > > understanding. If paramattha, then the contextual object > > (e.g., "reading") seems to take on much too much importance in the > > definitions to make the distinctions useful. > .... > S: They all refer to understanding of the present dhammas, not anything to > do with "reading". Of course, reading and hearing the teachings may be > conditions for panna to arise at any of these levels. The difference > between pariyatti and patipatti is that pariyatti has concepts as object - > right reflection with understanding about dhammas. Patipatti is > satipatthana - right understanding of dhammas themselves as objects. There is something about this that just doesn't add up. I'll have to come back to it when I'm not falling off my chair with sleepiness. > > > Pls find me any reference from any text which says that cetasikas > > are > > > characteristics of cittas. It makes no sense to me?.Am I somehow > > missing > > > your point? I'm not sure where this is coming from? > > > > characteristic (n): a distinguishing feature or quality; > > > > A distinguishing feature of cittas is that they inevitably arise with > > a host of cetasikas. BB (CMA intro) describes citta as an "evanescent > > cognitive event" and cetasikas as "a constellation of mental factors" > > that arise with the citta and exercise specialized tasks. Nyanatiloka > > (Bud. Dict.) calls cetasikas "mental concommitants" of cittas. What's > > the difference between "concommitant" and "characteristic"? > .... > S: 'concommitant' means 'arising together with', 'accompanying'. > 'Characteristic' means 'particular to'. > A pair of trousers 'accompanies' a jacket. It is not a kind of jacket. > > I think you'll have to give up on this one if that was your best textual > example, Dan:-)). Sarah, you seem pretty adamant that it is wrong to think of cetasikas as characteristics of cittas, but, really, I don't see it. If you want me to give up on trying to understand, that's fine. I will continue to think of them thusly. > *It would be fun to have Erik around again so that I could take a back > seat....[Out of curiosity and in brief if it's off-topic, how did Martin > Luther come into it?] Martin Luther has written profoundly about anatta. His writings really opened my eyes to aspects of Dhamma that were unclear before I began reading his work in early 2001. Metta, Dan 58807 From: "Dan D." Date: Wed May 3, 2006 0:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] a "happy" proposition onco111 Hi Ken, > D: > I read his "moral obligation" as Jewish language for the simple > idea that happiness (sobhana cetasikas) needs to be present in order > to be called "moral" (kusala). Unhappiness (dosa) is immoral > (akusala). In Buddhist language, his proposition is a tautology, but > in pop culture it is scandalous. > > I'm not convinced their religion teaches the opposite conditionality> <. . .> Couldn't you find hundreds of examples in > which Buddhists wrongly understand the nature of conditioned dhammas? > Such misunderstandings of the teachings are bound to be quite common > in any religion. The question is whether there is any evidence that > someone teaches conditioned dhammas in the context and language of > that religion. > -------------- > > Wasn't the Buddha quite adamant about this? With the sole exception of > his Dhamma, any explanation of ultimate reality falls into one of the > two extremes. I don't think he added a rider: "except in some cases > where that explanation is fully understood." I think you are right. Nowhere else was the nature of conditionality so fully understood or explained. But partially understood elsewhere? Certainly. I don't see how that statement is such a problem… > I think it is quite simple: other disciplines can lead to happy > rebirths, but only a Buddha teaches conditionality, the knowledge of > which eventually leads to release from dukkha. Only Buddha attained and expounded the full understanding of conditionality. Agreed. > ------------ > <. . .> > D: > To fall into the 'moral' category, sobhana cetasikas must be > present. Otherwise, the kamma is immoral. > ------------ > > Does this suggest to you that Denis Prager has insight into the > workings of conditioned dhammas? I don't know what his understanding is. It is possible that he was talking in a strictly conventional sense of morality as ethics and arrived at his statement through cogitation and puzzling. It is also possible that he has insight into the workings of conditioned dhammas. Full insight? No. Deep insight? No. Liberating insight? No. > <. . .> > KH: > > It is unlikely, though, that he knew goodness was a > conditioned dhamma, independent of a controlling self, > > > > > D: > Far from being unlikely, I think it is reasonably likely that > does know that. > --------------------- > > Ah, so that answers my previous question. But I can't agree. Who but > a Buddha could describe a conditioned dhamma? Other great sages can > sometimes come to the conclusion, "Ultimate realities must be very, > very short-lived (anicca)," but that is as close as they get, surely.(?) I think conditioned dhammas are occasionally understood and discussed in other traditions (no, not fully understood; and, no, not sufficiently understood to constitute enlightenment). Whenever it happens, there is scandal and outrage because the idea is so strikingly different from the conventional ways of seeing the world. > ------------------------- > D: > I know very little about Orthodox Judaism, but *the* major tenet > of Christianity is that goodness cannot arise through a controlling > self but ONLY through God. Any time there is the idea that Self can do > a good thing, the work is immoral (according to orthodox Protestant > Christian --doctrine). > ------------------------- > > Yes, I have heard something like that. That sort of thinking wavers > midway between eternity belief and annihilation belief, but it will > always be one or the other: it will never come close to the middle way. For some moments there may arise a clear understanding that the Self has no power to accomplish kusala of any kind. Later, upon reflection, that understanding is placed into a conceptual framework of "Kusala is a work of God", which puts it firmly beyond the reach of the Self--a rather deep insight, I'd say. "God" is invoked here as the explanation for a baffling phenomenon: "If not me, then who?" The Christian would say, "God." The Buddhist would say, "No 'who' at all." What is striking, though, is the insight that the "I" is powerless--a deeper insight than developed by many Buddhists who may know the suttas inside and out. We can learn much if we keep our eyes and ears and minds open to other formulations of Dhamma. Not insight to the depth of liberation perhaps, but most of us aren't very close to those exalted levels of wisdom at which we cannot learn something about reality from others. > ------------------------------------- > <. . .> > D: > I think the Buddha's insight into the NT was clearer and his > understanding deeper than Denis Prager's or anyone else's, but I have > little doubt that many aspects of conditionality are understood by > many outside the dispensation. > --------------------------------------- > > This is very broad minded of you Dan, but I'm not sure how it helps > you to understand the Dhamma. > Give it a try and then you may see! Your Dhamma dude, Dan 58808 From: "Dan D." Date: Wed May 3, 2006 0:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] a "happy" proposition onco111 Hi Joop, I wasn't talking about ethics at all. I was talking firstly about kusala/akusala and secondly about moral/immoral. It is not in any way unethical to be unhappy, but it is immoral! What's that say about all of us unenlightened beings who are not always the happiest of beings? That akusala is quite common. And so it is. > Good that you make ethical behavior one of the central topics. > When I think of 'ethics', I think of the Pali word 'sila' > And sila is: the Five precepts and the three aspects of the Noble > Eightfold Path > but to me 'ethics' has to do with a person > in relation to other persons and I'm not sure kusala/akusala has also > to do with that relation: it's more about phenomena within the person. I agree 100%. > And I don't know who 'Auntie Fern is, belongs to the american culture > I'm afraid? No, not to the American culture, but to dsg culture (and dhammalist). In particular, see post #8673. > I'm saying this because I think 'be happy!' belongs to > that culture to: optimism, positive thinking, bring democracy to Irak. Hmmm... The opposite of what you write is: 'be miserable!' and pessimism, negativity, support oppression wherever it is found! Uff da! Have a great day, Metta, Dan 58809 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 3, 2006 0:55am Subject: Audio dana sarahprocter... Dear Friends, We've now uploaded our latest edited discussions with A.Sujin and friends from our last Inida trip here: http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/ We're delighted to make it available to everyone. We intended to load it at the weekend as a kind of 'birthday dana', but as usual, there were a few glitches. Please scroll down to the following: >India, October 2005< The latest version of I-tunes includes 'quick-time' which allows you to start listening to talks without having to download the file first (it's called 'streaming', I believe). We'd be glad if as many people here as possible would listen to some if not all of the talks and raise any points inc. disagreements for further discussion. For a really good track, good quality, on concepts and realities, please start with this one: 'Nalanda: 01, 02.' and also 'Savatthi: 01, 02.' Tep, the track I mentioned where I raise the Kundaliya Sutta in some detail (and also Patisambhidamagga points we discussed) is: 'Srinagar, day 2, afternoon: 01, 02.' (I believe!) Howard and Chris, a very nice discussion between Chris and A.Sujin with lots more on the 'hopelessness and helplessness' theme: 'Lucknow (airport): 01.' Also 'Delhi (hotel): 01, 02.' Nina, you'll especially enjoy the Srinagar tracks, like this one between Jon and K.Sujin. She was sick and lying down by the heater on the boat and just started talking. 'Srinagar, day 3: 01, 02.' Phil, you'll appreciate it all. The Bodh Gaya set starts with your questions, but they're also raised in Srinagar (on kamma). This is also the set I mentioned to you recently. Bodh Gaya (hotel): 01, Srinagar, day 2, morning: 01, 02, 03, 04. James, Nina raises many of your points. I think mostly in Benares, but I don't remember exactly now. Benares: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05. Azita, Ken H, Connie, Sukin, Betty and others - all!! Azita and Sukin, many thanks for your many good questions on several of the tracks. Azita - Savatthi and Delhi hotel and Srinagar day 3. Betty - Srinagar day2 morning.... There is also a set of 'pre-India' discussions. But these need more work on as we had a lot of recording problems and had to use another one which isn't so clear. We know many people without broadband may not even be able to use the 'quick-time' for listening. We will make cd's in due course, but expect the usual delays. Metta, Sarah (& Jon) Audio tracks: Bangkok airport, Gaya airport (India): 01. Rajgir (lunch stop): 01. Nalanda: 01, 02. Bodh Gaya (hotel): 01, 02, 03, 04. Bodh Gaya (on departure): 01. Benares: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05. Sarnath: 01, 02. Kushinara: 01, 02. Savatthi: 01, 02. Lucknow (airport): 01. Kuru (nr Delhi): 01. Delhi (hotel): 01, 02. Delhi (airport): 01. Srinagar, day 2, morning: 01, 02, 03, 04. Srinagar, day 2, afternoon: 01, 02. Srinagar, day 3: 01, 02. Srinagar, day 4: 01. 58810 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 1:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] a "happy" proposition egberdina Hi Dan, > To which I say, "Huh?", which is short for: > > Of course there's a moral obligation to be happy, or, in the > inimitable Theravada Buddhist terminology, dosa is akusala. I'm going to shock your lederhosen off, and be radical here :-) There is a moral obligation to be not-self. Buddhism is not about setting up the conditions for a happy existence. It is about dispensing with an unhappy existence. An unhappy existence is a necessary consequence of being out of sync with the way things are. The rest of your paragraph looks like a non-sequiter to me. By the > structure of the paragraph, it looks like you are discussing > the "action and consequence" and the "voluntary" in support of your > opening sentence; but I don't see any link between that first > sentence and anything else in the paragraph. Is there some connection? Thinking in terms of self is a recipe for disaster. There is no way that a self can organise the deckchairs on the Titanic to prevent it from sinking. But thinking in terms of self is not imposed from outside. It is learnt, and can be unlearnt. To that extent, it is voluntary. I am not suggesting that suffering ends with not thinking in terms of self. (It is only the beginning of the way out). But acceptance of the way things are does of course liberate the non-existent self from all the consequences of their non-existent deeds. And that's got to be good! (Unless the particular self thought they were pretty good :-)) Thanks for the reports about the TKD grading. Much as I have an aversion to notions of luck, your son is fortunate to have you as his Dad, and probably vice-versa as well. (my older son did a few belts of karate, but promptly withdrew upon realising that the rubber hits the road at times, and there was real-life contact sparring in the higher belts :-)) -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58811 From: "Joop" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 1:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] The two truths - post of Suan. jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > > Dear Joop and friends, > thank you, Joop, for the article by Stephhn Batchelor. That is his point of > view. > It may be of interest to hear also another point of view so that different > views can be compared with each other. > I quote a post by Suan given here on dsg before. I leave out some of the > Pali text. Dear Nina, all Thanks for your reaction. A problem is that you quote Buddhaghosa as a proof of another view; to me he is not an authority, living 1000 years after the passing away of the Buddha. I have never heard of the "Anangana Suttavannanaa", who has written it? You, or Suan, say: "Thus, whenever we find in a Suttam the teachings of impermanence, misery, selflessness, aggregates, elements, venues, and Establishment of Recollection (Satipatthaana), we can know for sure that this Suttam is engaging in the ultimate way of teaching. And, as the Ultimate way of teaching is indicative of Abhidhamma, we can establish the fact that this Suttam contains a segment or segments of Abhidhamma." Joop: That proves that the difference between 'ultimate' and 'conventional', and that the difference between Sutta Pitaka and Abhidhamma is GRADUAL, not absolute. Of course the monks who composed the Abhidhamma based themselves on the Suttas. But there or two other topics. The topic of when the Abhidhamma was 'composed'. Soteriological seen not really important but even in ultimate language facts had to be facts. I think there is enough evidence that the texts are composed during a period of hundreds of years centuries after te passing away of the Buddha. And that the idea of 'two truths' of Theravada was made in a kind of competition with the idea of 'two truths' of Mahayana (Madhyamaka) You know there are (or were) also Mahayana- texts called Abhidharma. The second topic is 'belief': I do not get a inner feeling of evidence in myself that there are two truths with an absolute difference between them: all realities are in fact an illusion. And I do not need this belief. Then we come to the soteriological point of 'skillful means' (upaya in sankrit, as I explained to Tep this week): for some persons the Abhidhamma works best, for other the Suttas. Some need the concentration combined with 'formal' meditation and some mindfulness in daily life works better. Metta (and a good time in France) Joop 58812 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 4:23am Subject: Off the air egberdina Hi all, I'll be off the air for a few days, there is a graduation happening with all sorts of family obligations. (Vick is still fine :-)) -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58813 From: "Phil" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 5:14am Subject: Re: Audio dana philofillet Hi Sarah and Jon > We've now uploaded our latest edited discussions with A.Sujin and friends > from our last Inida trip here: I feel like when I was 12 and a new Elton John album came out. Is that lobha, or what? Thanks for all your hard work making these talks available. Phil p.s Please start working on the Bangkok Feb 2006 talks. My lust to listen can't be satisfied so easily.... :) 58814 From: "indriyabala" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 5:15am Subject: Re:siila and satipa.t.thaana. indriyabala Hi, Fabrizio - It is a good thing to communicate for better understanding. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" > > The most difficult point that I've seen is your tactic of avoiding > > direct answer to a straightforward question, or skillful invention of > > a "new" concept that is confusing. Such "tactic" is effective only in > > a warfare, but it certainly leads to confusion and lost of attention > > in me. > > What the writer is a master in, by not stating which question he wants > to be answered... > Question: Did you mean to say "she" intead of "he" ? As for the "he", if you are confused by his way of communicating then please elaborate. I am sure "he" will be happy to be more clear next time. Kind regards, Tep ====== 58815 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 3, 2006 5:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Very Brief Report on My Weekend Meditation "Retreat" sarahprocter... Hi Howard, (Steve & all), --- upasaka@... wrote: > 3) Bhante said several things that I found of interest. <...> > The > other matter of interest pertains to the paths and fruits. He does NOT > consider > path consciousness to be immediately followed by fruition consciousness, > and > what he points to as evidence is the talk of "the 8 persons" in several > suttas, > and very specifically to the Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta of the Majhima > Nikaya > which talks about making offerings to the 8 persons. (It is kind of > difficult, was > his point, to make an offering to a person of a type who will be such a > person for only a millionth of a second - for example, a person who has > achieved > stream entry path but not yet stream entry fruit!) .... S: These suttas are not easy to understand and we discussed this same one and other similar ones in some detail a while back with Michael B and others. He may have also spent time with Ven Gunaratana (or that may have been someone else). I can't quickly find some of the detailed posts I have in mind, but here's one from Michael in support of this point, quoting the same sutta (after quoting other texts which clearly indicate the phala cittas immediately succeed the magga citta) and Jon's reply. Please see if it makes sense to you: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/29443 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/29805 Jon wrote: "I don't think the sutta reference is to the phala citta. I agree it is easy to assume so, given the mention of 'fruition', but the commentary to the sutta seems to indicate otherwise -- see footnote 1298 to para 6 of the sutta (in which the order of the various persons is reversed to that in para 5 quoted in your post) which indicates that the results of the giving to the various classes of person is in *ascending order of magnitude*. Thus the 'one practicing for the realization of stream entry fruition' must refer to a person who has not yet attained sotapattimagga citta." Metta, Sarah p.s I'll requote the relevant part of the sutta for people to understand the context of Jon's comments. There were several other detailed similar passages we looked at too. I vaguely recall Steve being involved in the discussions. Was that right Steve? Are you there?? >The relevant portion > of the > sutta is the following: > _________________________ > > 379. [Ananda, there are offerings made to fourteen kinds of individual > beings. What are the fourteen? ... (Offerings to buddhas & > paccekabuddhas) > An offering made to an arahat disciple of the Tathagata is the third > kind of > offering made to an individual. An offering made to one who is > practising to > attain Arahatta Fruition (i.e. one who has attained Arahatta Magga) is > the > fourth kind of offering made to an individual. An offering made to one > who is an > Anagami is the fifth kind of offering made to an individual. An offering > made > to one who is practising to attain Anagami Fruition (i.e. one who has > attained > Anagam Magga) is the sixth kind of offering made to an individual. An > offering > made to one who is a Sakadagami is the seventh kind of offering made to > an > individual. offering made to one who is practising to attain Sakadagami > Fruition > (i.e. one who has attained Sakadagami Magga) is the eighth kind of > offering > made to an individual. An offering made to one who is a Sotapanna is the > ninth > kind of offering made to an individual. An offering made to one who is > practising to attain Sotapatti Fruition (i.e. one who has attained > Sotapatti Magga) > is the tenth kind of offering made to an individual. > __________________________ 58816 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 5:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] a "happy" proposition ken_aitch Hi Dan, -------------- D: > Nowhere else was the nature of conditionality so fully understood or explained. But partially understood elsewhere? Certainly. I don't see how that statement is such a problem. --------------- I hope I am not arguing just for the sake of arguing, but that statement does seem to be a problem. As I was saying before, the views of other thinkers can seem to occupy a middle ground between eternity belief and annihilation belief, but, in the final analysis they fall into one or the other. Isn't that what is constantly happening here at DSG? We are all Buddhists - we all reject the two extremes - and yet we are forever disagreeing and saying, "That is not the Middle Way!" If our understanding is not the understanding of Middle Way, and yet it is our view of ultimate reality, then it has to be wrong view, doesn't it? I couldn't call it partial right view - I don't think there can be partial right view, (or, as you suggested, "partially understood conditionality"). Speaking of disagreements, I saw you (on another thread) dragging out the old favourite: "How is study different from formal meditation?" Shame on you Dan, I thought you were toeing the party line these days!" :-) The present moment is all there is - the all. When we don't understand that, we tend to study or meditate with the idea of creating something other than the all. Even so, it is perfectly possible to study Dhamma for reasons other than wanting to create something other than the all. However, I couldn't say the same for formal practice. Ken H 58817 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 3, 2006 5:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Audio dana sarahprocter... Hi Phil, (Dan & Howard in passing), thx for your encouragement as usual. Are you able to listen to any of it from the web? If so, pls share any parts you like or are curious about. If not, a cd will eventually reach you. I like it when you pick out bits of discussion for your posts (even if they're the silly comments we've made and would rather forget, which you have a knack of picking out!!). --- Phil wrote: > > Hi Sarah and Jon > > > We've now uploaded our latest edited discussions with A.Sujin and > friends > > from our last Inida trip here: > > > I feel like when I was 12 and a new Elton John album came out. Is > that lobha, or what? .... S: :-) Sounds like me with my new surf-board - now that's something for Howard and Dan to consider....(surfing for the 50s and 60s, I meant, but also listening to the discussions. Dan, look forward to any feedback or challenging comments too). .... > Thanks for all your hard work making these talks available. > > Phil > > p.s Please start working on the Bangkok Feb 2006 talks. My lust to > listen can't be satisfied so easily.... :) .... S: We are, we are....those and the pre-India ones and a few other sets.... It's a pleasure (and a lot of hard work as you say!!). Metta, Sarah ======== 58818 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 3, 2006 5:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) jonoabb Hi Phil (and Nina) Butting in if I may ... Phil wrote: > Hi Nina >... > > > Ph: Right. From what I understand, satipatthana, when it arises, >arises in a very natural way. Usually when there is seeing, or hearing, >thinking follows immediately. But there can be a moment of satipatthana >instead, which falls away immediately. Nothing spectactular or >dramatic, nothing to be pursued by cittas rooted in lobha. But still >very important, conditioning more moments of satipatthana. > > I find this question of the 'naturalness' of awareness a fascinating one (and I brought it up in India also). Not easy to understand/accept, but when you think about it awareness is no different in that respect to any other form of kusala. It arises other than at a time of our choosing. And gradually we come to see that the 'willed' kusala is not the real thing at all, but an imitation based on our own (blemished) conception of the particular kind of kusala. This is in a sense the opposite of what we probably hold to as an inherent view, namely, that 'real' kusala needs all our (conventional) effort to be developed, so the idea of it occurring naturally probably does not appeal at first. But there is kusala that arises naturally in our daily life now (if there wasn't we wouldn't be here having this discussion), and it is at such moments that the characteristic of kusala can be known better, and the kusala quality itself developed. Jon PS How's your preparation of the 'burning' sutta from SN coming on? Looking forward very much to your notes and Nina's translation from the commentary. 58819 From: "indriyabala" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 5:49am Subject: [dsg] Re:siila and satipa.t.thaana. indriyabala Hi Nina, If I wait to write to you after your vacation is over, then I might forget. And who know what may happen between now and then? >Nina: > wait, wait. Just one remark. I am never thinking of any tactics, or trying to cleverly avoid points, honestly. I am just thinking out loud and trying to consider for myself, and also to formulate it, which is also good for myself. Tep: I believe you, Nina. Yours is just a different writing/communication style that I am still learning to get used to ! ........... >N: > When I say satipa.t.thaana, I mean the development of understanding >of what appears now, and this includes sati and paññaa. > That is the way I always understood it. > They are not the same but go together in satipa.t.thaana. Tep: Because every person has his/her unique way to interpret the Dhamma and different styles to express the understanding, therefore it is imperative that we strictly follow the definitions and terms that are consistent with the Buddha's original words. Otherwise, it would be too difficult to communicate. I appreciate the clarification you have made. Have a great vacation ! Yours truly, Tep ===== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > > Hi Tep, (snipped) > It is your decision if you would rather not continue to discuss. I go away on Friday as you know. Let us see how it goes after my vacation. No problem > (mai pen rai!). > Nina. > op 02-05-2006 18:16 schreef indriyabala op indriyabala@...: > > (snipped) 58820 From: "Phil" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 6:08am Subject: Re: Audio dana philofillet Hi Sarah > thx for your encouragement as usual. Are you able to listen to any of it > from the web? Yes, I'm recording some of them now on to something called "rockon" If so, pls share any parts you like or are curious about. If > not, a cd will eventually reach you. I like it when you pick out bits of > discussion for your posts (even if they're the silly comments we've made > and would rather forget, which you have a knack of picking out!!). That's what I'm here for. Funny, though you know how much I love the talks, conditions have me thoroughly - and I mean thoroughly - absorbed in listening to and "shadowing" (a TESL term you will know) Japanese stories that are good models for my own writing. Listening to the talks is, for the time being, slipping in to the background a bit. And that's great. A confirmation that everything has its season, and we can't control it. (You'll remember when I posted about frustrated about not being able to stop thinking about Dhamma though I wanted to write - now I am obsessed with my stories and studying Japanese.) But I still do listen, of course. Just not as much as before, which is fine. It's also why I am being intellectually lazy at DSG these days, not bothering to look up sutta references properly, avoiding knotty topics, etc. Days of more diligent study will return, or they won't - we shall see. Phil 58821 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 3, 2006 2:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] question from new member upasaka_howard Hi, Cara - In a message dated 5/2/06 10:19:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, caravoce@... writes: > Sorry-My question is- > Is there a name for this prayer? It was translated from the original PALI > language, and then titled "Old Buddhist Prayer" > > Is there a part of the practice that this prayer is specifically in? > > Visuddhimagga perhaps? > > THANKS! > > Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate > cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. > Life's most urgent question is: what are you doing for others? > (Martin Luther King) > ========================= I suppose this is based on the following from the Dhammapada: _______________________ 3-6 'He insulted me, hit me, beat me, robbed me' — for those who brood on this, hostility isn't stilled. 'He insulted me, hit me, beat me, robbed me' — for those who don't brood on this, hostility is stilled. Hostilities aren't stilled through hostility, regardless. Hostilities are stilled through non-hostility: this, an unending truth. Unlike those who don't realize that we're here on the verge of perishing, those who do: their quarrels are stilled. ============================= With metta, Howard P.S. I've also seen 'hostility' rendered by 'anger' and by 'hatred'. /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) 58822 From: "Phil" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 6:27am Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) philofillet Hi Jon > > Ph: Right. From what I understand, satipatthana, when it arises, > >arises in a very natural way. Usually when there is seeing, or hearing, > >thinking follows immediately. But there can be a moment of satipatthana > >instead, which falls away immediately. Nothing spectactular or > >dramatic, nothing to be pursued by cittas rooted in lobha. But still > >very important, conditioning more moments of satipatthana. Ph: You'll recognize that I am parroting that "usually when there is seeing, or hearing, thinking follows immediately" from the excellent talk you had in 2001 in India, when you asked about some Thai term that sounds like "Ben Pookity satipatthan." I think it's good that these lines sink in - someday perhaps they will contribute to conditioning real understanding. > Jon: I find this question of the 'naturalness' of awareness a fascinating one > (and I brought it up in India also). Not easy to understand/accept, but > when you think about it awareness is no different in that respect to any > other form of kusala. It arises other than at a time of our choosing. > And gradually we come to see that the 'willed' kusala is not the real > thing at all, but an imitation based on our own (blemished) conception > of the particular kind of kusala. Yes, the Ven. Dhammadharo is very good on this sort of thing. This is an excerpt from "Be Here Now." Q: So, it is not proper to direct awareness? Bhikkhu: Absolutely not. When we begin to develop awareness we have so much accumulated wrong understanding that we cannot help trying to direct the show. But we have to begin to understand that the directing is not awareness. If there is any awareness it is not self that is aware and it cannot be directed. It arises, wherever it arises, by conditions at that moment. Not because somebody wanted to have awareness at that point, or ?gtook?h his awareness and put it there. Awareness arises because of conditions and then it falls away immediately. Prior to the moment of its arising there is not any awareness one can put somewhere. And now we still have an idea in our minds of ?gmy awareness?h but it is gone. We can't help being full of the idea of self. But the more we understand, the more we will see that really awareness too is anatta. Not just the colour, the seeing, the sound and the hearing, but also awareness is anatta. (from "Be Here Now.") > This is in a sense the opposite of what we probably hold to as an > inherent view, namely, that 'real' kusala needs all our (conventional) > effort to be developed, so the idea of it occurring naturally probably > does not appeal at first. Ph: People here often refer to it as a crap shoot or lottery or something that makes it sound passive and hopeless. It is not. But there is kusala that arises naturally in > our daily life now (if there wasn't we wouldn't be here having this > discussion), and it is at such moments that the characteristic of kusala > can be known better, and the kusala quality itself developed. Ph: Well said. > > PS How's your preparation of the 'burning' sutta from SN coming on? > Looking forward very much to your notes and Nina's translation from the > commentary. Ph: Oops! Well, I will wait until Nina is back from her trip to France and then perhaps (if I remember) ask her for some help with the commentary to a couple of my favourite SN 35 suttas. As I mentionned just now in a post to Sarah, I have become a bit lazy about studying Dhamma, as other things are taking control of my attention. Posting a lot these days, but that's because I'm on a one- week holiday and have a bit of spare time. Phil 58823 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 3, 2006 6:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:siila and satipa.t.thaana. nilovg Hi Tep, I am glad you wrote, and thanks for the good wishes. Perhaps unconsciously, I write in the Thai style, always going back to basics before answering a question. James understood this so well. He listened to a Thai bhikkhu who did the same. Nina. op 03-05-2006 14:49 schreef indriyabala op indriyabala@...: > Tep: I believe you, Nina. Yours is just a different > writing/communication style that I am still learning to get used to ! > ........... 58824 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 3, 2006 6:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ŒCetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) nilovg Hi Jon and Phil, the Co. does not go into the sutta itself, but gives a beautiful long story about a former Buddha Phussa who saw the dew on the grass that reminded him of impermanence. Nina. op 03-05-2006 14:47 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jonabbott@...: > PS How's your preparation of the 'burning' sutta from SN coming on? > Looking forward very much to your notes and Nina's translation from the > commentary. 58825 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 3, 2006 6:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:siila and satipa.t.thaana. jonoabb Hi Tep (and Nina) I recognise in your comments to Nina certain things that you also said in your last post to me (not answering the question, etc.). I appreciate that you are genuinely frustrated about this. Could it be however that you are not really listening to the answer? ;-)) nina van gorkom wrote: >Hi Tep, >wait, wait. Just one remark. I am never thinking of any tactics, or trying >to cleverly avoid points, honestly. I am just thinking out loud and trying >to consider for myself, and also to formulate it, which is also good for >myself. > > I think what Nina is saying here is the saem as I said to you in a recent post of mine, that we are just exchanging views in an attempt to get to understand the teachings better, and that we find the process useful for ourselves. Of course, opinions are bound to vary, and there will be misunderstandings of the other's views. But that will forever be the case! Uniformity of views is just not an achievable goal when discussing the teachings. >When I say satipa.t.thaana, I mean the development of understanding of what >appears now, and this includes sati and paññaa. That is the way I always >understood it. They are not the same but go together in satipa.t.thaana. >It is your decision if you would rather not continue to discuss. I go away >on Friday as you know. Let us see how it goes after my vacation. No problem >(mai pen rai!). > > Nina, looking forward to a report of your discussions with Lodewijk (and the vacation) after your return. Jon >>Tep: I don't understand your answer. I have no idea why satipatthana >>is paññaa that accompanies siila. The right mindfulness is the same as >>satipatthana, according to the Buddha in the Satipatthana Sutta. The >>right mindfulness is one of the five faculties(indriya) and the >>faculty of discernment (paññaa) is another one of the indriya. They >>are not the same ! >> >>The most difficult point that I've seen is your tactic of avoiding >>direct answer to a straightforward question, or skillful invention of >>a "new" concept that is confusing. Such "tactic" is effective only in >>a warfare, but it certainly leads to confusion and lost of attention >>in me. >> >> 58826 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 3, 2006 2:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Very Brief Report on My Weekend Meditation "Retreat" upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 5/3/06 8:26:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > Hi Howard, (Steve &all), > > --- upasaka@... wrote: > > 3) Bhante said several things that I found of interest. > <...> > >The > >other matter of interest pertains to the paths and fruits. He does NOT > >consider > >path consciousness to be immediately followed by fruition consciousness, > >and > >what he points to as evidence is the talk of "the 8 persons" in several > >suttas, > >and very specifically to the Dakkhinavibhanga Sutta of the Majhima > >Nikaya > >which talks about making offerings to the 8 persons. (It is kind of > >difficult, was > >his point, to make an offering to a person of a type who will be such a > >person for only a millionth of a second - for example, a person who has > >achieved > >stream entry path but not yet stream entry fruit!) > .... > S: These suttas are not easy to understand and we discussed this same one > and other similar ones in some detail a while back with Michael B and > others. He may have also spent time with Ven Gunaratana (or that may have > been someone else). > > I can't quickly find some of the detailed posts I have in mind, but here's > one from Michael in support of this point, quoting the same sutta (after > quoting other texts which clearly indicate the phala cittas immediately > succeed the magga citta) and Jon's reply. Please see if it makes sense to > you: > =========================== I don't wish to argue this point, Sarah. My impression is that of contortions being made to support a pet perspective. Sorry. :-) 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) 58827 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 3, 2006 6:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ŒCetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) sarahprocter... Dear Nina, Phil & Jon, On the Burning Sutta and background to it, also see posts under 'Fire, Burning....' in U.P. Phil, I think you might find the background detail/quotes Chris and I give in this one interesting as an example: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/30850 I'll also look f/w to any others in SN 35 you and Nina pick out on her return. Enjoy the rest of Golden Week! Nina, I'm sure you'll have your notepad ready at the dining table....I'm not sure we heard about the last ones did we? Metta, Sarah --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Hi Jon and Phil, > the Co. does not go into the sutta itself, but gives a beautiful long > story > about a former Buddha Phussa who saw the dew on the grass that reminded > him > of impermanence. 58828 From: "indriyabala" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 7:45am Subject: [dsg] Re:siila and satipa.t.thaana. indriyabala Hi Jon (Nina, Sarah, James) - It is good, according to my purpose, that we are having more discussion on this communication effectiveness. >Jon: > I recognise in your comments to Nina certain things that you also said in your last post to me (not answering the question, etc.). I > appreciate that you are genuinely frustrated about this. Could it be however that you are not really listening to the answer? ;-)) Tep: I believe you understand that complaining and "genuinely (expressing) frustration" are different. [:>) It could be that I did not really listen long enough to the (many indirect and unintentionally side-stepping) answers. BTW Is one week long enough? Sincerely, Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Tep (and Nina) > (snipped) > > nina van gorkom wrote: > > >Hi Tep, > >wait, wait. Just one remark. I am never thinking of any tactics, or trying > >to cleverly avoid points, honestly. I am just thinking out loud and trying > >to consider for myself, and also to formulate it, which is also good for > >myself. > > > > > > I think what Nina is saying here is the saem as I said to you in a > recent post of mine, that we are just exchanging views in an attempt to > get to understand the teachings better, and that we find the process > useful for ourselves. > > Of course, opinions are bound to vary, and there will be > misunderstandings of the other's views. But that will forever be the case! Uniformity of views is just not an achievable goal when > discussing the teachings. > (snipped) 58829 From: "ericlonline" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 7:53am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some Brief Remarks on Standing Meditation ... Hugo Who? ericlonline Hi Howard and Tep - > > > > Is (the big 'E') Eric's other name "Hugo" ? Or was it a typo? > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Tep > > > ======================== > My apologies, Eric! > No need to apologize Howard. I have been called worse. :-) & metta E 58830 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 8:03am Subject: Re:siila and satipa.t.thaana. fbartolom Hi Indry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > Question: Did you mean to say "she" intead of "he" ? As for the "he", > if you are confused by his way of communicating then please elaborate. Not at all: I was meaning you. 58831 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 3, 2006 8:14am Subject: Visuddhimagga, Ch XVII, 76 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga 76. **************** Intro: In this section there is a further explanation of proximity-condition and contiguity-condition which applies also in the case of Cessation, the temporary suspension of citta, cetasikas and mind-produced ruupa, reached after the fourth stage of aruupa-jhaana, the "Sphere of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception. There is no interval of another citta arising in between the jhaanacitta of the fourth stage and the phala-citta of the non-returner or of the arahat arising after Cessation, but there is Œno proximity of time¹, that is, there is a time interval in between. Some teachers say that there is therefore no contiguity condition which they believe depends on proximity of time. This opinion is refuted. --------------- Text Vis.: Now they say in this context that 'the ability of states to produce [their fruit] is not diminished, but the influence of meditative development prevents states from arising in proximity'. But that only establishes that there is no proximity of time; and we also say the same, namely, that there is no proximity of time there owing to the influence of development. But since there is no proximity of time, the state of contiguity condition is therefore impossible [according to them] since their belief is that the contiguity condition depends on proximity of time (cf. MA.ii,363). Instead of adopting any such misinterpretation, the difference should be treated as residing in the letter only, not in the meaning. How? There is no interval (antara) between them, thus they are proximate (anantara); they are quite without interval because [even the distinction of] co-presence is lacking, thus they are contiguous (samantara).14 ------------------- Note 14 taken from the Tiika: 'The state of 'proximity condition' is the ability to cause arising proximately (without interval) because there is no interval between the cessation of the preceding and the arising of the subsequent. ----- N: The last citta before the state of cessation is the jhaanacitta of the fourth stage of aruupa-jhaana, the "Sphere of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception². After this citta has fallen away there is a temporary suspension of cittas during the state of cessation, and after that the first citta that arises is the phalacitta of the non-returner or of the arahat. This citta succeeds the jhaanacitta of the fourth stage of aruupa-jhaana, and thus, there is no interval, no other citta arising between these two types of citta. --------- Text of Tiika (note 14): The state of 'contiguity condition' is the ability to cause arising by being quite proximate (without interval) through approaching, as it were, identity with itself owing to absence of any distinction that "This is below, above, or around that", which is because of lack of any such co-presence as in the case of the [components of the] material groups, and because of lack of any co-positionality of the condition and the conditionally arisen. ------- N: Ruupas arise and fall away in groups with space in between these groups. These groups are present next to each other. Therefore one can say: "This is below, above, or around that". This is not so in the case of cittas. With regard to proximity-condition and contiguity- condition, this pertains to each preceding citta that, after it has fallen away conditions the arising of the succeeding citta. Since only one citta arises at a time, there is no co-positionality of the conditioning dhamma and the conditioned dhamma. ------ Text of Tiika (note 14): And [in general], because of the uninterestedness of [all] states (dhamma), when a given [state] has ceased, or is present, in a given mode, and [other] states (dhamma) come to be possessed of that particular mode, it is that [state's] mode that must be regarded as what is called "ability to cause arising" ' (Pm. 586). ------ N: Dhammas are uninterested, avyaapaara. Vyaapara is occupation, business. Dhammas just arise because of conditions and they do so according to a fixed order. The Tiika compares the state of cessation of perception with a tree that has been given a piercing so that it does not bloom. After the piercing is taken away it is capable of blooming. Evenso, because of the force of bhaavanaa, there is no origination of citta, but after emerging from this state there is the capability of the arising again of a next citta. The Tiika repeats that there is no proximity of time, and it explains that the state of cessation does not last longer than seven days (for beings in a sensuous plane). Someone may attain the fifth jhaana in the sensuous plane and die, and is then reborn in the non-percipient plane where there is only ruupa, not naama. After his lifespan is over in that plane, there is rebirth in the sensuous plane. The dying-consciousness which arose before in the sensuous plane conditions the rebirth-consciousness arising later on in the sensuous plane (see also U Narada, Guide to Conditional Relations, p. 21). The Tiika refers to this when it explains that a former dying-consciousness conditions the arising of a later rebirth-consciousness. It does so without the intervention of any other citta. In such cases cittas succeed one another, just as in the case of javanacittas or bhavangacittas arising and falling away without interval, as the Tiika explains. The Tiika refers to the Pa.t.thaana text: ¹past dhamma is related to present dhamma by proximity-condition.' The Tiika refers to the Pa.t.thaana text which classifies as sevenfold the ways the conditioning dhammas are related to the conditioned dhammas by way of proximity-condition and contiguity-condition. For example, kusala dhamma succeeds kusala dhamma or indeterminate (avyaakata) dhamma. The vo.t.thapanacitta or the mind-door adverting-citta that precedes the kusala javanacittas is ahetuka kiriyacitta, thus, indeterminate dhamma. Each kusala javanacitta, except the last one, is succeeded by kusala citta. The same is true for akusala javanacitta. As we see, akusala dhamma does not succeed kusala dhamma, nor the opposite occurs. ***** Nina. 58832 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 8:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] The two truths - post of Suan. buddhatrue Hi Joop (and Nina), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > Thanks for your reaction. > > A problem is that you quote Buddhaghosa as a proof of another view; > to me he is not an authority, living 1000 years after the passing > away of the Buddha. > I have never heard of the "Anangana Suttavannanaa", who has written > it? You make some very good points; and thank you for the passage from Stephen Batchelor- it does encourage deeper thought. However, what you need to realize is that you are addressing people of a dualistic nature in thinking. We can't help it!! Ignorance is inborn in us and makes us think in this way and see the world in this way. In our heart of hearts, in a tiny small section put way back in the back, we know that Stephen Batchelor is speaking the truth- but what good is that?? Your post brings to mind the 10 ox-herding pictures which are famous in Zen. They describe, in detail, the spiritual path for those mired in ignorance. And, at one point, one will see the world in a sense of duality- one will see two truths. However, later in the progression of insight, these two truths turn into one truth. Yes, I also agree with your evaluation of Buddhaghosa- he was clueless. Expounding half-baked ideas as the Buddha's teaching is not cool. But we can just drop that. Metta, James 58833 From: "Dan D." Date: Wed May 3, 2006 8:20am Subject: Re: Audio dana onco111 Thanks for uploading these files, Sarah. Last night I dreamed about you discretely pulling out a tape recorder in a Dhamma discussion in a cafe with me, Jon, Lisa, Robert, and three total strangers who knew not a wit about Dhamma. I'm looking forward to hearing what we all had to say. When I look back on it, I don't think I said a word during the whole discussion, and I don't remember a single thing anyone else said. I'm looking forward to listening to the tapes. Maybe they'll jar my memory... Metta, Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Friends, > > We've now uploaded our latest edited discussions with A.Sujin and friends > from our last Inida trip here: > http://www.dhammastudygroup.org/ > > We're delighted to make it available to everyone. We intended to load it > at the weekend as a kind of 'birthday dana', but as usual, there were a > few glitches. > > Please scroll down to the following: > >India, October 2005< > > The latest version of I-tunes includes 'quick-time' which allows you to > start listening to talks without having to download the file first (it's > called 'streaming', I believe). > > We'd be glad if as many people here as possible would listen to some if > not all of the talks and raise any points inc. disagreements for further > discussion. > > For a really good track, good quality, on concepts and realities, please > start with this one: > 'Nalanda: 01, 02.' > and also 'Savatthi: 01, 02.' > > Tep, the track I mentioned where I raise the Kundaliya Sutta in some > detail (and also Patisambhidamagga points we discussed) is: > 'Srinagar, day 2, afternoon: 01, 02.' (I believe!) > > Howard and Chris, a very nice discussion between Chris and A.Sujin with > lots more on the 'hopelessness and helplessness' theme: > 'Lucknow (airport): 01.' > Also 'Delhi (hotel): 01, 02.' > > Nina, you'll especially enjoy the Srinagar tracks, like this one between > Jon and K.Sujin. She was sick and lying down by the heater on the boat and > just started talking. > 'Srinagar, day 3: 01, 02.' > > Phil, you'll appreciate it all. The Bodh Gaya set starts with your > questions, but they're also raised in Srinagar (on kamma). This is also > the set I mentioned to you recently. > Bodh Gaya (hotel): 01, > Srinagar, day 2, morning: 01, 02, 03, 04. > > James, Nina raises many of your points. I think mostly in Benares, but I > don't remember exactly now. > Benares: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05. > > Azita, Ken H, Connie, Sukin, Betty and others - all!! Azita and Sukin, > many thanks for your many good questions on several of the tracks. Azita - > Savatthi and Delhi hotel and Srinagar day 3. Betty - Srinagar day2 > morning.... > > There is also a set of 'pre-India' discussions. But these need more work > on as we had a lot of recording problems and had to use another one which > isn't so clear. > > We know many people without broadband may not even be able to use the > 'quick-time' for listening. We will make cd's in due course, but expect > the usual delays. > > Metta, > > Sarah (& Jon) > > Audio tracks: > Bangkok airport, Gaya airport (India): 01. > Rajgir (lunch stop): 01. > Nalanda: 01, 02. > Bodh Gaya (hotel): 01, 02, 03, 04. > Bodh Gaya (on departure): 01. > Benares: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05. > Sarnath: 01, 02. > Kushinara: 01, 02. > Savatthi: 01, 02. > Lucknow (airport): 01. > Kuru (nr Delhi): 01. > Delhi (hotel): 01, 02. > Delhi (airport): 01. > Srinagar, day 2, morning: 01, 02, 03, 04. > Srinagar, day 2, afternoon: 01, 02. > Srinagar, day 3: 01, 02. > Srinagar, day 4: 01. > 58834 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 8:33am Subject: [dsg] Re: Audio dana buddhatrue Hi Sarah (Phil and All), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Phil, (Dan & Howard in passing), > > thx for your encouragement as usual. Are you able to listen to any of it > from the web? If so, pls share any parts you like or are curious about. If > not, a cd will eventually reach you. I want to thank you because a CD did eventually reach me here in Egypt. However, I haven't yet been able to retrieve it. I have gotten different notes from the customs agents here in Egypt but I am trying to get them translated in order to know where I need to go. Things are not easy here, but I am motivated to get the CD. Stay tuned for when I get it and then have some feedback! ("Oh God" you say. ;-)) Metta, James 58835 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 8:45am Subject: [dsg] Re:siila and satipa.t.thaana. buddhatrue Hi Tep and Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > > > Hi Nina, > > If I wait to write to you after your vacation is over, then I might > forget. And who know what may happen between now and then? > > >Nina: > > wait, wait. Just one remark. I am never thinking of any tactics, or > trying to cleverly avoid points, honestly. I am just thinking out loud > and trying to consider for myself, and also to formulate it, which is > also good for myself. > > Tep: I believe you, Nina. Yours is just a different > writing/communication style that I am still learning to get used to ! This is a very important distinction to be made! We each try to communicate in different ways. Sometimes we talk just to others; sometimes we talk just to ourselves; sometimes we try to talk to others and ourselves (usually unsuccessfully ;-). This conversation has taught me something about Nina which I know I need to remember. I have to admit I am usually too judgemental because I see things too much from my perspective. I have written some unfavorable/unflattering things about Nina and now I feel very sorry about that. I didn't try to communicate, like Tep has done in this post, and I just assumed different things. That has been very wrong of me and I am sorry. I will try to do better. Metta, James 58836 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 9:23am Subject: [dsg] Re:siila and satipa.t.thaana. buddhatrue Hi Nina (and Tep), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > > Hi Tep, > I am glad you wrote, and thanks for the good wishes. > Perhaps unconsciously, I write in the Thai style, always going back to > basics before answering a question. James understood this so well. He > listened to a Thai bhikkhu who did the same. > Nina. Thanks for mentioning me in your post. Yeah, my meditation teacher Ajahn Somporn would talk and talk so much after a simple question that I wasn't sure if I should scream for mercy or kill myself!! ;-)) (just kidding). However, I got used to it and didn't react too strongly. After all, I had spent some time with him so I respected his teaching and his personality. However, I do have to admit that I haven't been so patient with you, Nina. I have been extremely judgemental and over-reactive to your posts at times. To me, they seem to meander all over the place and not directly answer the questions asked. But now I know that this is my mistake in perception. You answer questions in a way which you think is most helpful, not in the way which the questioner wants or expects. So, it may seem that you are all over the map sometimes but in reality you are trying to help the questioner in the best way you believe possible. That is admirable and no reason for upset or consternation. Again, I am so sorry for my posts which expressed reactions otherwise. You just keep doing the thing you do!! It is up to us to see the magic in what you do. Metta, James 58837 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 9:33am Subject: [dsg] Re:siila and satipa.t.thaana. buddhatrue Hi Tep (and whoever involved in this thread ;-), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > > > Hi Jon (Nina, Sarah, James) - > > It is good, according to my purpose, that we are having more > discussion on this communication effectiveness. > > >Jon: > > I recognise in your comments to Nina certain things that you also > said in your last post to me (not answering the question, etc.). I > > appreciate that you are genuinely frustrated about this. Could it > be however that you are not really listening to the answer? ;-)) > > Tep: I believe you understand that complaining and "genuinely > (expressing) frustration" are different. [:>) It could be that I did > not really listen long enough to the (many indirect and > unintentionally side-stepping) answers. BTW Is one week long enough? James: No, I do not believe that one week is enough to understand the various modes of communication going on in this group. It will take much longer than that. The key is to be patient...and to not sacrifice your original vision. Keep on keeping on!! > > > Sincerely, > > > Tep Metta, James 58838 From: "indriyabala" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 10:16am Subject: [dsg] Re:siila and satipa.t.thaana. indriyabala Hi, James (Jon, Nina) - It is fruitful to discuss the Dhamma along with ethics and effectiveness of the communication like you have done. Thank you for the two posts you've written today on that purpose. > James: No, I do not believe that one week is enough to understand > the various modes of communication going on in this group. It will > take much longer than that. The key is to be patient...and to not > sacrifice your original vision. Keep on keeping on!! > But if the communication could be made more effective, then we should be able to avoid the unnecessary asking, "What do you mean by that?". Yes. Being more patient is, of course, very important. Thanks. Sincerely, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Tep (and whoever involved in this thread ;-), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Jon (Nina, Sarah, James) - > > > > It is good, according to my purpose, that we are having more > > discussion on this communication effectiveness. > > > > >Jon: > > > I recognise in your comments to Nina certain things that you also > > said in your last post to me (not answering the question, etc.). > I > > > appreciate that you are genuinely frustrated about this. Could > it > > be however that you are not really listening to the answer? ;-)) > > > > Tep: I believe you understand that complaining and "genuinely > > (expressing) frustration" are different. [:>) It could be that I > did > > not really listen long enough to the (many indirect and > > unintentionally side-stepping) answers. BTW Is one week long > enough? > (snipped) > > > > 58839 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 3, 2006 11:15am Subject: metta 9 nilovg Dear friends, This is taken from Kh. Sujin's book on Metta. ***** Nina. 58840 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 3, 2006 11:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] The two truths - post of Suan. nilovg Dear Joop, op 03-05-2006 10:38 schreef Joop op jwromeijn@...: > > A problem is that you quote Buddhaghosa as a proof of another view; > to me he is not an authority, living 1000 years after the passing > away of the Buddha. -------- N: He used the old commentaries which are lost now. I find, when reading him we can see that he is firmly rooted in the old tradition. To me that is the best proof. -------- J: I have never heard of the "Anangana Suttavannanaa", who has written > it? -------- N: Middle ~Length Sayings, I, no. 5, Discourse on no Blemishes. Vannanaa: this is the Co. to this sutta. > J: You, or Suan, say: "Thus, whenever we find in a Suttam the teachings > of impermanence, misery, selflessness, aggregates, elements, venues, > and Establishment of Recollection (Satipatthaana), we can know for > sure that this Suttam is engaging in the ultimate way of teaching. > And, as the Ultimate way of teaching is indicative of Abhidhamma, we > can establish the fact that this Suttam contains a segment or > segments of Abhidhamma." > Joop: That proves that the difference between 'ultimate' > and 'conventional', and that the difference between Sutta Pitaka and > Abhidhamma is GRADUAL, not absolute. > Of course the monks who composed the Abhidhamma based themselves on > the Suttas. ------- N: The difference between 'ultimate' and 'conventional' can become clearer when we understand that seeing is seeing for everybody, for any nationality. You can call it differently, zien, voir, sehen, but its characteristic is still experiencing colour through eyesense. So it is with hardness. You may think of hardness of a table or a tree, but hardness is still hard. Table and tree are conventional. ------- J: But there or two other topics. > The topic of when the Abhidhamma was 'composed'. ------- N: Sarah made many studies of this, see Abhidhamma in Useful Posts. -------- > J: The second topic is 'belief': I do not get a inner feeling of > evidence in myself that there are two truths with an absolute > difference between them: all realities are in fact an illusion. ------- N: Then there would not be the eightfold Path, no realization of the three characteristics. There can be an inner feeling of evidence, see my examples above. By considering, and especially by awareness and understanding of this moment of seeing, or hearing. ---- J: Metta (and a good time in France) N: Thanks for your good wishes, Nina. 58841 From: "ericlonline" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 11:21am Subject: Re: First Noble Truth ericlonline Hey Daniel, I am going to parse down your post a bit. > happiness and all suffering are conditioned > feel happy\sad because have\not have. > feelings depend partly upon habits, partly on external conditions > Since it does not seem that there is a way to hold something forever, or make a certain external condition stay forever, it seems that lasting hapiness is not possible. I removed the superfluous pronouns. Does this take the sting out of your understanding at all? Why do you predicate lasting happiness on external conditions? > For me, this is rather sad to reflect on it. Sad, pessimistic. I wonder if I misinterpret something, or I am missing something. No, you are awakening to the 1st Noble Truth. But you are not looking at it head on, you are deflecting away into pessimism. >But, I have read in different places that the understanding of the > first noble truth itself (even without the understanding of the third one ) > should bring some quality of lightness to one's life. Is I do not remember from > where exactly (I have not read Suttas at all), but from books by practitioners I > get the impression that understanding the first noble truth should bring less > clinging, less heavyness with regards' to one's own life. Is it incorrect, or > am I missing something? If you still have not let the 1st Truth soak in, then you will react away from it with pessimissm or optimism. If you really see it, then there is a reflex action like that of letting go of a hot coal. You will naturally cling less. So, maybe more investigation of the 1st Truth is in order or an investigation into the cause (2nd Truth) is due. PEACE E 58842 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed May 3, 2006 11:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:siila and satipa.t.thaana. nilovg Hi James, You are really very kind. Thanks for your posts and encouraging words. What I am glad about is that we come to understand each other better. Nina. op 03-05-2006 18:23 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@...: . You just keep doing the thing you do!! It is up > to us to see the magic in what you do. 58843 From: "Cara Tasher" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 7:44am Subject: RE: [dsg] question from new member caravoce7 Hi Howard and Sarah, Thank you for writing. This Vieille priere bouddhique was set to music by a French composer named Lili Boulanger, published in 1917, likely in a strong reaction toward WWI. She was founded the Comité Franco-Americain which provided morale for musician friends who were mobilized throughout Europe (obviously without volunteering to fight)... What's funny too is my best friend's name is "Meta," very similar to Metta, nao e? My interest in Buddhism: Many years ago, I attended a retreat with Thich Nhat Hanh which inspired me to practice breathing meditation regularly with my choral groups and in choral festivals in the US and western europe. I am currently finishing my doctorate at CCM, and was recently hired for a position in Florida. Ah...I believe I see the confusion of Howard. I apologize for not re-pasting the lines in the last email...The quote at the bottom of my email is not the prayer to which I refer. The prayer is (in my translation of the French) Ancient Buddhist Prayer Let all things that breathe, > without enemies, without obstacles, > transcending sadness and achieving happiness be able to move freely > along the path that is destined for them. > > Let all creatures and everywhere, all spirits and all living things, > without enemies, without obstacles, transcending sadness and achieving > happiness be able to move freely along the path that is destined for > them. > > Let all women, Let all men, Aryans and non-Aryans, All gods and all > humans, and those who have fallen. > without enemies, without obstacles, > transcending sadness and achieving happiness be able to move freely > along the path that is destined for them. > > In the East and the West, in the North and the South, that all beings > that exist. > Without enemies, without obstacles, > transcending sadness and achieve happiness be able to move freely > along the path that is destined for them. Ah. Sarah's response of the following I think seems very close: S: My best guess is that this is someone's free translation/interpretation of a couple of the stanzas of the Metta Discourse, Khuddakapatha (Minor Readings), IX. This is the translation of the lines I have in mind, translated by Nanamoli in the above text: "Joyful and safe Let every creature's heart rejoice Whatever breathing beings there are, No matter whether frail or firm, With none excepted, long or big Or middle-sized or short or small Or thick, or those seen or unseen, Or whether dwelling far or near, That are or that yet seek to be, Let every creature's heart rejoice. Let none another one undo Or slight him at all anywhere; Let them not wish each other ill With provocation or resistive thought." Hi, Cara - In a message dated 5/2/06 10:19:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, caravoce@... writes: > Sorry-My question is- > Is there a name for this prayer? It was translated from the original PALI > language, and then titled "Old Buddhist Prayer" > > Is there a part of the practice that this prayer is specifically in? > > Visuddhimagga perhaps? > > THANKS! > > Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate > cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. > Life's most urgent question is: what are you doing for others? > (Martin Luther King) > ========================= I suppose this is based on the following from the Dhammapada: _______________________ 3-6 'He insulted me, hit me, beat me, robbed me' — for those who brood on this, hostility isn't stilled. 'He insulted me, hit me, beat me, robbed me' — for those who don't brood on this, hostility is stilled. Hostilities aren't stilled through hostility, regardless. Hostilities are stilled through non-hostility: this, an unending truth. Unlike those who don't realize that we're here on the verge of perishing, those who do: their quarrels are stilled. ============================= With metta, Howard P.S. I've also seen 'hostility' rendered by 'anger' and by 'hatred'. <....> 58844 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 3, 2006 10:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: First Noble Truth upasaka_howard Hi, Eric (and Daniel) - In a message dated 5/3/06 2:24:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ericlonline@... writes: > Hey Daniel, > > I am going to parse down your post a bit. > > > >happiness and all suffering are conditioned > > >feel happy\sad because have\not have. > > >feelings depend partly upon habits, partly on external conditions > > >Since it does not seem that there is a way to hold something > forever, or make a certain external condition stay forever, it seems > that lasting hapiness is not possible. > > I removed the superfluous pronouns. > Does this take the sting out of your > understanding at all? Why do you > predicate lasting happiness on external > conditions? > > > > For me, this is rather sad to reflect on it. Sad, pessimistic. I > wonder if I misinterpret something, or I am missing something. > > > No, you are awakening to the 1st Noble Truth. > But you are not looking at it head on, you are > deflecting away into pessimism. > > > >But, I have read in different places that the understanding of the > >first noble truth itself (even without the understanding of the > third one ) > >should bring some quality of lightness to one's life. Is I do not > remember from > >where exactly (I have not read Suttas at all), but from books by > practitioners I > >get the impression that understanding the first noble truth should > bring less > >clinging, less heavyness with regards' to one's own life. Is it > incorrect, or > >am I missing > something? > > If you still have not let the 1st Truth soak in, > then you will react away from it with pessimissm > or optimism. If you really see it, then there is > a reflex action like that of letting go of a hot > coal. You will naturally cling less. So, maybe > more investigation of the 1st Truth is in order or > an investigation into the cause (2nd Truth) is due. > > PEACE > > E > > ========================= Eric, it seems to me that Daniel has a good grasp of the first noble truth and somewhat of the second, but he is missing the significance the third. Daniel sees very well that conditions don't last. He also sees that because they don't last, lasting happiness isn't possible through them. What is being missed, it seems to me is that 1) happiness is achievable without dependence on conditions, 2) the primary cause of dukkha isn't conditions, but the craving for their presence or absence - the clinging to them and depending on them, and 3) It is possible to completely uproot that craving and clinging.The first noble truth, especially when misconceived by taking it in isolation, could breed pessimism, but the four noble truths as a whole should serve as a source of great joy. 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) 58845 From: "seisen_au" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 4:11pm Subject: Re: A Very Brief Report on My Weekend Meditation "Retreat" seisen_au Hi Sarah, John, Howard and All, Yes I can vaguely recall looking into this issue. My understanding is as John pointed out, that in some instances the "'one practicing for the realization of stream entry fruition' must refer to a person who has not yet attained sotapattimagga citta." Steve Ps. Yes I'm here and have been reading and enjoying the posts, but have been a little busy to participate. Also looking forward to another Dhamma discussion gathering at Cooran this weekend. > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s I'll requote the relevant part of the sutta for people to understand > the context of Jon's comments. There were several other detailed similar > passages we looked at too. I vaguely recall Steve being involved in the > discussions. Was that right Steve? Are you there?? 58846 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed May 3, 2006 4:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Do mind objects have an intrinsic nature? lbidd2 Hi Nina and Fabrizio, Thanks for the clarification. I thought the 'tad' of 'tadaaramma.na' referred to the javana citta and that was what was 'registered'. But, as you say, 'tadaaramma.na' refers to the object (aaramma.na) of the citta process and that is what is 'registered'. Or perhaps the whole process is registered, each consciousness building on the previous one. Does it make sense that tadaaramma.na simply ignores adverting, investigation, determining and javana? What do you think? Is tadaaramma.na responsible for accumulation (aayuuhana), or is that one of the functions of javana? Larry 58847 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 6:17pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana buddhatrue Hi Sarah, Thanks for getting back to me. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi James (and Scott), > > Thanks for adding some good questions and comments: > > --- buddhatrue wrote: > > > Sa: There can be subtle kinds of noticing with an idea of self - > > still > > > trying to catch dhammas which have fallen away already. When there > > is > > > awareness of a reality, there's no trying or noticing involved. It > > arises > > > naturally like seeing or hearing or liking arise. > > > > James: Are you saying that if such awarenesss arises "naturally" > > there is no idea of self involved? It was my understanding that the > > subtle kind of idea of self you are describing is only eliminated at > > arahanthood. In other words, isn't self going to be present > > regardless of if awareness is planned or spontaneous? > .... > Sar: Good and important questions. While it's true that the wrong idea of > self is not eradicated until sotapannahood and subtle clinging with mana > is not eradicated until arahanthood, these kinds of attachment do not > arise whenever there is awareness at any level. > > In other words, when there is any kind of generosity, morality or mental > development (samatha or vipassana), there is still the latent tendency of > attachment, wrong view and conceit. But at these times, they do not > 'arise'. They are dormant. Could you please explain what you mean by "dormant"? If citas arise and fall away so quickly, exactly where or how could something be "dormant"? Metta, James 58848 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 7:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Labelling" in satipatthaana scottduncan2 Dear Charles, Sorry for the delay, Charles. C: "I remember going through the same stages (i.e., from conscious willful labeling to observing the normal process of labeling). To me, what you are doing is a good practice, but just remember that there are even more stages after this. In my opinion, the goal of the first stage (i.e., conscious willful labeling of what ever comes to mind) is primarily concern with becoming aware of thinking and the present moment -- That endless ever-changing moment." Thank you, that makes sense. "This path leads to, or embraces, the 8-Fold path because it develops concentration leading to wisdom leading to morality (i.e., being basically a good person). When I was on the same road, I uncovered that the practice can help you see (visualize) how the mind works; i.e., there is an object in the mind and/or a chain of events. One is usually triggered by the other, and it is the very process of labeling that is the driver. Understanding this is beginning of wisdom, and to get to this point you must already have a high level of concentration. I learned that labels are also part of the value system we use to justify every thing from "existence" to why "the worm should be allowed to die, since it is a bird that is trying to eat it." Next, you begin to understand "things" and how your mind deals with them. From this, I begin to realize that all are just labels (i.e., no real inherent value, not a real justification for immoral acts). From this space, we can control/dictate the nature of your attachments. This is a practice in itself." These sorts of experiential reports are very helpful. I appreciate the point of view. I'm learning that, in my amateur way, satipatthaana can be a way of extending practise throughout the entire day. This is exciting. Sincerely, Scott. 58849 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 7:23pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana scottduncan2 "Welcome aboard." Dear Herman, Thank you and welcome yourself! H: "I was very interested to read all your comments. I am only a layman as far as Buddhism or psychiatry are concerned, but I see quite a bit of overlap between some Freudian and Buddhist notions. Is that the sort of thing you had in mind by basic psychodynamics?" Please forgive my delay in responding to your kind post. Yes. I was using the term "psychodynamic" to cover the various schools of thought that evolved out of classical "Freudian" psychoanalytic theory over the past 100 years or so. I find that the psychology as outlined in the Abhidhamma, and remarkably elaborated so very long ago, very much foreshadows certain psychoanalytic notions. For example, the rapidity with which dhammas arise and fall away and yet have their effect is mirrored in the notion of unconscious process. The fact that a complex set of conditions, in place without conscious control and yet, again, highly influential on experience and behaviour mirrors the kind of "determinism" implied when one asserts that what we experience is not as much under the sway of our conscious will as we'd like to believe. I must state, unequivocably, that I totally find that Abhidhamma trumps Freud on all counts. But as far as western psychology, the psychoanalytic theoretical cannon is far and away the most overarching and suitable for a psychotherapeutic methodology. Thanks for your kind interest. Sincerely, Scott. 58850 From: connie Date: Wed May 3, 2006 9:13pm Subject: Re:siila and satipa.t.thaana. nichiconn dear tapdancer, now you're talking! The patisambhidas are a great love of nina's (i'm sure). when i get there, i might copy some from the 15th vibhanga to you on (as the book's intro says) "knowledge of the variety of ways in which the spoken word can express its meaning. This is an essential aspect of analysis, for without it it is almost impossible to gain knowledge of the first two divisions of Insight of Consequence and Origin"... or there's always UPs (can you see sarah in a FedEx uniform?) - discernment, discriminations or analytical knowledge, maybe. but (i think) this learning to talk together as dhammafriends is a roundabout way towards deeper understanding. this is moral practice, then, 'half the good life'? maybe one of joop's social dhammas, right reading. The Pitaka Disclosure begins: Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammaasambuddhassa 1. [1] Homage to the Fully Enlightened Ones, who see the ultimate meaning (aim), who have reached perfection in the qualities beginning with virtue. 2. There are two causes, two conditions, for the arising of a hearer's right view: they are another's utterance sequential upon truth, and reasoned attention in oneself (cf. A.i,87). 3. Herein, what is < another's utterance >? It is any teaching, advice, instruction, talk about truth, in conformity with truth, from another. The Truths are four: they are Suffering, Origin, Cessation, and the Path. Any teaching, showing, divulging, analysing, exhibiting, displaying (cf. M.iii,248) these four Truths is called another's utterance in conformity with truth. 4. Herein, what is < reasoned attention in oneself >? What is called reasoned attention in oneself is any reasoned attention given to the True Idea as taught, without adducing any external object; this is called reasoned attention. That mood, when reasoned, is a doorway, a directive, a means (?). Just as a man is capable of arriving at kindling when on dry ground he rubs a dry sapless log with a dry upper fire-stick - [2] Why is that? Because of his arriving at fire with reasoning - so too when he gives attention to this teaching of the undistorted True Idea of Suffering, Origin, Cessation, and Path, this is called reasoned attention, [occurring spontaneously] as the three similies [in the Mahaa-Saccaka Sutta] occurred [to the Bodhisatta] not having been previously heard, previously unheard, [by him]. Now the [first] two [of the three] similies [beginning] "Whoever is not without lust for sensual desires" must be treated as [applying to] unreasoned attention, but in the last it is well stated [for application to reasoned attention]. 5. Herein, another's utterance and reasoned attention in oneself: these are the two conditions. Understanding that arises owing to another's utterance is called understanding consisting in what is heard; understanding that arises owing to reasoned attention in oneself is called understanding consisting in cogitation: these are the two kinds of understanding recognizable. And the two conditions [mentioned] first: these are the "two causes, two conditions, for the arising of a hearer's right view" (#2). 6. Herein, that one who does not cognize the meaning (aim) of another's utterance when taught sequential upon truth will be one who experiences the meaning (aim: see M.i,37,320): no such instance is found. And that one who does not experience the meaning (aim) will give reasoned attention: no such instance is found. But that one who cognizes the meaning of another's utterance when taught sequential upon truth will be one who experiences the meaning: such an instance is found. And that one who experiences the meaning will give reasoned attention: such an instance is found. This is the cause, this is the object, this is the means, for the hearer's outlet, there is no other. 7. [If] this [hearing] is not conjoined with cognizing the Thread's meaning (aim), then by following only the sound of the utterance without cognizing the meaning of another's utterance no one can arrive at any more-than-human idea worthy of a Noble One's knowing and seeing. Therefore meanings must be sought by one desirous of attaining extinction [of lust, hate, and delusion]. >> end quote<< peace, connie 58851 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 3, 2006 11:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga, Ch XVII, 72. Part I, and Tiika. sarahprocter... Dear Nina, Andrew T, Larry & all, I'm just catching up on the Vism thread posts which I'd printed out to read at leisure. I'm finding them very helpful as usual. --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 72. Part I. > Conascent-Predominance-Condition (sahajåtådhipati-paccaya). <....> > Conascent-predominance-condition: > ******************************** > There are four factors which condition other realities they arise > together > with by way of conascent-predominance-condition, and these are: > chanda (desire-to-do) > viriya (energy or effort) > citta > vima.msa (investigation of Dhamma, paññå cetasika) > > It is due to these four factors that great and difficult enterprises can > be > accomplished. Whenever we wish to accomplish a task, one of these four > factors can be the leader, the predominance-condition for the realities > they > arise together with and also for the rúpa which is produced at that > moment > by citta. <...> S: The following part reminded me of questions Andrew raised (I think) on the iddhipaadas: .... > There are different degrees of the predominant factors. When these four > factors have been developed to a high degree, they have become "bases of > success'', iddhipådas, and then they can lead to the acquisition of > supernatural powers (Visuddhimagga,Ch XII,50-53). The rúpas produced by > citta which exercises such powers are also conditioned by way of > predominance-condition. > In the development of vipassanå, right understanding of nåma and rúpa, > one > also needs the "four bases of success'' for the realisation of the > stages of > insight wisdom and for the attainment of enlightenment. They are among > the > thirtyseven factors leading to enlightenment (bodhipakkhiya dhammas). > > For the accomplishment of our task, the development of right > understanding, > the factors which are conascent-predominance-condition are > indispensable. > The study of conascent-predominance-condition can be a reminder that > right > understanding is dependant on different kinds of conditions, that it > does > not depend on a "self''. ..... S: So true! Slowly, slowly it does begin to sink in that everything we read, consider and reflect on can be understood in terms of the 24 conditions. By beginning to appreciate this deeper and deeper, there is less and less idea of any self exerting its will, no matter how highly developed the wisdom or jhana attainments. The same applies to rupas which can only ever be conditioned by cittas (and cetasikas), kamma, temperature or nutrition, no matter how extraordinary the experiences. When they are conditioned (as in this case of iddhipaadas) by the predominant factors, even these very refined cittas and cetasikas are just as much conditioned as any other cittas and cetasikas. Again, such reflection can be a condition to understand that our life and all we hold dear is just made up of transitory dhammas or elements. In appreciation, Nina and Larry, for all your hard work (as usual)! Metta, Sarah ========= 58852 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 3, 2006 11:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 74 and 75 sarahprocter... Dear Nina & all, --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 74 and 75 > ******************************** > Text Vis.74. (5) Proximity condition is the same as 'contiguity > condition'. > The difference here is only in the letter, there is none in the meaning; > just as in the case of the words 'growth' and 'continuity' (Ch. XIV, > 66), etc., and as in the case of the 'terminology dyad', 'language dyad' > (Dhs. 1306), and so on. > --------- > N: Growth and continuity are different terms for ruupa at its arising > moment. Also the terms Œterminology¹, adhivacana, and Œlanguage¹, > nirutti, > are different words but they are the same in meaning. > ****** <...> > The Vis. (75) refutes misunderstandings of some teachers who think that > proximity-condition and continuity-condition are different in meaning. > The > Vis. explains that, although there is the suspension of citta and > cetasikas > during cessation, the first citta arising after this is conditioned by > the > citta preceding the cessation, by way of proximity-condition and > continuity-condition. > --------- .... S: Here is it a typo? Should it read 'contiguity-condition' as usual? .... > Vis. text 75: The opinion of [certain] teachers [13] is that proximity > condition refers to proximity of aim (fruit) and continuity condition > refers > to proximity of time. .... S: Also here? I just checked the text in Vism where 'contiguity condition' is used. Not quite the same meaning, I think. I see 'continuity' was used in the example above with 'growth' to indicate Pali words with the same meaning. .... S: Another helpful set of detailed explanations. To all, while Nina is away for a couple of weeks, I highly recommend going back and reading the installments for ch XVII to date and considering any questions for her return! To repeat again, ch XVII of the Visuddhimagga deals in great detail with Dependent Origination and the 24 conditions. If you have trouble locating the thread or the Vism text, pls ask here anytime and I'm sure Larry and/or Connie will be glad to help you catch up. Metta, Sarah ======= 58853 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 11:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Do mind objects have an intrinsic nature? fbartolom Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi Nina and Fabrizio, > > Thanks for the clarification. I thought the 'tad' of 'tadaaramma.na' > referred to the javana citta and that was what was 'registered'. But, as > you say, 'tadaaramma.na' refers to the object (aaramma.na) of the citta > process and that is what is 'registered'. Happy we suceeded with Nina to convey a meaning. > Or perhaps the whole process is registered, each consciousness building > on the previous one. The simile used is the one of the waves on a lake after someone tosses a stone. So one could think each wave gives rise to the following one, but a wise man could correct him by saying each wave is the separate result of the single tossing of the stone. > Does it make sense that tadaaramma.na simply > ignores adverting, investigation, determining and javana? Each rootless citta, thus the first three in your list and registration itself, just happen automatically as a result of past kamma. The mind may not have any controlo on them. On the contrary the javana process is where free will, as it were, condenses. > What do you > think? Is tadaaramma.na responsible for accumulation (aayuuhana), or is > that one of the functions of javana? The latter. No citta may be both the result and cause of kamma. This view would lead to fatalism. Ciao, Fabrizio 58854 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 3, 2006 11:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 1 knowing vipaka from akusala citta sarahprocter... Hi Phil & all, You wrote a very nice post -- I could just imagine you and the lovely Naomi in your pedal boat on the lake....(a pic for the album next time!!). --- Phil wrote: > There is still enjoyment of > pleasant days - it would be unnatural for that to be resisted - ... S: Very true... .... > but > there is more understanding of the jatis involved, a little bit more. > And there is therefore a bit of a sobering or something. Still > finding delight, but not seeking it as much? .... S: Good reflections. It does help a lot to appreciate (at any level) what vipaka is and how kusala vipaka (good results of kamma) cannot be made to arise. One could sit in the pedal boat and experience akusala vipaka or sit at home by the computer and experience kusala vipaka. We never know what kamma has in store for the next moment of seeing, hearing and so on. I really enjoy following the extracts you select from ADL and your reflections. I'm glad you're going slowly through the book this time, relating it all to your daily life. Hi to Naomi too! Metta, Sarah ======= 58855 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 11:39pm Subject: Bodhisattva Ideal christine_fo... Hello All, I have been reading the Sankhaarupapatti Sutta MN 120 "Reappearance by Aspiration". Verse 2 ~ 'Bhikkhus, I shall teach you reappearance in accordance with one's aspiration. Listen and attend closely to what I shall say... --snip-- Verse 3 ~ 'Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu possesses faith, virtue, learning, generosity, and wisdom. He thinks: 'Oh, that on the dissolution of the body, after death, I might reappear in the company of well-to-do nobles!' He fixes his mind on that, establishes it, develops it. These aspirations and this abiding of his, thus developed and cultivated, lead to his reappearance there. This, bhikkhus is the path, the way that leads to reappearance there.'...{and so on, for a few other places}. Would it be fair to say that this Sutta supports the Bodhisattva ideal of the Mahayana Tradition? metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 58856 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 3, 2006 11:49pm Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 435- mindfulness/sati (q) 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) The other proximate cause of mindfulness is the four applications of mindfulness or satipaììhåna(1). All realities can be object of mindfulness in the development of insight and are thus included in the four applications of mindfulness which are rúpa, feeling, citta and dhamma. For those who have accumulations to develop calm to the degree of jhåna and to develop insight as well, also jhånacitta can be object of mindfulness in vipassanå, in order to see it as non-self. Right understanding of realities is developed through mindfulness of any nåma or rúpa which appears now, be it akusala citta, mahå-kusala citta, jhånacitta or any other reality. One should not try to direct mindfulness to a particular object; there is no self who can have power over any reality or who can direct sati. There is not any reality which is excluded from the four applications of mindfulness. *** 1) Satipaììhåna means mindfulness of vipassanå or the object of mindfulness of vipassanå. ***** (Ch26 - mindfulness/sati to be contd) Metta, Sarah ====== 58857 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 4, 2006 0:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Very Brief Report on My Weekend Meditation "Retreat" sarahprocter... Hi Steve, Howard & all Cooranites, --- seisen_au wrote: > Hi Sarah, John, Howard and All, > > Yes I can vaguely recall looking into this issue. My understanding is > as John pointed out, that in some instances the "'one practicing for > the realization of stream entry fruition' must refer to a person who > has not yet attained sotapattimagga citta." .... Sar: Yes, that's my understanding too. I think we looked at several other suttas and had long discussions, but I wasn't able to find them in a quick search. If you come across or recall other references, I'd be glad if you'd add more. Howard, I know you were just reporting and not wishing to discuss this further. I appreciate why you see it as some kind of contortion, but I think the support for phala cittas immediately following magga cittas is very strong. I think there was reference to it in one of the recent Vism threads, maybe under anantara paccaya...(following in succession). .... St.> Ps. Yes I'm here and have been reading and enjoying the posts, but > have been a little busy to participate. Also looking forward to > another Dhamma discussion gathering at Cooran this weekend. .... Sar: I'm glad to know you're following along!! I hope your studies are going well (and you still have time for some surfing at Surfer's Paradise...:-)). Thanks for telling us about your weekend - Having been, it's easy to imagine you all sitting around discussing dhamma at leisure, eating cakes, listening to birds and pulling out the texts. I hope you all have a good weekend and look forward to hearing about your agreements, disagreements, thorny and not-so-thorny topics. As Jon said to Tep, when it comes to reading the texts, we can't expect to agree all the time:-)). Any special theme this time? Is it an 8-precept weekend this year? Metta, Sarah ====== 58858 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Thu May 4, 2006 0:05am Subject: Re: Bodhisattva Ideal fbartolom Dear Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > > Hello All, > > I have been reading the Sankhaarupapatti Sutta MN 120 "Reappearance > by Aspiration". > > Verse 2 ~ 'Bhikkhus, I shall teach you reappearance in accordance > with one's aspiration. Listen and attend closely to what I shall > say... > --snip-- > Verse 3 ~ 'Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu possesses faith, virtue, > learning, generosity, and wisdom. He thinks: 'Oh, that on the > dissolution of the body, after death, I might reappear in the > company of well-to-do nobles!' He fixes his mind on that, > establishes it, develops it. These aspirations and this abiding of > his, thus developed and cultivated, lead to his reappearance there. > This, bhikkhus is the path, the way that leads to reappearance > there.'...{and so on, for a few other places}. > > Would it be fair to say that this Sutta supports the Bodhisattva > ideal of the Mahayana Tradition? Absolutely not. Of course if somone holds that a thief and a policeman are not the same, even if both have to do with illegality. 58859 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu May 4, 2006 0:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bodhisattva Ideal sarahprocter... Hi Chris, A good question as usual:) --- Christine Forsyth wrote: > Would it be fair to say that this Sutta supports the Bodhisattva > ideal of the Mahayana Tradition? ... S: The conditions for becoming a bodhisatta are set out in detail in various texts. See more under 'Bodhisatta' in 'U.P.' Here's an extract from K.Sujin's 'Perfections', translated and posted by Nina: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/22341 >The third qualification is the cause (hetu), and this means that in the life when he aspires to be the Sammasambuddha, he must be endowed with the necessary supporting conditions. As to the fourth qualification, the sight of the master, he must be in the presence of a Sammasambuddha. His aspiration will only succeed when it is made in the presence of a living Buddha, not after the Exalted One has finally passed away. His aspiration will not succeed when it is made at the foot of the Bodhi-tree, before a shrine, in front of an image, in the presence of Paccekabuddhas (silent Buddhas) or the Buddha¹s disciples. The aspiration only succeeds when made in the presence of a Buddha. When he has not met a Buddha in person, the power that is necessary to confirm his dedication is lacking. The third qualification is the cause (hetu), and this means that in the life when he aspires to be the Sammasambuddha, he must be endowed with the necessary supporting conditions. As to the fourth qualification, the sight of the master, he must be in the presence of a Sammasambuddha. His aspiration will only succeed when it is made in the presence of a living Buddha, not after the Exalted One has finally passed away. His aspiration will not succeed when it is made at the foot of the Bodhi-tree, before a shrine, in front of an image, in the presence of Paccekabuddhas (silent Buddhas) or the Buddha¹s disciples. The aspiration only succeeds when made in the presence of a Buddha. When he has not met a Buddha in person, the power that is necessary to confirm his dedication is lacking.< ..... S: Elsewhere we can also read about the aspirations previously made by the great disciples under previous Buddhas. Again, very special conditions are in place. Perhaps others will add their own reflections on the sutta you quoted from. Have a good weekend and please give us a report! Metta, Sarah ======= 58860 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed May 3, 2006 10:13pm Subject: Rare Emergence ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: When is the Way to the Deathless element Opened? The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus and friends, these 8 things, purified, cleansed, immaculate, free from distortion, elegant and sophisticated, if not arisen do not arise at all apart from the appearance of a Tathagata, an Arahat, a Perfectly Enlightened One, apart from a Fortunate One’s Discipline! What eight? Right View (samma-ditthi) Right Motivation (samma-sankappa) Right Speech (samma-vaca) Right Action (samma-kammanta) Right Livelihood (samma-ajiva) Right Effort (samma-vayama) Right Awareness (samma-sati) Right Concentration (samma-samadhi) These 8 things, purified, cleared, faultless, unaltered and not decayed, advanced and refined, if not emerged do not appear except for when a Thus-Come-Thus-Gone One, a Worthy One, a Perfectly Self-Awakened One arise, except for when the Method of Training of a Well-Gone One is well established…These Eight Things… Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:14-5] section 45:14-7 Purified Emergence ... 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 !!! <...> 58861 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Thu May 4, 2006 1:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bodhisattva Ideal christine_fo... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" wrote: > > Absolutely not. Of course if somone holds that a thief and a policeman > are not the same, even if both have to do with illegality. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > --- Christine Forsyth wrote: > > Would it be fair to say that this Sutta supports the Bodhisattva > > ideal of the Mahayana Tradition? > ... > S: The conditions for becoming a bodhisatta are set out in detail > in various texts. See more under 'Bodhisatta' in 'U.P.' > Here's an extract from K.Sujin's 'Perfections', translated and > posted by Nina: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/22341 > > ..... > S: Elsewhere we can also read about the aspirations previously > made by the great disciples under previous Buddhas. Again, very > special conditions are in place. > Perhaps others will add their own reflections on the sutta you quoted from. > Have a good weekend and please give us a report! > Metta, > Sarah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hello Fabrizio, Sarah, all, Fabrizio, I understand that you are not referring to the standard of Sila or the Practice of our Mahayana friends, which, over the last year I have come to admire. But I wonder if you, or anyone else, would say a little more ~ with Sutta references for support either way? Sarah, :-) Thought I'd come out of lurking ~ can't let the Buddhist Blokes up at Cooran be lulled into the false belief that I won't be on my mettle this weekend.:-) I think there may be a problem with the definition of the term Bodhisatta/Bodhisattva and how it is viewed by both traditions. (Both esteem the Suttanta and view it with respect). This academic article may be helpful: The Bodhisattva Ideal In Theravada Buddhist Theory And Practice: A Re-evaluation Of The Bodhisattva-`Sraavaka Opposition By Jeffrey Samuels; Philosophy East and West, Volume 47, Number 3, July 1997, P.399-415 It's conclusion: "... while the bodhisattva-yaana and the goal of buddhahood continues to be accepted as one of three possible goals by followers of Theravaada Buddhism, this same goal becomes viewed as the only acceptable goal by followers of Mahaayaana Buddhism. Hence, it should be stressed that the change introduced by the Mahaayaana traditions is not so much an invention of a new type of saint or a new ideology, but rather a taking of an exceptional ideal and bringing it into prominence." http://www.buddhistinformation.com/bodhisa...n_theravada.htm metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- 58862 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu May 4, 2006 1:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ŒCetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) nilovg Dear Sarah, Han and friends, op 03-05-2006 15:47 schreef sarah abbott op sarahprocterabbott@...: > Nina, I'm sure you'll have your notepad ready at the dining table....I'm > not sure we heard about the last ones did we? --------- N: yes, as usual. I had Han's good points again with me to discuss also with Lodewijk: Quote: < Moreover, I am not used to some of your teachings such > as: > (1) to see realities as conditioned elements. > (2) the relevance to the reality now. > (3) we never know how citta will react to an > impingement by an object on one of the six doors. > (4) the citta shifts all the time to different objects > and this is not our own choice. > (5) that sati and paññaa are anattaa. > (6) sometimes citta is accompanied by sati and paññaa, > mostly not. > (7) if we try to concentrate on naama and ruupa, that > seems more the method of samatha. > (8) inappropriate choice of words of: noting, > concentrating on. > We agreed that this is for a whole life time and longer. No Han, I am not used either to the fact that that sati and paññaa are anattaa, to see realities as conditioned elements. It may take me more than a lifetime. Lodewijk said that these questions are very much to the point. I hope you can give me more feedback before I leave tomorrow. Whatever you write is very much appreciated by all of us here. Sarah, we talked about sincerity which is a favorite topic of Lodewijk. It strikes him how often kusala is interspersed with other motives, finding oneself good, making a good impression on others. He said that there are so many cittas and we are far removed from knowing the truth. When he used to help my late father he thought of himself as the perfect son in law. One moment he is sincere, and the next moment insincere. He said that there are many aspects to each of the perfections and they can be developed only together with satipa.t.thaana. He said that he would like to emphasize the humane aspect, the sorrow and troubles in daily life and that these are dealt with in the suttas. When we hear about ultimate realities it makes a harsh impression. It sounds so harsh: there are only nama and rupa. I said, that when there is understanding there is also calm. Lodewijk said that this link is not clear for everyone. He said that it is understandable that people have a need to be calm, like Vince and his wife who are spending each year some time in a Burmese temple. He thinks that we should have more understanding of people's different needs and not say immediately that this is wrong practice, or that here the idea of self appears. I agree, because we can consider our own cittas: so often we cling to self. Nina. 58863 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu May 4, 2006 1:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 74 and 75 nilovg Hi Sarah and Connie, this is a typo and should be contiguity-condition. There is no continuity-condiiton at all. Can it be amended for the archives? Nina. op 04-05-2006 08:24 schreef sarah abbott op sarahprocterabbott@...: > S: Here is it a typo? Should it read 'contiguity-condition' as usual? 58864 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu May 4, 2006 2:08am Subject: Srinagar, houseboat. nilovg Hi Phil and friends, I just listened to the first part of the talks on the houseboat in Kashmir. Kh. Sujin was sick and her voice was weak. But when she talked on Dhamma it was amazing to hear that kusala citta conditioned the ruupa speech intimation. As we know, ruupa is originated by kamma, citta, temperature or nutrition. Speech intimation is originated by citta. The topic was how attachment, lobha, hinders the development of right understanding. It covers up realities all the time. There must be the understanding of lobha coming in, otherwise we give lobha a chance. Then there will be condiitons for lobha again, again, again. The arising of sati should be very natural, even now it has to be as simple as that. Patience, khanti, is the greatest ascetism, it is against the current. There should not be over exertion nor idleness, in the development of satipa.t.thaana. This may solve people's questions whether one should do anything or not. Kh. Sujin said that even a few moments of sati is better than trying to have it. Leave it to perform its own function, it is not my function. Then one can see how it is conditioned. N: Is it not so that generally one always wants more? That does not help. Kh Sujin: It is of no use to think of progress. We do not know long we will live, we should develop understanding and this is the opposite of attachment. Phil, when i listen I take a note book with me. Otherwise I forget what I heard. Nina. 58865 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu May 4, 2006 2:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cooranites weekend and fruition. nilovg Hi Sarah and Cooranites, Perhaps Sarah or Ken H could save a report for me? I can never catch up after two weeks with all the posts. Now I can just add a text on fruition, but if people have doubts about this subject it may not solve the question. It tells us more on the subject of fruition. Someone who has reached fruition of the sotaapanna, for example, has to continue developing understanding so as to reach higher stages. He has to become steadied (thiti) in his fruition. Pi.taka Disclosure (from which Connie likes to quote), 544. This is about someone who has developed samatha and vipassanaa (coupled together, yuganaddha): 'Being steadied (thiti) in the fruit of Strean-Entry, when he further keeps quiet and insight in being, and when they occur coupled together, then with the abandoning of the greater part of lust for sensual desires and of ill will, the noble hearer (cf. pug. 16). This is the plane of attenuation, and it is the fruit of Once-Return. ' N:It seems to me that the text speaks here about the person who has had fruition, but it does not separate magga-citta and phalacitta. No need to separate them, since phalacittas are akalika, without delay. ***** Nina. op 04-05-2006 09:00 schreef sarah abbott op sarahprocterabbott@...: > Any special theme this time? Is it an 8-precept weekend this year? 58866 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu May 4, 2006 2:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:siila and satipa.t.thaana. nilovg Dear Connie, I like your style, and you are a master in wordplay, and inventing new words. Right, for a dhamma talk it takes the speaker and the hearer, and wise attention is important. When I listen to tapes, sometimes I am more open to what I hear, and there can be wise attention, but some times I am more distracted, I think of other things and do not take in so much. As to the spoken word can express its meaning. This is an essential aspect of > analysis, for without it it is almost impossible to gain knowledge of the > first two divisions of Insight of Consequence and Origin>, consequence: attha, which can also be meaning, or result. Origin: dhamma or cause. The first two of the Analytical knowlledges. (See nyanatiloka, Patisambhidaa). op 04-05-2006 06:13 schreef connie op connieparker@...: > dear tapdancer, > > now you're talking! The patisambhidas are a great love of nina's (i'm > sure). when i get there, i might copy some from the 15th vibhanga to you > on 58867 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu May 4, 2006 3:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do mind objects have an intrinsic nature? nilovg Hi Larry, Fabrizio answered very well. tadaaramma.na citta is an additional vipaakacitta, experiencing the sense object that was already experienced by the previous cittas. It only occurs in the sensuous planes and with kaamaavacara cittas, cittas of the sense-sphere. It does not accumulate, because it is vipaaka. It is not kusala citta or akusala citta. Nina. op 04-05-2006 01:40 schreef LBIDD@... op LBIDD@...: > > Or perhaps the whole process is registered, each consciousness building > on the previous one. Does it make sense that tadaaramma.na simply > ignores adverting, investigation, determining and javana? What do you > think? Is tadaaramma.na responsible for accumulation (aayuuhana), or is > that one of the functions of javana? > 58868 From: "matheesha" Date: Thu May 4, 2006 4:56am Subject: Re: A Very Brief Report on My Weekend Meditation "Retreat" matheesha333 Hi Howard, H: 2) I learned that I am well suited to standing meditation. It seems to > have several advantages for me. M: Could you explain a bit more? > H: 3) Bhante said several things that I found of interest.... M: About the whole magga citta phala citta controversy- yugandda says - samatha and vipassana is developed - then the path is born. I believe this is a special state where one is inevitably lead to phala but not immediately. Another sutta (vaguely from my readings, which i havent yet seen on the internet) says after seeing the knowledge of arising and passing away, nibbida/revulsion is born. After this the path is born (then vimukti/release). Then the sutta you quoted also suggests that the path and fruit dont happen at the same time. I think that the framework elements of panna (tilakkana,DO, 4NTs) are understood to varying degrees, and further practice is to develop these to greater and greater degrees. metta Matheesha 58869 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 4, 2006 2:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Very Brief Report on My Weekend Meditation "Retreat" upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 5/4/06 3:01:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > Howard, I know you were just reporting and not wishing to discuss this > further. I appreciate why you see it as some kind of contortion, but I > think the support for phala cittas immediately following magga cittas is > very strong. I think there was reference to it in one of the recent Vism > threads, maybe under anantara paccaya...(following in succession). > ==================== I see the matter quite oppositely, based on sutta and (what I consider) "sensibleness" ;-), but I am content to simply differ in our opinion on this. :-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 58870 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu May 4, 2006 6:33am Subject: Reminder: salutations, trimming etc dsgmods Hi All, Just a couple of reminders. Salutations & sign-offs Please make it clear whom your post is addressed to (even if it's 'All'), and sign off at the end of every post (whether short or long) with your name. Trimming When replying to another member’s post, please remember to delete any part of the other post that is not necessary for your reply. Please also review the rest of the guidelines from time to time. They can be found here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/ Thanks for your co-operation. Jon and Sarah PS As usual, any comments on this - off-list only. Thanks. 58871 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 4, 2006 2:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Very Brief Report on My Weekend Meditation "Retreat" upasaka_howard Hi, Matheesha - In a message dated 5/4/06 7:56:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dhammachat@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > H: 2) I learned that I am well suited to standing meditation. > It seems to > >have several advantages for me. > > M: Could you explain a bit more? > ===================== I really don't have too much to add. I tend towards getting sleepy during meditation, a form of sloth & torpor and my chief hindrance. In standing meditation, there is, for me, induced the same calm/peace as in sitting meditation but greater clarity, greater ease in observing changes and sensations in the body, and, most of all, far less sloth & torpor. 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) 58872 From: "ericlonline" Date: Thu May 4, 2006 7:54am Subject: [dsg] Re: First Noble Truth ericlonline Hi Howard, Howard> Eric, it seems to me that Daniel has a good grasp of the first noble truth and somewhat of the second, but he is missing the significance the third. Daniel sees very well that conditions don't last. He also sees that because they don't last, lasting happiness isn't possible through them. What is being missed, it seems to me is that 1) happiness is achievable without dependence on conditions, 2) the primary cause of dukkha isn't conditions, but the craving for their presence or absence - the clinging to them and depending on them, and 3) It is possible to completely uproot that craving and clinging.The first noble truth, especially when misconceived by taking it in isolation, could breed pessimism, but the four noble truths as a whole should serve as a source of great joy. I really dont know if Daniel does or does not. But I know that pessimism is a reaction to dukkha. If we can remain at the first Truth, the rest can take care of themselves. The Buddha did not say there is dukkha then pessimism. Just the fact of dukkha. If that unmitigated fact can be seen without deflecting away, then much grasping can be taken care of right there on the spot. The mind cannot take that fact in. This is one of the reasons to develope concentration. The mind must be able to hold steady in the face of dukkha vedana. peace e 58873 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu May 4, 2006 11:46am Subject: metta 10 nilovg Dear friends, This is taken from Kh. Sujin's book on Metta. ***** Nina. 58873 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu May 4, 2006 11:46am Subject: metta 10 nilovg Dear friends, This is taken from Kh. Sujin's book on Metta. ***** Nina. 58874 From: "indriyabala" Date: Thu May 4, 2006 2:23pm Subject: Re: Bodhisattva Ideal indriyabala Hi Chris - Thank you for the sutta quote and the thought-provoking question. >MN 120: > Verse 3 ~ 'Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu possesses faith, virtue, > learning, generosity, and wisdom. He thinks: 'Oh, that on the > dissolution of the body, after death, I might reappear in the > company of well-to-do nobles!' He fixes his mind on that, > establishes it, develops it. These aspirations and this abiding of > his, thus developed and cultivated, lead to his reappearance there. > This, bhikkhus is the path, the way that leads to reappearance > there.'...{and so on, for a few other places}. > >Chris: > Would it be fair to say that this Sutta supports the Bodhisattva > ideal of the Mahayana Tradition? Tep: I don't know about the Mahayana's Bodhisatta ideal. But I think this sutta doesn't support the view that mind (cittas) cannot be established, cultivated or developed. Warm regards, Tep ======== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > > Hello All, > > I have been reading the Sankhaarupapatti Sutta MN 120 "Reappearance > by Aspiration". > > Verse 2 ~ 'Bhikkhus, I shall teach you reappearance in accordance > with one's aspiration. Listen and attend closely to what I shall > say... > --snip-- (snipped) > > metta > Chris > ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > 58875 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 4, 2006 3:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ‘Cetasikas' study corner 435- mindfulness/sati (q) egberdina Hi All, One quick post while I'm waiting for my turn in the shower. From Nina's book One should not try to direct mindfulness to a particular object; > From Nina as well. "Phil, when i listen I take a note book with me. Otherwise I forget what I heard" -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58876 From: "indriyabala" Date: Thu May 4, 2006 3:36pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... What lies dormant? indriyabala Hi James (and Sarah, Nina) -- I am enthusiastically encouraged by your seemingly-naive, but smart-and- very-difficult-to-answer question. > > Sarah: > > In other words, when there is any kind of generosity, morality or > mental development (samatha or vipassana), there is still the latent >tendency of attachment, wrong view and conceit. But at these times, > >they do not 'arise'. They are dormant. >James: > Could you please explain what you mean by "dormant"? If citas arise > and fall away so quickly, exactly where or how could something > be "dormant"? I think her answer might be something like this : " it is not that there is a container somewhere to accumulate the cittas and cetasikas that already fell away. :-)) The word dormant means the attachment, wrong views, and conceit are always there because they have not yet been eradicated yet." But that answer is still unacceptable. A better answer, in my opinion, is : the three defilements (attachment, wrong views and conceit) always arise with the citta of a worldling; the word "dormant" is a misnomer. The Accesstoinsight's Glossary says : "Obsesssion; underlying tendency. (The etymology of this term means "lying down with"; in actual usage, the related verb (anuseti) means to be obsessed.) There are seven major obsessions to which the mind returns over and over again: obsession with sensual passion (kama-raganusaya), with resistance (patighanusaya), with views (ditthanusaya), with uncertainty (vicikicchanusaya), with conceit (manusaya), with passion for becoming (bhava-raganusaya), and with ignorance (avijjanusaya). Compare samyojana." However, by saying that the "mind returns over and over again" to these seven obsessions, it still is not satisfactory. Why? Because it implies existence of a "container" or a "place" for keeping these defilements. What do you think? Maybe the idea of the container is not bad ? Sincerely, Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > Thanks for getting back to me. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott > wrote: > > > > Hi James (and Scott), > > > > Thanks for adding some good questions and comments: > > > > --- buddhatrue wrote: > > > > Sa: There can be subtle kinds of noticing with an idea of > self - still trying to catch dhammas which have fallen away already. When there is awareness of a reality, there's no trying or noticing > involved. It arises naturally like seeing or hearing or liking arise. > > > > > > James: Are you saying that if such awarenesss arises "naturally" > > > there is no idea of self involved? It was my understanding that > the subtle kind of idea of self you are describing is only > eliminated at arahanthood. In other words, isn't self going to be present regardless of if awareness is planned or spontaneous? > > .... > > Sar: Good and important questions. While it's true that the wrong > idea of self is not eradicated until sotapannahood and subtle clinging with mana is not eradicated until arahanthood, these kinds of attachment do not arise whenever there is awareness at any level. > > (snipped) > 58877 From: "Phil" Date: Thu May 4, 2006 3:44pm Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 435- mindfulness/sati (q) philofillet Hi Herman, NIna and all I carry a pcoket notebook with me at all times - quite natural, I've done so for about 20 years to jot down things, if things demand being jotted down. It happens due to conditions. I jot down maybe 4 or 5 things we week that I hear Acharn Sujin (or other people) say. So I let 400 or 500 things slide by. Why the 4 or 5 things? Who knows. Sometimes I stop in the middle of a crowded train station and do it, or on a dark residential street around midnight in a way that makes me look very suspicious. So be it. But there is no expectation when jotting things down that they will condition understanding here and now. And I don't try to do it - it just happens now and then. So there is nothing contradictory in the below, if that is your point, Herman. No trying. The nothing just happens due to conditions. Phil > From Nina's book > > One should not try to direct mindfulness to a particular object; > > > > > From Nina as well. > > "Phil, when i listen I take a note book with me. Otherwise I forget what I > heard" > > > -- > Kind Regards > > > Herman > > > There is ego, but not a self who has it. > (Hofman H. 2005) > 58878 From: "Phil" Date: Thu May 4, 2006 3:47pm Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 435- mindfulness/sati (q) philofillet Hi again typo correction > The nothing just happens due to conditions. The *noting* just happens. But maybe the above is true too! The no-thing of panna working its way! oooh, deep.... :) Phil 58879 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu May 4, 2006 4:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Do mind objects have an intrinsic nature? lbidd2 Hi Fabrizio and Nina, Thanks for your replies. What does registration citta do? I thought it was a kind of taking note and was therefore involved in memory. Are there two different and possibly contradictory memories of the object in a process (vitthi), the accumulation of javana and the "taking note" of registration? Regarding the simile of the succeeding waves that follow upon the dropping of a stone in a lake being like the succeeding consciousnesses in citta process, it is indeed difficult to see how each consciousness does not inform the next. If it did, each preceding consciousness would have to be the object of the succeeding consciousness. I must admit, this latter does make sense to me. I notice in "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" that Ledi Sayadaw says it takes 7 mind-door processes following a 5-door process just to recognize the object. If that is so it would seem that the 5-door javanas are insignificant; evaluation and reaction to an object would have to come in subsequent mind-door processes. Do you agree? Larry 58880 From: "indriyabala" Date: Thu May 4, 2006 4:20pm Subject: Re:siila and satipa.t.thaana. .. to be directly known .. indriyabala Dear Cunning Connie - I like the new invention by the Word Master. The name 'tep' has been manipulated before in various ways by playful friends(e.g. tip, top, pet , tepid, and tepster), but 'tapdancer' is a true original. The Patisambhidamagga is always one of my favorites (even though it is the toughest to chew). Here is a favorite passage from Treatise I. On Knowledge : 201. a-d. The meaning of penetration as the full understanding of ageing-and-death is to be directly known. The meaning of penetration as the abandoning of the origin of ageing-and-death is to be directly known. The meaning of penetration as the realizing of the cessation of ageing-and-death is to be directly known. The meaning of penetration as the developing of way leading to the cessation of ageing-and-death is to be directly known. .......................... >Connie: ... or there's always UPs (can you see sarah in a FedEx uniform?) - discernment, discriminations or analytical knowledge, maybe. but (i think) this learning to talk together as dhammafriends is a roundabout way towards deeper understanding. this is moral practice, then, 'half the good life'? Tep: She might even own UPS shares. Certainly, Dhamma discussion has great benefits. Practicing according to the Noble Eightfold Path has even much greater benefits than discussions(as mountains to rocks). ........................... >Connie: >Any teaching, showing, divulging, analysing, exhibiting, displaying (cf. M.iii,248) these four Truths is called another's utterance in conformity with truth. Tep: We have not talked about the Four Noble Truths around here as often as we should have. ........................ >Connie (quoting the Psm): > Therefore meanings must be sought by one desirous of attaining >extinction [of lust, hate, and delusion]. Tep (quoting Psm I, 34): Suffering as a meaning to be directly known. ... Origin as a meaning to be directly known. ... Cessation as a meaning to be directly known. ... Path as a meaning to be directly known. ... Thank you, Connie. Yours truly, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connie wrote: > > dear tapdancer, > > now you're talking! The patisambhidas are a great love of nina's (i'm > sure). when i get there, i might copy some from the 15th vibhanga to you > on (as the book's intro says) "knowledge of the variety of ways in which > the spoken word can express its meaning. This is an essential aspect of > analysis, for without it it is almost impossible to gain knowledge of the > first two divisions of Insight of Consequence and Origin"... or there's > always UPs (can you see sarah in a FedEx uniform?) - discernment, > discriminations or analytical knowledge, maybe. but (i think) this > learning to talk together as dhammafriends is a roundabout way towards > deeper understanding. this is moral practice, then, 'half the good > life'? maybe one of joop's social dhammas, right reading. > > The Pitaka Disclosure begins: > Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammaasambuddhassa > 1. [1] Homage to the Fully Enlightened Ones, who see the ultimate meaning > (aim), who have reached perfection in the qualities beginning with virtue. > 2. There are two causes, two conditions, for the arising of a hearer's > right view: they are another's utterance sequential upon truth, and > reasoned attention in oneself (cf. A.i,87). > 3. Herein, what is < another's utterance >? It is any teaching, advice, > instruction, talk about truth, in conformity with truth, from another. The > Truths are four: they are Suffering, Origin, Cessation, and the Path. Any > teaching, showing, divulging, analysing, exhibiting, displaying (cf. > M.iii,248) these four Truths is called another's utterance in conformity > with truth. > 4. Herein, what is < reasoned attention in oneself >? What is called > reasoned attention in oneself is any reasoned attention given to the True > Idea as taught, without adducing any external object; this is called > reasoned attention. That mood, when reasoned, is a doorway, a directive, a > means (?). > Just as a man is capable of arriving at kindling when on dry ground he > rubs a dry sapless log with a dry upper fire-stick - [2] Why is that? > Because of his arriving at fire with reasoning - so too when he gives > attention to this teaching of the undistorted True Idea of Suffering, > Origin, Cessation, and Path, this is called reasoned attention, [occurring > spontaneously] as the three similies [in the Mahaa-Saccaka Sutta] occurred > [to the Bodhisatta] not having been previously heard, previously unheard, > [by him]. Now the [first] two [of the three] similies [beginning] "Whoever > is not without lust for sensual desires" must be treated as [applying to] > unreasoned attention, but in the last it is well stated [for application > to reasoned attention]. > 5. Herein, another's utterance and reasoned attention in oneself: these > are the two conditions. Understanding that arises owing to another's > utterance is called understanding consisting in what is heard; > understanding that arises owing to reasoned attention in oneself is called > understanding consisting in cogitation: these are the two kinds of > understanding recognizable. And the two conditions [mentioned] first: > these are the "two causes, two conditions, for the arising of a hearer's > right view" (#2). > 6. Herein, that one who does not cognize the meaning (aim) of another's > utterance when taught sequential upon truth will be one who experiences > the meaning (aim: see M.i,37,320): no such instance is found. And that one > who does not experience the meaning (aim) will give reasoned attention: no > such instance is found. But that one who cognizes the meaning of another's > utterance when taught sequential upon truth will be one who experiences > the meaning: such an instance is found. And that one who experiences the > meaning will give reasoned attention: such an instance is found. This is > the cause, this is the object, this is the means, for the hearer's outlet, > there is no other. > 7. [If] this [hearing] is not conjoined with cognizing the Thread's > meaning (aim), then by following only the sound of the utterance without > cognizing the meaning of another's utterance no one can arrive at any > more-than-human idea worthy of a Noble One's knowing and seeing. > Therefore meanings must be sought by one desirous of attaining extinction > [of lust, hate, and delusion]. > >> end quote<< > > peace, > connie > 58881 From: "Phil" Date: Thu May 4, 2006 4:26pm Subject: ADL ch.1 difficulty of understanding visible object philofillet Hi all I find again and again how little understanding there is of visible object. I read in ADL that visible object (or sound, or smell etc) is never separate from the 4 great rupas, as well as 3 other rupas. That is quite unfathomable to my undeveloped understanding. What I take to be visible object is just a conceptual construct, thinking in a flash about colour. There is no direct understanding of visible object yet. That's ok, can't be had by wanting to have it. Phil 58882 From: "Phil" Date: Thu May 4, 2006 4:31pm Subject: Nothing but nama and rupa - scary? If no, why not? philofillet Hi all Right off the bat in the new series of talks (see Sarah's "Audio Dana" post for link) there is an interesting point. If we understand that there are only conditioned dhammas, only nama and rupa, is it scary? It isn't for me, but why? Two possible explations - a) panna is so developed that it sees that there is ultimately nothing to be scared about, it is a relieving of burdens to be free from clinging to people and things and b) I am just clinging to a shallow appreciation of understanding that there is nama and rupa - there isn't a deep enough understanding yet to find it scary. Obviously in my case it is b) I often suspect that I am clinging for comfort by studying abhihdamma in the same way I used to cling for comfort by thinking about metta. Phil 58883 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu May 4, 2006 7:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.1 difficulty of understanding visible object lbidd2 Hi Phil, If you experienced visible object as 7 rupas it would be a concept, void of own nature (sabhava). That would be excellent! What could be less desirable than an empty concept? Larry ------------------------- Phil: "Hi all I find again and again how little understanding there is of visible object. I read in ADL that visible object (or sound, or smell etc) is never separate from the 4 great rupas, as well as 3 other rupas. That is quite unfathomable to my undeveloped understanding. What I take to be visible object is just a conceptual construct, thinking in a flash about colour. There is no direct understanding of visible object yet. That's ok, can't be had by wanting to have it." 58884 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu May 4, 2006 11:48pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... What lies dormant? buddhatrue Hi Tep (and Sarah), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > > > Hi James (and Sarah, Nina) -- > > I am enthusiastically encouraged by your seemingly-naive, but > smart-and- very-difficult-to-answer question. James: I'm glad that you appreciate the complexity of my seemingly simple question. (Yes, you are definitely the only person I have come across on the Internet who can understand the meaning behind my posts so quickly!) > > > > > Sarah: > > > In other words, when there is any kind of generosity, morality or > > mental development (samatha or vipassana), there is still the latent > >tendency of attachment, wrong view and conceit. But at these times, > > >they do not 'arise'. They are dormant. > > >James: > > Could you please explain what you mean by "dormant"? If citas arise > > and fall away so quickly, exactly where or how could something > > be "dormant"? > > I think her answer might be something like this : " it is not that > there is a container somewhere to accumulate the cittas and cetasikas > that already fell away. :-)) The word dormant means the attachment, > wrong views, and conceit are always there because they have not yet > been eradicated yet." But that answer is still unacceptable. James: I obviously asked this question because I have serious dobts that the defilements become "dormant" at any time. dor·mant adj.Lying asleep or as if asleep; inactive. To say that the defilements become dormant is a rejection of dependent origination for a worldling. > > A better answer, in my opinion, is : the three defilements > (attachment, wrong views and conceit) always arise with the citta of a > worldling; the word "dormant" is a misnomer. James: Yes, exactly. I didn't find that to be the correct word to use. However, Sarah could have used the word "supressed". There are times, especially during jhana, when the defilements are supressed. sup·press v. sup·pressed, sup·press·ing, sup·press·es To curtail or prohibit the activities of. To deliberately exclude (unacceptable desires or thoughts) from the mind. Suppress means that the defilements still arise, but they are not as strong or as active as during regular mind moments. > > The Accesstoinsight's Glossary says : > > "Obsesssion; underlying tendency. (The etymology of this term means > "lying down with"; in actual usage, the related verb (anuseti) means > to be obsessed.) There are seven major obsessions to which the mind > returns over and over again: obsession with sensual passion > (kama-raganusaya), with resistance (patighanusaya), with views > (ditthanusaya), with uncertainty (vicikicchanusaya), with conceit > (manusaya), with passion for becoming (bhava-raganusaya), and with > ignorance (avijjanusaya). Compare samyojana." > > However, by saying that the "mind returns over and over again" to > these seven obsessions, it still is not satisfactory. Why? Because it > implies existence of a "container" or a "place" for keeping these > defilements. > > What do you think? Maybe the idea of the container is not bad ? James: No, I don't believe in the idea of a "container" in the mind. Actually, this discussion brings to light why I find the Abhidhamma to be overly simplistic. A while back, Rob M gave me a list of the description for eight different unwholesome mind states. If I remember, I think that there were eight of them. It also said that these eight were the only unwholesome cittas which could arise. I don't buy that for a second! The mind is much too complex to be so easily categorized and labeled. To use an analogy, I could tell you the different kinds of clouds: High-Level Clouds Cloud types include: cirrus and cirrostratus. Mid-Level Clouds Cloud types include: altocumulus, altostratus. Low-Level Clouds Cloud types include: nimbostratus and stratocumulus. Clouds with Vertical Development Cloud types include: fair weather cumulus and cumulonimbus. Other Cloud Types Cloud types include: contrails, billow clouds, mammatus, orographic and pileus clouds. Have I now entirely named all cloud types? No, there are many clouds which cannot be so easily named and categorized. And even those clouds which are named and categorized, not any two will be exactly the same. If we run into this difficulty naming and categorizing clouds, just imagine the difficulty of trying to do the same thing with the mind- which is much more complex than clouds. > > > Sincerely, > > > Tep > ==== Metta, James 58885 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Fri May 5, 2006 0:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bodhisattva Ideal fbartolom Dear Chris, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > Fabrizio, > I understand that you are not referring to the standard of Sila or > the Practice of our Mahayana friends, which, over the last year I > have come to admire. But I wonder if you, or anyone else, would say > a little more ~ with Sutta references for support either way? Perhaps you might want to express better the view of your Mahayana friends so that I might also admire them. Suttas are not bullets. 58886 From: "is_that_mail" Date: Thu May 4, 2006 7:09am Subject: Sex is_that_mail Greetings, If we focus on our thoughts on sex, the cause of it will be that we will become sex-obssessed, thinking only about sex, and not thinking about the personality of the person with whom we are in a relationship. In order to be able to see the person from the inside and not only from the outside the best is to try to stop thoughts of sex when they arise. Even if not to try to stop thoughts about sex, the important thing is not to express them. When we express thoughts that we have, they become even more powerful. In order to prevent that, not expressing is best. The above is my attitude, but I feel it has a very very bad impact on me. I would appreciate an alternative suggestion to the issue of sex, Yours, John 58887 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri May 5, 2006 1:20am Subject: Dog Days buddhatrue Hi Sarah, Nina, and all, I have uploaded a photo of Amr and Vicki to the significant others folder- thought you might like to see. Vicki is one of the Dalmation puppies I adopted for a while until I could find a better home for her. We found one for the first Dalmation, Milo, but haven't been able to find a good one for Vicki yet. Hopefully we can get her a good home soon. Sometimes being compassionate and helpful is a real pain in the neck! ;-)) Metta, James 58888 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 5, 2006 1:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The place of "meditation" ... Kamma as Taught by the Buddha [re-sent] jonoabb Hi Tep indriyabala wrote: >Hi, Jon - > >Lately you did not write as much as you used to. It is good that we >keep our Dhamma discussion going (like the energized bunny). > > I agree. I can assure you I am following everything as closely as ever, but there have been other demands on my time lately. >>Jon: >>Personally I find that going through the process of expressing my >>views in writing, and then having them questioned by others, makes for >>a lot of useful consideration of the teachings. And of course I learn >>a lot from the views expressed by others, too. >> > >Tep: That is a very general declaration that is 100% harmless. > > I would hope that everything I say is harmless ;-)) >>Jon: >>A recent post of Andrew's referred to the five 'helpers' of right >>view mentioned in AN V, 25. These are: >>- virtue >>- wide learning >>- discussion (of what was learned) >>- tranquillity >>- insight >> >>Discussion of what has been heard and understood is a condition for >>even better understanding. And of course that better understanding in >>turn supports virtue and wider learning, and helps one appreciate even >>more the value of discussion. So the factors are all mutually >>supportive (Howard's 'spiral process'). >> >> > >Tep: The order that I see in AN V.25 is : virtue comes first, and >tranquillity comes before insight. > Like Andrew, I feel we are a lot closer than you recognise, but I find it difficult to explain how that is so. In singling out the factor of 'discussion' I was not in any way meaning to downplay the significance of the preceding factors in the list. I was just drawing attention to something that seemed to relate to what I had just said about the usefulness of exchanging views on the list. (And my comment about the usefulness of exchanging views was prompted by something you had said about being 'corrected', which I felt was not the way things happen here at all.) Of course, the question of the significance of the order in which the factors appear, and their relationship with each other, is something something well worth discussing, if that is what you are meaning to raise here (but worth a thread of its own, I would suggest ;-)). >Bhikkhu Bodhi also seems to >disagree with your idea above. > >"The Buddhist training unfolds in the three stages of morality, >concentration and wisdom, each the foundation for the other: purified >moral conduct facilitates the attainment of purified concentration, >and the concentrated mind facilitates the attainment of liberating >wisdom. The basis of the entire Buddhist training is thus purified >conduct, and firm adherence to the code of training rules one has >undertaken ..." ["The Guardians of the World" by Bhikkhu Bodhi] >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_23.html > Yes, the division into sila, samadhi and panna is the one used in the Visuddhimagga, as you know. The real question is the significance of that classification, in particular the extent to which it is intended to be a strictly sequential prescription. Another whole thread ;-)) >>>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 knowledge, right release comes into being. >>>Thus the learner is endowed with eight factors, and the arahant >>>with ten." - see MN 117. >>> >>Jon: It seems that the 2 additional factors mentioned here in MN 117 are >>factors that arise after the magga citta of the arahant (only). A >>footnote in the Bh Bodhi translation of this sutta at p. 1324 MLDB reads: >>"The additional two factors possessed by the arahant are right >>knowledge, which can be identified with his reviewing knowledge that >>he has destroyed all the defilements, and right deliverance, which can >>be identified with his experience of liberation from all defilements." >> > >Tep: I don't think you have yet responded to my question above ( isn't >it the other way around ...) > Well I thought that by saying what I did I had directly responded to your question ;-)) My apologies if my thinking was not clear. Let me explain in more detail how I see it. What is being described in the passage from M 117 is the development of insight and the attainment of enlightenment up to the stage of arahantship, including the moments of consciousness that follow the attainment of arahantship. As I see it, the picture looks like this: ************** 1. Pre-enlightenment - The development of insight (vipassana bhavana). Consciousness is accompanied by the mundane path factors of right view, right thinking, right effort, fight awareness and right concentration). Also referred to in the commentaries as mundane path moments. 2. Enlightenment - The moments of path and fruition consciousness, which are: (a) Path consciousness/magga citta (lokuttara path moment), with all 8 NEP factors arising, (b) Fruition consciousness/phala citta. Follows immediately after the moment of path consciousness, and is the vipaka of the immediately preceding magga citta. There are 4 sets of these 2 cittas, one for each of the stages of enlightenment. 3. Post enlightenment for the arahant - Arahantship having been attained, there then occurs (immediately following) moments of consciousness accompanied by the 2 additional factors mentioned in M 117, namely: (a) right knowledge ( the arahant's knowledge that he has destroyed all the defilements) and (b) right deliverance (the arahant's experience of liberation from all defilements). These factors do not occur following the earlier stages of enlightenment (those of the 'learner'). ************** Now it is of course true to say that right concentration (which features in steps 1 and 2 above) comes before the right knowledge of the arahant (which features only in step 3), but then *all 8* of the NEP factors come before right knowledge of the arahant. More important for us, I would say, is the question of the development of the 8 path factors (step 1). In this regard I read M 117 as saying that right view (panna) comes first. In the context of step 1, the right knowledge of the arahant has no role, as I see it. Hoping this is a clearer answer to your question (not that I'm necessarily expecting you to agree with it ;-)). >>Jon: >>In the sutta, the section which your passage is taken and the >>preceding 5 sections all begin with the words (Bh Bodhi transl): >>"Therein, bhikkhus, right view comes first. And how does right view >>come first?" >> > >Tep: True, MN 117 says that right view comes first (as mundane right >view). But my question was not about right view; it was about right >knowledge. The sutta makes it very clear that right knowledge (vijja, >it is opposite to avijja) comes after right concentration. I have no >problem with Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation, by the way. {:>) > > I think what I have said just above applies to this part of your post also. Please let me know if you feel I have not addressed your point (again, I'm not saying we need to agree on everything! ;-)) Jon 58889 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 5, 2006 2:02am Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 436- mindfulness/sati (r) 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) Mindfulness is one of the “five spiritual faculties” (indriyas) which should be developed. As we have seen, the other spiritual faculties are: confidence, energy, concentration and wisdom. We read in the Dhammasangaùi (§ 14) about the faculty of mindfulness: * "What on that occasion is the faculty of mindfulness? The mindfulness which on that occasion is recollecting, calling back to mind; the mindfulness which is remembering, bearing in mind, the opposite of superficiality and of obliviousness; mindfulness as faculty (indriya), mindfulness as power (bala), right mindfulness— this is the faculty of mindfulness that there then is." * The Atthasåliní (I, Part IV, Chapter II, 147), in its explanation of this passage, states about “non-superficiality”: * "… “non-superficiality” (in the sense of diving or entering into the object) is the state of not letting the object float away. Not as pumpkins and pots, etc., which float on the water and do not sink therein, does mindfulness sink into the object. Hence it is said to be non-superficiality…" * Mindfulness is an indriya, a “controlling faculty”, a “leader” of the citta and accompanying cetasikas in its function of heedfulness, of non-forgetfulness of what is wholesome. We read in the Atthasåliní, in the same section: * "… It exercises government (over associated states) in the characteristic of presenting or illuminating the object— this is the faculty of mindfulness." * Mindfulness is non-forgetful of the object, and understanding (paññå) has the function of knowing it as it is. Mindfulness, when it is developed, becomes a power or strength (bala), and then it is unshakable by its opposite, by forgetfulness. We read in the same section of the Atthasåliní: * "… It does not fluctuate on account of negligence— this is “strength of mindfulness”. “Right mindfulness” is irreversible, emancipating, moral mindfulness." * The five wholesome controlling faculties, the “spiritual faculties”, must be developed in samatha in order to attain jhåna and in vipassanå in order to attain enlightenment. It is our nature to be forgetful of the reality which appears now, but gradually mindfulness can be accumulated. It can even become a “power”. ***** (Ch26 - mindfulness/sati to be contd) Metta, Sarah ====== 58890 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 5, 2006 2:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dog Days sarahprocter... Hi James, A very nice pic:-) Perhaps if Vicki is behaving, she can stay with you a while longer - looks adorable. --- buddhatrue wrote: > Sometimes being compassionate and helpful is a real pain in the > neck! ;-)) .... S: ;-)) I know, I know... Now how can we encourage some of our other friends to send pics of themselves and signif others? metta and thanks, Sarah p.s will get onto threads when I have time....Thx for telling me about the Erik c.d. I'd wondered if you'd got it yet. Not easy your end, as you say. ======== 58891 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri May 5, 2006 2:18am Subject: Failed by Neglect ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: How can one ever Succeed, when Never having Started? The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, those who have neglected to begin this Noble 8-fold Way have failed to develop the Noble Method, which destroys suffering. While those who having indeed begun this Noble 8-fold Way, have indeed also initiated the Noble Method, which destroys all suffering. And what, Bhikkhus, is this Noble 8-fold Way? It is: Right View (samma-ditthi) Right Motivation (samma-sankappa) Right Speech (samma-vaca) Right Action (samma-kammanta) Right Livelihood (samma-ajiva) Right Effort (samma-vayama) Right Awareness (samma-sati) Right Concentration (samma-samadhi) Bhikkhus, those who have failed even to start on this Noble 8-fold Way, have failed to cultivate that Noble Method, which destroys all suffering. While those who have really started on this Noble 8-fold Way, have indeed also made the first move capable of destroying all suffering! Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:23-4] section 45:33 Failed ... 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 !!! <...> 58892 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 5, 2006 3:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 432- mindfulness/sati (n) egberdina Hi Phil, Do you mean differences between people, or different life forms, > something like that? > > From what I understand, the patisandha (sp?) citta, the rebirth citta > is crucially important. People are born by different patisandha cittas > that have a powerful impact on our life situations. To be human, we all > have kusala roots, but some people have only adosa and alobha, and > other have amoha as well. Something like that? Born in the animal > realm? Sorry, amigo, you are missing a wholesome root or two. I don't > know. It's an area I hardly think about because if I think about it in > a logical way it might not make sense, and I don't want it not to make > sense!! I am glad that you understand that what is selected and rejected for consideration is guided by intention. Do you know why you want it to make sense? What would happen if it turned out it didn't make sense? -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58893 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 5, 2006 3:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) egberdina Hi Jon, > > > Ph: Right. From what I understand, satipatthana, when it arises, > >arises in a very natural way. Usually when there is seeing, or hearing, > >thinking follows immediately. But there can be a moment of satipatthana > >instead, which falls away immediately. Nothing spectactular or > >dramatic, nothing to be pursued by cittas rooted in lobha. But still > >very important, conditioning more moments of satipatthana. > > > > > > I find this question of the 'naturalness' of awareness a fascinating one > (and I brought it up in India also). I have not come across descriptions of natural and unnatural arising in the Suttas. I have come across descriptions of dependent arising. Is natural arising an abhidhammic or commentarial notion? But there is kusala that arises naturally in > our daily life now (if there wasn't we wouldn't be here having this > discussion), and it is at such moments that the characteristic of kusala > can be known better, and the kusala quality itself developed. Does this naturally arising kusala differ from dependently arising kusala? -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58894 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 5, 2006 4:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana egberdina Hi Sarah, On 03/05/06, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Herman (& Scott), > > --- Herman Hofman wrote: > > > Sa: There can be subtle kinds of noticing with an idea of self - still > > > trying to catch dhammas which have fallen away already. When there is > > > awareness of a reality, there's no trying or noticing involved. It > > arises > > > naturally like seeing or hearing or liking arise. > > > > > > Appreciating what the quality of awareness is and what the objects of > > > awareness can be is the main condition for it to arise. The big > > obstacle > > > is any kind of wrong view concerned with a self trying to catch it or > > make > > > it happen. > > > > > > > H:> Are you saying there can be no awareness of trying? lobha? wanting > > things to > > be a certain way? > .... > S: Thanks for reading and adding your good questions. > > No, I'm not saying this at all. There certainly can be awareness of > trying, of lobha, of wanting things to be a certain way. This is the kind > of stuff that makes up a large part of our day and is therefore just the > kind of dhamma awareness can be aware of. Are you saying there can be no awareness of trying, lobha or wanting things to be different without some type of wrong view? How does Channa's (MN144) faultless taking of his own life fit in? Sometimes I find myself laughing at such wanting -- it's so ridiculous > really to want things to be other than they are....but then, that's lobha! You may never have experienced the pain of certain cancers. I sincerely hope you never will. Herman, I was impressed that even when you were so concerned about Vicki, > you were still reflecting on Dhamma. It helps a lot, doesn't it? My reflections suggest that the Dhamma can do nothing about vipaka but that Morphine can. What do you reckon about that? -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58895 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 5, 2006 4:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana egberdina Hi Scott and moderators, Thanks for your post. Rest assured I am not timing how long it takes to reply to posts, if at all :-) Whenever is good for you, is fine with me. On 04/05/06, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > "Welcome aboard." > > Dear Herman, > > Thank you and welcome yourself! > > H: "I was very interested to read all your comments. I am only a > layman as far as Buddhism or psychiatry are concerned, but I see quite > a bit of overlap between some Freudian and Buddhist notions. Is that > the sort of thing you had in mind by basic psychodynamics?" > > Please forgive my delay in responding to your kind post. Yes. I was > using the term "psychodynamic" to cover the various schools of thought > that evolved out of classical "Freudian" psychoanalytic theory over > the past 100 years or so. > > I find that the psychology as outlined in the Abhidhamma, and > remarkably elaborated so very long ago, very much foreshadows certain > psychoanalytic notions. For example, the rapidity with which dhammas > arise and fall away and yet have their effect is mirrored in the > notion of unconscious process. The fact that a complex set of > conditions, in place without conscious control and yet, again, highly > influential on experience and behaviour mirrors the kind of > "determinism" implied when one asserts that what we experience is not > as much under the sway of our conscious will as we'd like to believe. > > I must state, unequivocably, that I totally find that Abhidhamma > trumps Freud on all counts. But as far as western psychology, the > psychoanalytic theoretical cannon is far and away the most overarching > and suitable for a psychotherapeutic methodology. I would certainly be interested in further discussing similarities/differences between Abhidhamma and Freud, and I would value your insights, and the insights of others. The reason I am including the moderators in this post is that I would prefer to have their permission for such a discussion before we get pulled up down the track. (I don't know if you are interested, but I'm hoping you would be :-)) -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58896 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 5, 2006 4:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 435- mindfulness/sati (q) egberdina Hi Phil, On 05/05/06, Phil wrote: > > > Hi Herman, NIna and all > > I carry a pcoket notebook with me at all times - quite natural, > I've done so for about 20 years to jot down things, if things demand > being jotted down. It happens due to conditions. Is there anything in your scheme of things that isn't natural? -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58897 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 5, 2006 4:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... What lies dormant? sarahprocter... Hi James & Tep, --- buddhatrue wrote: > > > > Sarah: > > > > In other words, when there is any kind of generosity, morality > or mental development (samatha or vipassana), there is still the > latent tendency of attachment, wrong view and conceit. But at these > times, they do not 'arise'. They are dormant. ========== > > >James: > > > Could you please explain what you mean by "dormant"? If citas > arise and fall away so quickly, exactly where or how could something > > > be "dormant"? ======= S: It is a good question. I was trying to avoid using the Pali term 'anusaya' (latent tendency/proclivity/dormant disposition) which is derived from the word 'anusayati' which means 'to lie dormant'. So often, in translations of texts on the latent tendencies, we read about them lying 'dormant' or being 'inherent' Sometimes it says in the texts that they lie dormant 'like microbes infesting the body' and that we are like sick people, because these microbes can condition strong attachment and other unwholesome states to arise anytime unless they've been eradicated. The Visuddhimagga (XXII, 60) ... For it is owing to their inveteracy that they are called inherent tendencies (anusaya) since they inhere (anusenti) as cause for the arising of greed for sense desires, etc., again and again." We come across the anusayas a lot in the suttas as well. For example: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-038.html B.Bodhi’s translation which starts off: “...Bhikkhus, what one intends, and what one plans, and whatever one has a tendency towards: this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness.... Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering” BB adds extensive commentary notes. For example, In the sutta we read: “If, bhikkhus, one does not intend, and one does not plan, but one still has a tendency towards something, this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness........Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.” “Spk (commentary): this refers to a moment when there is no occurrence of [wholesome and unwholesome] volition of the three planes, and no occurrence of the mental fabrications of craving and views. ‘but one still has a tendency’: by this the underlying tendencies are included because they have not been abandoned here in the resultants of the three planes........As long as the underlying tendencies exist, they become a condition for the kammic consciousness, for there is no way to prevent its arising.” The texts refer to three levels of defilements which are: 1.vítikkama kilesa (coarse defilements of the degree of unwholesome kamma patha) 2.pariyutthåna kilesa (medium defilements which commonly arise throughout the day) 3.anusaya kilesa (subtle defilements that are latent or lie dormant and are only eradicated at the four stages of enlightenment. It really means that nothing is ever lost - the wisdom, greed, likes, dislikes and so on are accumulated and condition more of the same when the conditions are right. The anusayas just refer to the tendencies to sensuous greed, hate, wrong views, doubt. Conceit, craving for existence and ignorance. As we know, these states can arise strongly 'out of the blue' and this is because of the 'dormant' tendencies for them. (Lots more in U.P. under 'anusayas'. Nina translated a series from the foundation about them.) ============ T:> > A better answer, in my opinion, is : the three defilements > > (attachment, wrong views and conceit) always arise with the citta > of a worldling; the word "dormant" is a misnomer. ======== S: I don't think it's correct to say 'they always arise'. For example, at moments of metta, attachment doesn't arise, but it is still accumulated in the citta at that time. I'm also not so keen on 'dormant', but it's a literal translation of the Pali, I think. ========== > James: Yes, exactly. I didn't find that to be the correct word to > use. However, Sarah could have used the word "supressed". There are > times, especially during jhana, when the defilements are supressed. ========= S: It's different, I think. During jhana, the defilements are said to be 'suppressed' because there are no conditions for their arising for the period of jhana cittas arising. The anusayas lie 'dormant' at every moment until they are eradicated. Both terms carry baggage in English which can be misleading, I think. ========== T:> > The Accesstoinsight's Glossary says : > > > > "Obsesssion; underlying tendency. (The etymology of this term means > > "lying down with"; in actual usage, the related verb (anuseti) > means > > to be obsessed.) There are seven major obsessions to which the mind > > returns over and over again: obsession with sensual passion > > (kama-raganusaya), with resistance (patighanusaya), with views > > (ditthanusaya), with uncertainty (vicikicchanusaya), with conceit > > (manusaya), with passion for becoming (bhava-raganusaya), and with > > ignorance (avijjanusaya). Compare samyojana." ========= S: OK, this is good. As it says, the etymology is 'lying down with', i.e dormant. ======== T:> > However, by saying that the "mind returns over and over again" to > > these seven obsessions, it still is not satisfactory. Why? Because > it implies existence of a "container" or a "place" for keeping these > > defilements. What do you think? Maybe the idea of the container is not bad ? ========= > James: No, I don't believe in the idea of a "container" in the > mind. ========= S: I agree with James - no 'container' in the mind. I agree it's a subtle distinction. Pls let me know if my comments or thinking aren't clear enough. .... Thanks for both your reflections on the good question James raised initially. Metta, Sarah p.s Tep, thx as usual for your patience with other threads. ======= 58898 From: "Fabrizio Bartolomucci" Date: Fri May 5, 2006 5:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do mind objects have an intrinsic nature? fbartolom Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi Fabrizio and Nina, > > Thanks for your replies. What does registration citta do? I thought it > was a kind of taking note and was therefore involved in memory. Are > there two different and possibly contradictory memories of the object in > a process (vitthi), the accumulation of javana and the "taking note" of > registration? As a matter of fact what we call memory falls in two groups in the teaching of the Buddha. One is Sati that may be considered as the strike of a stick over a gong, and the other is Sankhara that may considered as the sound being produced for some time after the gong has been striken. As any meditator knows the situation is much more complex than this. For example the view of a young woman to a man is like a strike that seems to produce a never-ending sound. While, sometimes, the words of an old woman seem like a strike over a ball of cotton... Going to Abhidhamma terminology most of the striking part is performed in the javana section. For example if you hear the voice of a woman and you do not turn to look at her no memory of her body may be collected. The sound corresponds instead to the rootless cittas. In this list registration has the function of hearing the first crude sound of the hitting while investigation in following cittas will hear the fully developped sound. > Regarding the simile of the succeeding waves that follow upon the > dropping of a stone in a lake being like the succeeding consciousnesses > in citta process, it is indeed difficult to see how each consciousness > does not inform the next. In fact each citta throws its own stone in the javana phase so it will produce its own waves that will interfere with the ones produced by the previous cittas. > If it did, each preceding consciousness would > have to be the object of the succeeding consciousness. I must admit, > this latter does make sense to me. This is the process appening during a Jhana consciousness process. > I notice in "A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" that Ledi Sayadaw > says it takes 7 mind-door processes following a 5-door process just > to recognize the object. I think it is a sort of average. Of course a newborn baby takes much more than 7 mind-door processes to recognize an object! > If that is so it would seem that the 5-door > javanas are insignificant; evaluation and reaction to an object would > have to come in subsequent mind-door processes. Do you agree? We in the sense world have all the five senses. Thus we also have 5 doors processes along with the mind door ones. Of course there are beings experiencing just mind process and, according to what the Buddha says, they also enjoy a lot :-) Ciao, Fabrizio 58899 From: "indriyabala" Date: Fri May 5, 2006 6:17am Subject: Re: Sex ... What About Renunciation ? indriyabala Hi John, Thank you for the post. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "is_that_mail" wrote: > > Greetings, > > > If we focus on our thoughts on sex, the cause of it will be that we > will become sex-obssessed, thinking only about sex, and not thinking > about the personality of the person with whom we are in a > relationship. In order to be able to see the person from the inside > and not only from the outside the best is to try to stop thoughts of > sex when they arise. > > Even if not to try to stop thoughts about sex, the important thing >is not to express them. When we express thoughts that we have, they > become even more powerful. In order to prevent that, not expressing > is best. > > > The above is my attitude, but I feel it has a very very bad impact on > me. > > > I would appreciate an alternative suggestion to the issue of sex, > > Yours, > > John > How does it have "a very very bad impact on" you ? An alternative suggestion is to turn the mind to the opposite : renunciation. "Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that becomes the inclination of his awareness. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with sensuality, abandoning thinking imbued with renunciation, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with sensuality. (Similarly with thinking imbued with ill will & harmfulness.) "Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that becomes the inclination of his awareness. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with renunciation, abandoning thinking imbued with sensuality, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with renunciation. (Similarly with thinking imbued with non-ill will & harmlessness.) [MN 19] Sincerely, Tep ===== 58900 From: "Phil" Date: Fri May 5, 2006 6:52am Subject: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 435- mindfulness/sati (q) philofillet Hi Herman > > Is there anything in your scheme of things that isn't natural? > At DSG, I guess "not natural" for me refers to anything we do that is radically different from our usual daily life, especially when it's with the intent of getting results quickly. So, for example, while sitting with one's coffee in the morning and reflecting deeplu/meditating on a sutta is natural for me, driving 200 miles for a weekend retreat is not natural. Not for me, there would be too many expectations. But it works for other people, so that's fine, and for people who do retreats quite often, it would be more natural. For me it would be so unnatural that it couldn't possible be beneficial. That's me and my accumulations. Sorry I won't have time to reply to the other post you wrote - the week long holiday is over and I'll be back to less frequent posting - probably. Phil 58901 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 5, 2006 7:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Samatha and vipassana 2 jonoabb Hi Herman Herman Hofman wrote: >>Clearly, I think, the sutta is not to be read as saying that each factor >>can only be developed when the preceding factor has been fully developed >>(that would not make much sense, would it?). >> > >The only time something properly doesn't make sense is when it is out of >sync with reality, not when it is different to a preconceived notion. > Another one of your neat little sayings ;-)) No dissent from me on this. Any suggestions as to how this might apply in the case of the sutta under discussion? Jon Jon: I think you're referring to the Upanisa Sutta SN 12:23. OK, that sutta gives the following order of factors, with each being the 'proximate cause' for the next (Bh Bodhi translation in his CDB at p. 553): Suffering (dukkha) Faith (saddha) Gladness (pamojja) Rapture (piti) Tranquillity (passaddhi) Happiness (sukha) Concentration (samadhi) Knowledge and vision of things as they really are (yathabhutañanadassana) Revulsion (nibbida) Dispassion (viraga) Liberation (vimutti) Knowledge of destruction in regard to destruction (asavakkhaye ñana) Two interesting points from the footnotes to the text in the BB translation: 1. In footnote 68, discussion of the meaning of 'upanisa' (proximate cause) and how it is to be distinguished from 'upanissaya' (decisive support condition) which refers solely to something which plays a strong causal role. 2. In footnote 69, BB quotes the commentary as saying that 'concentration' here refers to the jhana used as a basis for insight ('paadakajjhaanasamaadhi'). Clearly, I think, the sutta is not to be read as saying that each factor can only be developed when the preceding factor has been fully developed (that would not make much sense, would it?). To my reading, it describes the different wholesome factors that come into play as insight is developed in the particular case of a person who attains enlightenment with jhana as basis. Eric: Here http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html the trancendent order comes right before Dependent Origination using the same terminology, "supporting condition". Implying that this/that conditionality applies to both suffering and it's end. This makes sense, yes/no? What is outside of this/that conditionality? 58902 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 5, 2006 8:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 2 jonoabb Hi Eric ericlonline wrote: >>Clearly, I think, the sutta** is not to be read as saying that each >>factor can only be developed when the preceding factor has been >>fully developed (that would not make much sense, would it?). To my >>reading, it describes the different wholesome factors that come into >>play as insight is developed in the particular case of a person who >>attains enlightenment with jhana as basis. >> > >Here > >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html > >the trancendent order comes right before >Dependent Origination using the same >terminology, "supporting condition". >Implying that this/that conditionality >applies to both suffering and it's end. >This makes sense, yes/no? What is outside >of this/that conditionality? > > Well I am not disputing the proposition that everything is 'this/that conditionality'. But what is the meaning of 'supporting condition/proximate cause' in the sutta you have quoted? Now 'conditionality' can refer to anything from a relationship of indirect influence to one of being a necessary prerequisite, and without knowing the particular conditioning relationship we cannot have a clear picture of it. As you will know, the standard formulation of DO does not go into the kind of conditionality applying in each link, it merely singles out specific the factors that are the conditioning and the conditioned dhamma. But according to the commentary material, multiple conditions apply in some if not all of the links; 'supporting condition/proximate cause' is only one of these. By the way, the translation I have been referring to (from CDB) is of the same sutta and by the same translator (Bhikkhu Bodhi) as the one at your ATI/Wheel link. However, the CDB version is more recent and includes more passages from the commentary material. >Jon> >This interpretation of the sutta is not given in the Bh Bodhi >translation, either in the footnotes or in his general >introduction. Do you have a source for it? > >See above. Again, this sutta merely uses >this/that conditionality pointing in a >transcendent manner. Simple, no need to >go to outside sources to read it. > > Yes, but as I explained above, 'this/that conditionality' encompasses a wide range of possible relationships. You seem to take it to mean 'necessary prerequisite', but do you have a basis for that assumption? In any event, the factor mentioned in the sutta is 'samadhi', which you are taking to mean 'jhana' (unless I am mistaken). Again, jhana is only 1 of a number of possible meanings of samadhi, so without reference to 'outside sources' in the form of the commentaries there would be no real justification for that reading, as far as I can see. >Jon> As I understand it, jhana is mentioned here because it refers >to the person who attains enlightenment with jhana as basis. > >Of course this is how you understand it >as your investigations are intellectually >& commentarial based also ignoring the >definition of Right Samadhi. > > You are correct that my interpretation is commentarial based. But I don't see why it ignores the definition of Right Samadhi (the NEP factor) here. >BTW Some see Samadhi as the power which >drives the path. So, your wisdom needs >power to cut the bonds of ignorance. >You are either cutting the bonds with >a razor blade or a weighty axe. This >sutta supports this understanding of >the path. Without samadhi as a supporting >condition there is no "Knowledge and vision >of things as they are" (Insight). > > Interesting the view that 'samadhi is the power which drives the path'. Not one I have come across before. Again, you are talking samadhi but presumably meaning jhana. Are you sure these 2 terms are interchangeable? I would have thought that samadhi is sometimes used to refer to jhana, sometimes to refer to kusala concentration of all levels (including but not limited to jhana), Jon **Jon: I think you're referring to the Upanisa Sutta SN 12:23. OK, that sutta gives the following order of factors, with each being the 'proximate cause' for the next (Bh Bodhi translation in his CDB at p. 553): Suffering (dukkha) Faith (saddha) Gladness (pamojja) Rapture (piti) Tranquillity (passaddhi) Happiness (sukha) Concentration (samadhi) Knowledge and vision of things as they really are (yathabhutañanadassana) Revulsion (nibbida) Dispassion (viraga) Liberation (vimutti) Knowledge of destruction in regard to destruction (asavakkhaye ñana) Two interesting points from the footnotes to the text in the BB translation: 1. In footnote 68, discussion of the meaning of 'upanisa' (proximate cause) and how it is to be distinguished from 'upanissaya' (decisive support condition) which refers solely to something which plays a strong causal role. 2. In footnote 69, BB quotes the commentary as saying that 'concentration' here refers to the jhana used as a basis for insight ('paadakajjhaanasamaadhi'). 58903 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 5, 2006 4:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 435- mindfulness/sati (q) upasaka_howard Hi, Phil (and Herman) - In a message dated 5/5/06 10:00:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: > Hi Herman > > > > >Is there anything in your scheme of things that isn't natural? > > > > At DSG, I guess "not natural" for me refers to anything we do that > is radically different from our usual daily life, especially when it's > with the intent of getting results quickly. So, for example, while > sitting with one's coffee in the morning and reflecting > deeplu/meditating on a sutta is natural for me, driving 200 miles for > a weekend retreat is not natural. Not for me, there would be too many > expectations. But it works for other people, so that's fine, and for > people who do retreats quite often, it would be more natural. For me it > would be so unnatural that it couldn't possible be beneficial. That's > me and my accumulations. > > Sorry I won't have time to reply to the other post you wrote - the > week long holiday is over and I'll be back to less frequent posting - > probably. > Phil > ====================== Phil, what is "natural" for worldlings is following our inclinations and desires in actions and beliefs. These may be good, bad, or somewhere in between. (Most often not so good! ;-) I would like to mention to you that the Buddha spoke of his Dhamma as going *against the flow*. For example, in SN VI.1, the Ayacana Sutta, and also in MN 26, the Ariyapariyesana Sutta, the Buddha taught the following: _________________ Just then these verses, unspoken in the past, unheard before, occurred to the Blessed One: Enough now with teaching what only with difficulty I reached. This Dhamma is not easily realized by those overcome with aversion & passion. What is abstruse, subtle, deep, hard to see, going against the flow — those delighting in passion, cloaked in the mass of darkness, won't see. ----------------------------------------- There also is a sutta, which one I don't recall, that describes the Buddha placing an empty urn or pot on the surface of a flowing stream, the urn representing Dhammavinaya and the stream representing the usual way we live and think, and it moved upstream, opposite the direction of the flow! Relatedly, you might look at the ATI link for the Anusota Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an04-005.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) 58904 From: "ericlonline" Date: Fri May 5, 2006 9:57am Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 2 ericlonline Hi Jon, This is a pretty amusing post of yours. The lengths you will go to not see anothers point of view!! Oh well, lets have another go around. Jon>>Clearly, I think, the sutta** is not to be read as saying that each >>factor can only be developed when the preceding factor has been >>fully developed (that would not make much sense, would it?). To my >>reading, it describes the different wholesome factors that come into >>play as insight is developed in the particular case of a person who >>attains enlightenment with jhana as basis. >> > E>Here > >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html > >the trancendent order comes right before >Dependent Origination using the same >terminology, "supporting condition". >Implying that this/that conditionality >applies to both suffering and it's end. >This makes sense, yes/no? What is outside >of this/that conditionality? J> Well I am not disputing the proposition that everything is 'this/that conditionality'. But what is the meaning of 'supporting condition/proximate cause' in the sutta you have quoted? What difference does it make? Either as "supporting condition" or "proximate cause", samadhi comes before insight. It is plain as day! Why cant you see this? Are you dislexic and reading the sutta backwards? Or do you have such an aversion to samadhi that your mind jumps thru hoops in order to convince yourself it is no necessary? It is hard Jon, I know, but you can do it! It takes time and energy but you can do it Jon! Jon> Now 'conditionality' can refer to anything from a relationship of indirect influence to one of being a necessary prerequisite, and without knowing the particular conditioning relationship we cannot have a clear picture of it. Again, what difference does it make? As supporting condition: no samadhi, no insight. As proximate cause: no samadhi, no insight. Jon> As you will know, the standard formulation of DO does not go into the kind of conditionality applying in each link, it merely singles out specific the factors that are the conditioning and the conditioned dhamma. But according to the commentary material, multiple conditions apply in some if not all of the links; 'supporting condition/proximate cause' is only one of these. Jon, please! Just stick in this/that conditionality and you dont have to go round the world and back thru the ages searching thru your library. When samadhi is, insight is. When samadhi is not, insight is not, etc. This/that conditionality is the basis of Dependent Originaion and the Buddhist path! J> Yes, but as I explained above, 'this/that conditionality' encompasses a wide range of possible relationships. You seem to take it to mean 'necessary prerequisite', but do you have a basis for that assumption? Stick in any relationship and it all boils down to no samadhi, no insight. A more prudent use of our time would be the investigation of WHY. J>In any event, the factor mentioned in the sutta is 'samadhi', which you are taking to mean 'jhana' (unless I am mistaken). Again, jhana is only of a number of possible meanings of samadhi, so without reference to 'outside sources' in the form of the commentaries there would be no real justification for that reading, as far as I can see. Since this sutta is called TRANSCENDENT Origination. It is a safe bet to assume that the factors being pointed too are NOBLE. So SAMADHI would be RIGHT CONCENTRATION i.e. jhana. No outside sources need apply. E>BTW Some see Samadhi as the power which >drives the path. So, your wisdom needs >power to cut the bonds of ignorance. >You are either cutting the bonds with >a razor blade or a weighty axe. This >sutta supports this understanding of >the path. Without samadhi as a supporting >condition there is no "Knowledge and vision >of things as they are" (Insight). > > Jon> Interesting the view that 'samadhi is the power which drives the path'. Not one I have come across before. Yes, samadhi as the force that drives the train down the path. The conductor can read the manual but without the engine, well, you dont get very far. Sila gets the mind pointed in the RIGHT direction and samadhi drives the mind towards wisdom. No power to drive, no arrival at wisdom. Hey, but it is nice to sit on the train going nowhere and talk about the views of arrival right!? Maybe someone will get around to fixing the engine. But here, have some tea and a magazine while you wait! :-) Jon>Again, you are talking samadhi but presumably meaning jhana. Are you sure these 2 terms are interchangeable? I would have thought that samadhi is sometimes used to refer to jhana, sometimes to refer to kusala concentration of all levels (including but not limited to jhana), RIGHT CONCENTRATION IS JHANA!!! I did not make this up!! Blame the Buddha if you dont like this fact or flip thru some pages. I am sure you will find a commentator or two who have justified it away. metta E ***PS No commentaries or sub-commentaries or sub-sub-commentaries were consulted to make this post. All erroneous views are that of the poster alone. **Jon: I think you're referring to the Upanisa Sutta SN 12:23. OK, that sutta gives the following order of factors, with each being the 'proximate cause' for the next (Bh Bodhi translation in his CDB at p. 553): Suffering (dukkha) Faith (saddha) Gladness (pamojja) Rapture (piti) Tranquillity (passaddhi) Happiness (sukha) Concentration (samadhi) Knowledge and vision of things as they really are (yathabhutañanadassana) Revulsion (nibbida) Dispassion (viraga) Liberation (vimutti) Knowledge of destruction in regard to destruction (asavakkhaye ñana) Two interesting points from the footnotes to the text in the BB translation: 1. In footnote 68, discussion of the meaning of 'upanisa' (proximate cause) and how it is to be distinguished from 'upanissaya' (decisive support condition) which refers solely to something which plays a strong causal role. 2. In footnote 69, BB quotes the commentary as saying that 'concentration' here refers to the jhana used as a basis for insight ('paadakajjhaanasamaadhi'). 58905 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 5, 2006 3:43pm Subject: Yahoo Groups problems jonoabb Hi All There are some delays in posts to the list showing up on the list, and in individual emails from the list coming to inboxes. Hopefully this will just be a temporary delay. So keep posting ;-)). Jon 58906 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 5, 2006 4:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 435- mindfulness/sati (q) egberdina Hi Phil, > > > > > Is there anything in your scheme of things that isn't natural? > > > > At DSG, I guess "not natural" for me refers to anything we do that > is radically different from our usual daily life, especially when it's > with the intent of getting results quickly. So, for example, while > sitting with one's coffee in the morning and reflecting > deeplu/meditating on a sutta is natural for me, driving 200 miles for > a weekend retreat is not natural. Not for me, there would be too many > expectations. But it works for other people, so that's fine, and for > people who do retreats quite often, it would be more natural. For me it > would be so unnatural that it couldn't possible be beneficial. That's > me and my accumulations. Who would have said 10 years ago that it was natural to listen to mp3's? No-one. They weren't around. There is of course no problem at all with listening to mp3's. But I am just using it as an example to demonstrate how what we call natural is actually selectively learned. Our "natural" behaviour is nothing more than the sum total of all our likes and dislikes. The problem for me comes in when this "naturalness" (which is nothing more than long periods of unawareness) is somehow described as being what the Buddha's teachings are all about. Sorry I won't have time to reply to the other post you wrote - the > week long holiday is over and I'll be back to less frequent posting - > probably. No worries, Phil. Thanks for your posts and the opportunity to consider them. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58907 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri May 5, 2006 5:03pm Subject: Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... What lies dormant? buddhatrue Hi Sarah (and Tep), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > S: It is a good question. I was trying to avoid using the Pali term > 'anusaya' (latent tendency/proclivity/dormant disposition) which is > derived from the word 'anusayati' which means 'to lie dormant'. Okay, this is turning into something of a semantic argument, which is unfortunate because that will draw attention away from the original discussion. To get back to that, let's recap: You stated that satipatthana which arises "naturally" is better than satipatthana which is planned because the former doesn't involve the `idea of self'. I disagreed and said that the `idea of self' is not eradicated until arahanthood so it doesn't matter if satipatthana is natural or planned (actually, I believe that first satipatthana must be planned and then it will become natural). You replied that when satipatthana is natural the defilement of `idea of self' is dormant or anusaya. First, Sarah, you don't give any support that this is the case. Am I just supposed to take your word for it? Secondly, I don't think you have the correct idea of the Pali word anusaya (oh yes, I have the balls to say that! lol). As you quoted from the Vism.: The Visuddhimagga (XXII, 60) ... For it is owing to their inveteracy that they are called inherent tendencies (anusaya) since they inhere (anusenti) as cause for the arising of greed for sense desires, etc., again and again." This description points to the fact that anusaya should be translated as `inherent'-- not dormant or latent. Inherent means that they will arise with every single citta until they are eradicated. We should never fool ourselves into thinking that the defilements are dormant or latent at anytime, they are INHERENT. As worldlings, we are evil and ignorant and, short of nibbana, there is absolutely nothing we can do about that! It doesn't matter if satipatthana is done naturally or is a planned activity; we are still evil and ignorant when it occurs. Metta, James 58908 From: "crystal_rainbowlight" Date: Thu May 4, 2006 8:02am Subject: Hello crystal_rain... Dear dhammastudygroup participants, First I would like to say Hello and send you all a :). The group-acceptance email that is sent out suggests that it might be good to introduce ourselves to the group and to share just a little about ourselves, our interest in Buddhism, and how we found our way here. I am 42yrs.old, female living in the state of New York, U.S.A Recently after one thing leading to another I found myself reading tid- bits about buddhism. I Recognize in the little I have read that these teachings and developments would not only be practical for me, but a MUST, and so I would prefer to do a lot of listening until I develope some sort of coherent question/statement. The name of the group is what encouraged me to check this group out. Suggestions are welcomed :) Peace 58909 From: "icarofranca" Date: Fri May 5, 2006 6:12pm Subject: Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... What lies dormant? icarofranca Hi James! Respectfully butting in so glorious theme! --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Okay, this is turning into something of a semantic argument, which > is unfortunate because that will draw attention away from the > original discussion. To get back to that, let's recap: You stated > that satipatthana which arises "naturally" is better than > satipatthana which is planned because the former doesn't involve > the `idea of self'. I disagreed and said that the `idea of self' is > not eradicated until arahanthood so it doesn't matter if > satipatthana is natural or planned (actually, I believe that first > satipatthana must be planned and then it will become natural). You > replied that when satipatthana is natural the defilement of `idea of > self' is dormant or anusaya. --------------------------------------------------------------------- I am reading the Satipatthana Sutta nowadays. It seems to me that the practice results have a good end in all cases ( I will try to quote it by memory): after seven years, or seven months or seven days Icarvs, that fearless mindfulness practicioner what doesn´t fear the evil in the six directions, after a diligent effort to put aside his clinging to the world, sitting in Pallanka and paying full attention in your breath in the four basis: body, feeling, mind and phenomena, he reaches two possible results: or a full, total knowledge of here and now or, if there any mundane residue, the Non- returning level. Icarvs has dedication, devotion, but he is a lame duck in mindfullness dealings, so Icarvs reaches the Non-returning Level. The fact about Satipatthana ( if any, corrections are welcome) states that, once you put aside your self-idea you make rise Dhamma by its own means, either by "natural" or "geared" way. Even at the very beginning of the practice you are doing it, when you face the Satipatthana without any clinging to the world out there. In my Humble Opinion the Arahantship hasn´t any deal with it, because it´s a qualitative jump and no a quantitative stocking up of Mindfullness practices. Well... I am a lot talkative today, but it´s because I took an examination for the Brazillian National Cinema Agency...and I did it with a good score!!! Let us see what are the things to come!!! Mettaya for all ( well, for James too!) Ícaro 58910 From: "indriyabala" Date: Fri May 5, 2006 6:31pm Subject: Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... What lies dormant? indriyabala Hi James and Sarah - Sarah, I posted a message several hours ago to reply to your post (#58897). But it has not showed up yet. So let me assume that it was lost. This new message replies to both #58897 and James' message (#58907). James, you are talented in expressing the main ideas so clearly. >James (replying to Sarah): > You stated that satipatthana which arises "naturally" is better than satipatthana which is planned because the former doesn't involve the `idea of self'. I disagreed and said that the `idea of self' is not eradicated until arahanthood so it doesn't matter if satipatthana is natural or planned (actually, I believe that first satipatthana must be planned and then it will become natural). You replied that when satipatthana is natural the defilement of `idea of self' is dormant or anusaya. Tep: The obsession with the idea of a lurking 'self-demon' is a foolish fear that is caused by a wrong view. It is the fear that the demon may jump out and interfere with the satipatthana practice or even the restraint of the senses (indriya-samvara), or even the strict following of the training rules(dhamma-vinaya) by the exceptional Buddhist monks like Mahasi Sayadaw, Ledi Sayadaw, and the Thai Forest monks. We know that the first kind of the 'idea of self' (involving the 20 identity views) is destroyed in the Sotapanna and the higher-level, the conceit (I am, maana), is eradicated only by the Arahant. So what can the worldlings do to avoid (or outsmart) the self demon, while they are not Sotapanna yet? Can you tell us, Sarah? In my view, a right answer is given by James, i.e. "first satipatthana must be planned and then it will become natural". Personally, I like the word "trained" better than "planned". ..................................... >James: >... anusaya should be translated as `inherent'-- not dormant or latent. Inherent means that they will arise with every single citta until they are eradicated. We should never fool ourselves into thinking that the defilements are dormant or latent at anytime, they are INHERENT. Tep: Sarah may say that is what James thinks, and she prefers the "ancient commentaries". But are all ancient commentaries 100% accurate? What evidence can we find that proves or disproves James' point? ATI Glossary : Kilesa (defilements — passion (lobha), aversion (dosa), and delusion (moha) — in their various forms). See also Anger; Asava; Avijja (ignorance); Nivarana (hindrances). Vis.M. XXII, 49, 65: "There are 10 defilements, thus called because they are themselves defiled, and because they defile the mental factors associated with them. They are: greed (lobha),hate (dosa), delusion (moha), conceit (maana),speculative views (ditthi), skeptical doubt (vicikicchaa), mental torpor (thiina), restlessness (uddhacca), shamelessness (ahirika), lack of moral dread or unconscientiousness (anottappa)." Anusaya : the 7 'proclivities', inclinations, or tendencies are: sensuous greed (kaama-raaga), grudge (patigha), speculative opinion (ditthi), sceptical doubt (vicikicchaa), conceit (maana), craving for continued existence (bhavaraaga), ignorance (avijjaa) (D.33; A.VII.11-12). [From Nyanatiloka Dictionsry] So James was right since the asava is also a kind of defilements. If asava is dormant, then passion, aversion, and delusion must also be dormant. ............. >Sarah (#58897): >For example, In the sutta we read: "If, bhikkhus, one does not intend, and one does not plan, but one still has a tendency towards something, this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness........Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering." >"Spk (commentary): .... As long as the underlying tendencies exist, they become a condition for the kammic consciousness, for there is no way to prevent its arising." Tep: Can the "tendency toward something" be just a characteristic of the mind, say inclination and volition? MN 19 does not use the term "tendency" to describe the same process. MN 19: "Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that becomes the inclination of his awareness. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with sensuality, abandoning thinking imbued with renunciation, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with sensuality. (Similarly with thinking imbued with ill will & harmfulness.) [endquote] Warm regards, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Sarah (and Tep), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott > wrote: > > S: It is a good question. I was trying to avoid using the Pali term > > 'anusaya' (latent tendency/proclivity/dormant disposition) which is > > derived from the word 'anusayati' which means 'to lie dormant'. > (snipped) 58911 From: "indriyabala" Date: Fri May 5, 2006 6:46pm Subject: Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... What lies dormant? Itching badly .. indriyabala Hi Ícaro, Respectfully butting in because of a mental itching caused by your "humble opinion". Please help scratch away my itches. Thanks. >Ícaro: >Even at the very beginning of the practice you are doing it, when you face the Satipatthana without any clinging to the world out there. Tep: You must be at least a Stream-winner to do that. Please prove me wrong. .......... >Ícaro: >In my Humble Opinion the Arahantship hasn´t any deal with it, because it´s a qualitative jump and no a quantitative stocking up of Mindfullness practices. Tep: Where does the Arahantship start, bypassing satipatthana practices? Sincerely, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "icarofranca" wrote: > > Hi James! > > Respectfully butting in so glorious theme! > > (snipped) > > I am reading the Satipatthana Sutta nowadays. It seems to me that > the practice results have a good end in all cases ( I will try to > quote it by memory): after seven years, or seven months or seven > days Icarvs, that fearless mindfulness practicioner what doesn´t > fear the evil in the six directions, after a diligent effort to put > aside his clinging to the world, sitting in Pallanka and paying full > attention in your breath in the four basis: body, feeling, mind and > phenomena, he reaches two possible results: or a full, total > knowledge of here and now or, if there any mundane residue, the Non- > returning level. Icarvs has dedication, devotion, but he is a lame > duck in mindfullness dealings, so Icarvs reaches the Non-returning > Level. > The fact about Satipatthana ( if any, corrections are welcome) > states that, once you put aside your self-idea you make rise Dhamma > by its own means, either by "natural" or "geared" way. Even at the > very beginning of the practice you are doing it, when you face the > Satipatthana without any clinging to the world out there. In my > Humble Opinion the Arahantship hasn´t any deal with it, because it´s > a qualitative jump and no a quantitative stocking up of Mindfullness > practices. > (snipped) 58912 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri May 5, 2006 9:06pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana scottduncan2 Dear Herman, I appreciate your patience. H: "Thanks for your post. Rest assured I am not timing how long it takes to reply to posts, if at all :-) Whenever is good for you, is fine with me." Your interest in the below mentioned comparison: "I would certainly be interested in further discussing similarities/differences between Abhidhamma and Freud, and I would value your insights, and the insights of others. The reason I am including the moderators in this post is that I would prefer to have their permission for such a discussion before we get pulled up down the track. (I don't know if you are interested, but I'm hoping you would be." is most worthwhile. It puts me in a bit of dilemma, I'm afraid. While I don't wish at all to be rude, nor to possibly sour our burgeoning connection here, I'm afraid that, while interesting, I've rather had it "to here" with Freud and his successors. I would like to respectfully pass on this invitation. I'd prefer to learn and discuss Dhamma and I'm sorry if I sound like some sort of curmudgeon. I've read many of your posts and see that you can more than hold your own. What I'd prefer is to meet you again, and when I can, and join with you in discussing some Dhamma point or other. Is this alright with you? Please accept my apologies for declining your more than kind invitation. I will try to jump in when I can with you and the others. Sincerely, Scott. 58913 From: "Paul Grabianowski" Date: Fri May 5, 2006 9:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.1 difficulty of understanding visible object paulgrabiano... Hi Phil, You Wrote: I find again and again how little understanding there is of visible > object. I read in ADL that visible object (or sound, or smell etc) is > never separate from the 4 great rupas, as well as 3 other rupas. That > is quite unfathomable to my undeveloped understanding. > > What I take to be visible object is just a conceptual construct, > thinking in a flash about colour. There is no direct understanding of > visible object yet. That's ok, can't be had by wanting to have it. P: My understanding is that the four great rupas are necessary conditions for both the sensitivity of the eye (what we call the physical eye) and for the visible object. The rupas that you mention are supports for the eye base. Citta cannot know visible object without the condition of rupa. This does not mean, however, that what citta experiences is those four rupas (earth, wind, fire, water) simultaneously as rupas. The citta that is seeing does not directly experience the hardness of an object, for example. There may later be a concept that the object (a book for instance) is hard, but seeing consciousness does not accomplish this. What is experienced through the eye-door is a visible datum (conceptually we surmise this to be a real irreducible occurrence the 4 great rupas), which, as far as seeing is concerned is color. Color is what is experienced, and this is not a concept; it is an irreducible mental phenomena that can be known as it is. Try shining a light directly upon an object that you are looking at; what is experienced when we look at different gradations of light upon the object is merely changes in the quality and intensity of color. The mind is conditioned to quickly resolve all kinds of intensities and color differences into concepts that represent conventional objects. By doing this, however, we quickly forget that all there is is consciousness of this color or that intensity of color. Even depth perception (the separation of one object from another in the spatial field), if investigated closely, appears as only a succession of citta and is distinct from seeing consciousness. Thus, after eye consciousness (seeing) takes place there is a succession of cittas that set up the visible object (its color) to be taken up and surmised. Keep in mind that the visible datum that comes into the eyes focus is without cognitive distinction, so the succeeding mind states that complete the function of seeing are mind-elements of which we have no control. This sense door process ends with impulsion when the mind fully takes up the object. It is here where the mind is fully set to resolve the visible datum (or datum from the other senses) into a concept. It is also here where our understanding of the Dhamma can help us see the process through which concepts are formed and keep us from seeing things as they are. Take the objects in a single visible field (what you are looking at right at this moment). The mind is unaware of the separateness of objects (their distinctness) until the mind attends to them. However, this entails a succession of cittas which resolve those objects conceptually in their particular relations. Look slightly to the right, to the left. The mind is constantly distinguishing things. The first part of this process is beyond our control. Look even more closely at the wrinkles on your knuckles, the mind is constantly distinguishing their intricate contours, resolving them into concepts. Note also: Though we "see" only color, this is not to say that the gradations of color does not bring to the mind interesting clues to the spatial locations of objects from which the mind resolves its distinctions. Upon closer investigation, we will realize that even the consciousness of the intensity of light is really just a variation in color. So that no matter how much light is reflected upon an object, the only thing that the mind is directly conscious of with each successive citta is the experience of color. Picture an apple under a tree which we experience as a particular shade of red because the sun casts its beam directly or upon it, or picture that consciousness experiences that same apple as a slightly different shade of red because the sun is above the tree and does not directly cast its beam upon the apple. It is, by way of dependent arising, conventionally the same apple in each successive moment that is experienced (it is composed of the same 4 great rupas which touch could verify), but seeing consciousness experiences only gradations of color that arise and fall away with each succeeding citta conscious of visible object. In the end, one should also be careful attributing qualities to color beyond its immediate function of bringing visible datum before the eye consciousness. There are many other mind processes happening right now that determine the everyday distinctions we attribute to rupa. And none of this would be possible without the 4 great rupas and their secondary factors as support for the eye; that is mind boggling, yet remarkably sane in its own way. I'm sorry this turned out to be so long. Paul 58914 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri May 5, 2006 9:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Do mind objects have an intrinsic nature? lbidd2 Fabrizio: "As a matter of fact what we call memory falls in two groups in the teaching of the Buddha. One is Sati that may be considered as the strike of a stick over a gong, and the other is Sankhara that may considered as the sound being produced for some time after the gong has been stricken. " Hi Fabrizio, Thanks for your reply. I'm not familiar with this simile; could you site a source? I could only find two cases of sticks striking gongs: one having to do with vitakka and vicara, and the other an illustration of how the breath becomes more and more subtle in anapanasati. In terms of cetasikas, I usually rely on sa~n~naa to explain a good part of memory, rather than sati. It is true that sati remembers, but sati only arises with kusala cittas. I guess we could say rememboring is always kusala. That's certainly an interesting idea. Regarding sankhara khandha as memory is also an interesting issue. I believe this idea comes from the definition of the function of volition (cetana): "Its function is to accumulate" (Vism.XIV,135). According to the commentary 'accumulate' means to 'add together'. Presumably this refers to the accumulation of kamma before it comes to fruition in kamma vipaka. It could also refer to the creation of a habit. Similar accumulations create a path. I don't think abhidhamma discusses habits, per se, but it does discuss latent unwholesome tendencies (anusaya). Anusaya are said to condition unwholesome javana cittas. How does this happen? My first thought is 'greed conditions greed as object and javana citta', but I don't know if that explains what a tendency (anusaya) is. Also, it's still unclear what the function of registration citta is. You seemed to suggest it is a link to a subsequent citta process which would clarify the object. Is that correct? Larry 58915 From: "Joop" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 0:07am Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition jwromeijn Hallo Sukin It's a week or so ago that you send your message #58763, time goed fast at DSG, I miss more and more messages, DSG is hardly a priority in my life now. I try to answer your questions and remark but I'm not sure I will asnwer again. S: I am not sure exactly what you are asking. And I have not bothered to search for and read your discussion with Jon. And since Right Livelihood is about such livelihood that is in keeping with the Five Precepts, hence Sila, I will try to keep the discussion simple by focusing on that level. J: Formally (as far as I know) 'Right Livelihood' is not one of the Five Preceps but one of the aspectys of the Noble Eightfold Path. And my discussion with Jon was the Path is also about behavior, not only 'path-moments' inside somebody S: Are you saying that because the outward manifestation of sila through speech and body is perceived by others and therefore effect them, that we should consider not only whether the citta is kusala or not, but also under certain circumstances, outward actions? J: It's more that sila (to me: behaving in a ethical way) also has to do by feeling responsible to other beings. S: Also is this by any chance related to your theory about `social citta'? J: I understand this theory is popular already, Connie mentioned it also. But here I was thinking more simple, just about resonsible in my behavior to other beings. And, in that way you are right. As a part of my idea that the social dimension of Theravada had to be strengthened. S: …. There is really no need for a social citta! J: That not the question, the question is: does a social citta exist, does 'intuition' exist? I think it does. S: You also say elsewhere, that you feel more and more inclined to the Mahayana perspective, is this because the Theravada seems limited to you since it advise little in terms of behavior towards other beings? Do you therefore see this as straying towards being self- centered or even selfish? J: This is a sincere question. The answer is yes but the self- centredness of Theravada isnot the main reason of felling more and more at home with Mahayana texts, because I can simply add a social dimension to Theravada. Many aspects of Theravada are still extreme important to me, some aspect don't resonate in me, for example the kusala-akusala dichotomy There are many things of Mahayana I don't like: the anti- intellectualism of Zen, the magic of Tibetan, but especially the voidness-philosophy hit me deeply. So thanks for your reaction, it was partly to the point and for the part is was not, the main reason was my vague way of stating things. Metta Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sukinder" wrote: > > Hi Joop, > > > Long time no write. Thanks for responding. I got a little busy and couldn't > respond more promptly. > > You wrote: > ------------------------------------------- > > That reminds me of a discussion I had with Jon some months ago about > > one aspect of the Noble Eightfold Path, and thus of sila: right > > livelihood. > > I stated that "right livelihood" is an example of ethical behavior. > > Sila (see translation below; especially the word 'manifested') has two > > aspects: the inner one (kusala - akusala) and the interpersonal one, > > said in another way: the factual behavior and the intention behind > > that behavioral act. > > I'm afraid you do (like Jon did) forget the behavioral aspect of sila. > > > From Nyatiloka's Dictionary: > > síla: 'morality', 'virtue', is a mode of mind and volition (cetana, > > q.v.) manifested in speech or bodily action (s. karma). It is the > > foundation of the whole Buddhist practice, and therewith the first of > > the 3 kinds of training (sikkhá, q.v.) that form the 3-fold division > > of the 8-fold Path (s. magga), i.e. morality, concentration and > > wisdom. > > > S: > I am not sure exactly what you are asking. And I have not bothered to search > for and read your discussion with Jon. And since Right Livelihood is about > such livelihood that is in keeping with the Five Precepts, hence Sila, I > will try to keep the discussion simple by focusing on that level. > > Are you saying that because the outward manifestation of sila through speech > and body is perceived by others and therefore effect them, that we should > consider not only whether the citta is kusala or not, but also under certain > circumstances, outward actions? Also is this by any chance related to your > theory about `social citta'? ;-) Assuming that one or both of these is the > reason, I give some comments below. > > I think there is only this citta arising one at a time, some of which is > involved in "thinking". Any time the `other' becomes the object of citta, it > is only by way of thought. With other people as the object of citta, > sometimes there is akusala cittas with greed, aversion, conceit, envy, > stinginess etc. or there is kusala, with non-greed, non-aversion, > generosity, friendliness, compassion, sympathetic joy etc. No need I think, > anywhere to posit any kind of citta which supposedly interacts with the > other's citta. > > You also brought up the fact about certain instinctive behavior of animals > as evidence of the presence of cittas interacting with cittas of others, am > I right? The way I like to think about this is that all this is due to the > speed of cittas and conditioned > behavior of picking up cues from the environment. It just seems to us, > because we don't perceive those same signals that it must happen somehow on > the level of consciousness, invisible to the senses. > > Besides, the different states of mind constituting on one side the > unwholesome and on the other the wholesome which I gave above, these have > *concepts* of `beings' as object and it is a matter of regular arising of > the one while less of the other, that the end result, which being, a good > social behavior, comes about. There is really no need for a social citta! > > Now you may not have this in mind at all, but here you simply think that one > should and must consider from the standpoint of `beings' as a conventional > reality. You also say elsewhere, that you feel more and more inclined to the > Mahayana perspective, is this because the Theravada seems limited to you > since it advise little in terms of behavior towards other beings? Do you > therefore see this as straying towards being self-centered or even selfish? > > I appreciate that you have the accumulations to think about other people as > much as you do. But this is a personal inclination and should not be taken > as determining where the stress should be made in terms of developing > wholesome qualities such as sila and the Brahmavihaaras. I don't think that > kusala is developed by any decision to be good to others. Such thoughts may > be conditioned to arise, but they are just that, `a thought'. Kusala is > developed only with panna either of Samatha or vipassana. > > Take the example of radiating Metta. Most people think that the more they > think about other people and the more people they think about, that this > will condition more metta. But they forget to think of the reverse, i.e. > that the more metta there is, the greater will be the number of people > affected. So isn't it in fact all about one's own citta? Also consider the > Paramis, there is Dana, Sila and Metta as Paramis. All Paramis are developed > only with panna. > > I think I may not have answered you satisfactorily. If so, please give me > some more leads. > > Metta, > > Sukinder > 58916 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 6, 2006 0:17am Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 437- mindfulness/sati (s) 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) Right mindfulness is one of the factors of the eightfold Path. It is “emancipating”; the factors of the eightfold Path lead to freedom from defilements. Mindfulness is also one of the enlightenment factors (bojjhangas). The other factors are: investigation of Dhamma (dhamma vicaya), energy, enthusiasm (píti), tranquillity (passaddhi), concentration and equanimity. One may wonder how, in the development of insight, the faculty of mindfulness, the power of mindfulness, the Path factor right mindfulness and the enlightenment factor of mindfulness can be developed. The answer is: through mindfulness of the nåma and rúpa which appears right now. There is no other way. Sights, sounds, scents, flavours and tangible objects are most of the time objects of attachment, aversion and ignorance. If mindfulness arises and right understanding of the object is being developed, one is at that moment not enslaved to the object nor disturbed by it. If we understand that mindfulness of realities can eventually have an immediate effect on our daily life, we will have more courage to develop it at this moment. ***** (Ch26 - mindfulness/sati to be contd) Metta, Sarah ====== 58917 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 6, 2006 0:33am Subject: Yahoo glitches sarahprocter... Hi Tep, Fabrizio & all, As far as I can tell, everything is working normally again now. --- indriyabala wrote: > Sarah, I posted a message several hours ago to reply to your post > (#58897). But it has not showed up yet. So let me assume that it was > lost. .... S: Thanks for doing this. Jon also mentioned that a post he sent several hours ago also did not show up on the list. So I suggest that if anyone sent any during the 'glitch-time' which didn't appear, that they re-send them like Tep now. Thx for reminding us again to automatically keep copies! A friend mentioned that there's also been the same glitch on other yahoo lists. I also noticed a post Chris sent yesterday, addressed to Fabrizio and I, showed up as usual on the DSG website, but never arrived in either my yahoo or gmail in-box. Jon said he didn't get it either in his netvigator in-box. Fabrizio, see: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/58861 There may be others like this. So if you rely on incoming mail, it may be a good idea to take a quick look through the posts on the website for the glitch period. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/ (Jon's just telling me of some others, like one of Eric's to him which didn't show up in his in-box.) Metta, Sarah ======== 58918 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 6, 2006 1:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... What lies dormant? sarahprocter... Hi James (& Tep), --- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Sarah (and Tep), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott > wrote: > > S: It is a good question. I was trying to avoid using the Pali term > > 'anusaya' (latent tendency/proclivity/dormant disposition) which is > > derived from the word 'anusayati' which means 'to lie dormant'. > > Okay, this is turning into something of a semantic argument, which > is unfortunate because that will draw attention away from the > original discussion. .... S: I agree. I was just explaining that I had 'anusaya' in mind, but gave a standard translation in order to avoid using the Pali with you:-). I agree 'lie dormant' can well be misleading. Reminds me of Dan's pointing out how misleading 'skilful' for kusala can be. ... >To get back to that, let's recap: You stated > that satipatthana which arises "naturally" is better than > satipatthana which is planned because the former doesn't involve > the `idea of self'. I disagreed and said that the `idea of self' is > not eradicated until arahanthood so it doesn't matter if > satipatthana is natural or planned (actually, I believe that first > satipatthana must be planned and then it will become natural). You > replied that when satipatthana is natural the defilement of `idea of > self' is dormant or anusaya. .... S: Ok!! .... > First, Sarah, you don't give any support that this is the case. Am > I just supposed to take your word for it? .... S: I thought you were going to respond and say I gave too much textual support:-))I even tried to include a sutta passage for Tep's benefit as he prefers this. And in case, those references were not enough, I directed you both to a couple of dozen posts on the anusayas in U.P.:-)) Seriously, tell me exactly what kind of further support you want and I'll give it to you. ... >Secondly, I don't think > you have the correct idea of the Pali word anusaya (oh yes, I have > the balls to say that! lol). As you quoted from the Vism.: > > The Visuddhimagga (XXII, 60) > ... For it is owing to their inveteracy that they are called > inherent tendencies (anusaya) since they inhere (anusenti) as cause > for the arising of greed for sense desires, etc., again and again." > > This description points to the fact that anusaya should be > translated as `inherent'-- not dormant or latent. .... S: I'm very happy to use 'inherent' and usually do. Like you, I'm not keen on 'dormant', but I think it's important to stress that at moments of kusala, the defilements are not eradicated, but not arising either. In this sense, they are 'sleeping', but sleeping or dormant shouldn't be taken literally. I think any of the terms are commonly misunderstood because the anusayas are not so simple to understand. .... >Inherent means > that they will arise with every single citta until they are > eradicated. .... S: To be a little more precise, they 'inhere' to every citta, but they only arise or are only apparent with particular cittas. At a moment of seeing consciousness, there is no arising of lobha, dosa or moha, but these defilements 'inhere' to the cittas, ready to condition the arising of further defilements when the time is right. I know this will sound like another semantic argument, but it's not intended that way. As I said initially, there's a difference between saying the idea of self arises at every moment, even with awareness, and saying that the latent tendency is there, even at moment of awareness. ... >We should never fool ourselves into thinking that the > defilements are dormant or latent at anytime, they are INHERENT. As > worldlings, we are evil and ignorant and, short of nibbana, there is > absolutely nothing we can do about that! It doesn't matter if > satipatthana is done naturally or is a planned activity; we are > still evil and ignorant when it occurs. .... S: I would say, one moment evil and ignorant and the next moment wise. Like two different people. And this is the meaning of carita or character as I understand it - different characters changing all the time. BUT, the tendency to each is always there and it will depend on many factors as to which character shows up at anytime. Thanks to both you and Tep for your good feedback. I don't think we are so far apart, but it may be a little more than a question of semantics. Metta, Sarah ======= 58919 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 6, 2006 1:18am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition sarahprocter... Hi Sukin & Joop, I thought Sukin expressed his comments very well. I haven't read your response yet, Joop, but I think this is a good and important discussion, so please keep it going:-). --- sukinder wrote: > I think there is only this citta arising one at a time, some of which is > involved in “thinking”. Any time the ‘other’ becomes the object of > citta, it > is only by way of thought. With other people as the object of citta, > sometimes there is akusala cittas with greed, aversion, conceit, envy, > stinginess etc. or there is kusala, with non-greed, non-aversion, > generosity, friendliness, compassion, sympathetic joy etc. No need I > think, > anywhere to posit any kind of citta which supposedly interacts with the > other’s citta. ..... Sar: This is how I see it too of course. It's interesting that some of us tend to think a lot about other people while others think more about other objects. I don't think we can generalise and say there is more kusala in either case. ... > Take the example of radiating Metta. Most people think that the more > they > think about other people and the more people they think about, that this > will condition more metta. .... S: Yes, often it just conditions more attachment and aversion instead! Some of the installments from "Metta' that Nina has been posting recently have been interesting. People think that they can extend metta to all beings, including devas, but this is not so. Anyway, I'm not really meaning to butt in, only to encourage you all to continue to give us food for reflection. Metta, Sarah ======== 58920 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 6, 2006 1:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Channa's parinibbana sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi all, > > Some considerations about MN144. (I am not depressed, by the way :-)) .... S: Thx for telling us so from the outset:-))Otherwise, you might have had us on the phone interrupting the graduation:-). .... > Channa, deadly ill, had no misconceptions about self. .... S: When he fell ill, lay ill, took the knife or just before he died? Many thought processes involved. .... >And there was the > knowledge that what remains is the body reacting to life itself, > unbearably > so in his case. And there was the knowledge that taking a knife to > himself > would be the end of that pain and that life. Channa took his life, > without > wanting it replaced with another. He did so faultlessly. .... S: Again, different thought processes. When he stabbed himself, it was not faultless, but afterwards before he died it was. (See posts under 'Suicide' where the commentary details are given or BB's note to the sutta). .... > It seems from this that knowledge of undesirability, wanting things to > be > different, has no necessary connection with self-view, and that > intentional > action in accordance with what is known in an effort to reach a goal can > be > faultless. .... S: Knowledge of undesirability and aversion to suffering are quite different. One is with calm and wisdom, the other with aversion. Wanting things to be different is with attachment which conditions more aversion in turn. It may or may not be connected with self-view. If there is the illusion that ending this life will relieve suffering for good, then there's wrong view. Taking one's life can never be faultless as I see it. In Channa's case, there was the 'faulty' deed, but whilst dying, he attained to the various degrees of insight and became an arahant before passing away. it's a very good example of how anything can happen if there are the right causes and the tendencies for such knowledge are there. Metta, Sarah ====== 58921 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 6, 2006 1:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] re: conditions, God willing ... Ignorance sarahprocter... Oh Connie, --- connie wrote: > from Pitaka Disclosure > 404. Herein, what is the condition-in-remote-relation? Ignorance is > name-and-form's condition-in-remote-relation, while consciousness is its > > condition through conditionality-in-immediate-proximity; if there is > cessation of ignorance in the beginning, there is also cessation of > name-and-form. Herein, why immediate succession? [Because] the > condition-in-remote-relation is procured through the > condition-in-immediate proximity. This is as to condition. .... Ai ahhh.....and that was just one of 27.... How about one or two or three paras at a time with some Pali inserts and a Connster comment or two to help us along the way or a comment to show if it's linked to any other thread to help our ignorance?? How about a series along these lines? Loved the one on listening and considering more....when I find it again, I'm going to re-quote from it to some lucky person here:-)). Thanks anyway. I don't have this text, so it's very interesting. Like with the Patisambhidamagga, it really needs a Pali key handy, however... Enjoying your tap-dance with Tepster and others....you alone manage to speak everyone's languages:-) Metta, Sarah ======= 58922 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 6, 2006 1:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Reflection on hospital visits sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- Herman Hofman wrote: > It occured to me, with the story of Channa (MN144) in mind, that the > teachings of the Buddha can help alleviate and prevent mental suffering, > but > physical pain must be endured. .... S: Yes1 .... >On the other hand, those who have studied > the > body and know how it works can prescribe treatment for physical pain, > but > mental pain must be endured. .... S: Yes!! ... >There is need for relief of both mental and > bodily suffering, methinks. .... S: Yes!!! Metta, Sarah ======= 58923 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 6, 2006 2:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello sarahprocter... Dear Crystal(??), --- crystal_rainbowlight wrote: > I am 42yrs.old, female living in the state of New York, U.S.A > > Recently after one thing leading to another I found myself reading > tid- > bits about buddhism. I Recognize in the little I have read that these > teachings and developments would not only be practical for me, but a > MUST, and so I would prefer to do a lot of listening until I develope > some > sort of coherent question/statement. .... S:Thanks so much for telling us you're here. We have a few members from N.Y., including Howard. Many of our questions and statements are not particularly coherent, so no need to wait til they are:-)). ... > > The name of the group is what encouraged me to check this group out. > > Suggestions are welcomed :) .... S: Thanks for mentioning this. Suggestions: 1. Read and follow what you can and skip posts which seem too technical or detailed for now. 2. Ask questions and start your own threads. I think it helps to be involved. Anything you ask will be relevant for others out there too. 3. Go to the files section of DSG and scroll down to 'Useful Posts'. Click there on post numbers saved under: a) New to the list and new to Dhamma, b) Abhidhamma - beginners, c) anything else of special interest. 4. Ask us to clarify anything anytime in simple English. It helps us all. you may also wish to print out a simple Pali glossary in the files section to have handy next to your computer. That's enough for now. Others will likely give you other suggestions:). look forward to chatting later. Metta, Sarah ======= 58924 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 6, 2006 1:52am Subject: RE: [dsg] question from new member sarahprocter... Hi Cara, Thanks for telling us more about your interesting background. --- Cara Tasher wrote: > Sorry-My question is- > Is there a name for this prayer? It was translated from the original > PALI > language, and then titled "Old Buddhist Prayer" .... S: Howard and I both pointed you to the same sutta which we believe your translation is adapted from. Howard gave you the usual name 'Karaniya Metta Sutta or Loving Kindness Sutta'. > Is there a part of the practice that this prayer is specifically in? > > Visuddhimagga perhaps? .... S: I gave one textual source in my first reply from Khuddaka Nikaya. In a note in Howard's reply, it mentions it also appears in the Sutta Nipata 1.8. If you google for 'Keraniya Metta Sutta', you can check this, I expect. Or I can check in my books if you'd like. Please let us know if there is anything else. Metta, Sarah ======== 58925 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 2:07am Subject: Re: Sex ... What About Renunciation ? sarahprocter... Hi John & Tep, This thread is another one that didn't make it to my in box!! John, welcome to the list. Why not share a little more about your interest in the Buddha's teachings and tell us where you live. Tep, you gave an excellent reply. Thanks!! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: J:> > If we focus on our thoughts on sex, the cause of it will be that we > > will become sex-obssessed, thinking only about sex, and not thinking > > about the personality of the person with whom we are in a > > relationship. .... Tep:> An alternative > suggestion is to turn the mind to the opposite : renunciation. > > "Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that > becomes the inclination of his awareness. If a monk keeps pursuing > thinking imbued with sensuality, abandoning thinking imbued with > renunciation, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with > sensuality. (Similarly with thinking imbued with ill will & harmfulness.) > > "Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that > becomes the inclination of his awareness. If a monk keeps pursuing > thinking imbued with renunciation, abandoning thinking imbued with > sensuality, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with > renunciation. (Similarly with thinking imbued with non-ill will & > harmlessness.) [MN 19] .... Metta, Sarah ======== 58926 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 6, 2006 4:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Please don't run away yet, DAN 1.ii sarahprocter... Hi Dan, --- "Dan D." wrote: > No straw man, and no arguments. I just wanted to give you another > opportunity to say again: "It's the citta that counts…", which is > music to my ears. Sometimes it seems like you rush out like junkyard > dog after meditators and get all cuddly with bookworms. I know that > inside you are really a cuddly junkyard dog with everyone… ..... S::-)). Some say I'm too cuddly with the meditators too:-)). I think KenH made a good point on this. I also think Connie gave a great quote in this post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/58850 "The Pitaka Disclosure begins: <...> 2. There are two causes, two conditions, for the arising of a hearer's right view: they are another's utterance sequential upon truth, and reasoned attention in oneself (cf. A.i,87). 3. Herein, what is < another's utterance >? It is any teaching, advice,instruction, talk about truth, in conformity with truth, from another. The Truths are four: they are Suffering, Origin, Cessation, and the Path. Any teaching, showing, divulging, analysing, exhibiting, displaying (cf. M.iii,248) these four Truths is called another's utterance in conformity with truth. 4. Herein, what is < reasoned attention in oneself >? What is called reasoned attention in oneself is any reasoned attention given to the True Idea as taught, without adducing any external object; this is called reasoned attention. That mood, when reasoned, is a doorway, a directive, a means (?)". ..... S: Anyway, it's true that wrong effort and the rest can arise during any activity. I just address (directly or indirectly)what I see or sniff out, rightly or wrongly....:-). .... > > S: Firstly, there are worldlings and worldlings. For those who > have/had > > developed higher insights, the sacca nana is/was so firm, there was > no > > doubt or misapprehension about the 4NT, even though nibbana has not > yet > > been realised. > > Eradication of doubt and wrong view BEFORE stream entry?! This is one > I haven't heard yet. Where are you pulling this from? .... S: Not eradicated, but fewer and fewer conditions for them to arise. When there's any awareness at all, of course no doubt and this becomes more and more established. .... > > S: No, we don't know what it means, but it can still be considered > with > > kusala cittas and at such times, it cannot be said to be incorrect > or > > wrong in any sense. If we mistake such reflection for any kind of > > realisation, that would be wrong. I agree that it's pretty useless > to > > think much at all about nibbana. > > Baloney! If I have an incorrect idea about nibbana, it is still > incorrect even if I have kusala citta when I discuss it. ..... S: If you reflect on nibbana as the unconditioned element with kusala cittas, it's not incorrect, even though it's only thinking about a concept of nibbana. ..... > I was not telling you anything about kusala/akusala cittas; I was > telling you about correct/incorrect (right/wrong, > accurate/inaccurate) concepts. My concepts about nibbana are wrong > and will always be until that day when I experience it. .... S: What about the concept you have now about visible object or sound or any other dhamma? If it's right reflection, it's not incorrect just because there's no direct awareness of the reality right now. What about wise reflection about sanna or phassa or other mental factors? As Connie's quote shows, hearing about dhammas and wisely reflection are conditions for understanding to develop. Recently in the 'Cetasikas' thread, we read about how the proximate cause of satipatthana is a) sanna marking and remembering correctly and b) the objects of satipatthana - the four foundations. .... > > S: Definitely there would not be direct understanding of it. > Whether your > > comments, thoughts and words were wrong or not would depend on the > view > > behind them. > > No. I can say "2+2=5" with kusala cittas, but I'd still be wrong. .... S: That's true. But I was thinking more along the lines of making comments on dhammas, such as using words found in the suttas about right effort, latent tendencies, skilful states and so on:-). .... >The difference > > between pariyatti and patipatti is that pariyatti has concepts as > object - > > right reflection with understanding about dhammas. Patipatti is > > satipatthana - right understanding of dhammas themselves as objects. > > There is something about this that just doesn't add up. I'll have to > come back to it when I'm not falling off my chair with sleepiness. .... S: Look forward to it when you're awake sometime. Of course, they work together as you often stress -- the one reinforcing the other. .... > Sarah, you seem pretty adamant that it is wrong to think of cetasikas > as characteristics of cittas, but, really, I don't see it. If you > want me to give up on trying to understand, that's fine. I will > continue to think of them thusly. .... S: hey Dan, of course I don't want you to 'give up trying to understand' anything. I'm just running out of different ways to express how I see it. Cittas and cetasikas are different kinds of dhammas with different characteristics. Seeing consciousness does not have the characteristic of feeling or contact or perception or concentration or life faculty or volition! It just has the characteristic of seeing. It's the dhamma which 'leads' the accompanying mental factors in the experiencing of visible object. Let me know if there's something else behind your idea which I'm missing. I'd like to understand you. Dan, you make many references to an understanding of the Dhamma through other teachings and also to developing insight without hearing the teachings first. We've discussed this at length. Of course, if one has heard and considered even a little of the teachings wisely, one can read and consider anything with an appreciation of the Dhamma, but this is different. Do you have any difficulty with this sutta? AN, 10s, 123-7, Not Outside the Buddha's Discipline (Bodhi transl): "Ten things, monks, do not have purity and clarity outside the Discipline of the Sublime Master. What are the ten? Right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration, right knowledge and right liberation.* And if these ten things have not arisen, they will not arise outside the Discipline of the Sublime Master. Outside the Discipline of the Sublime Master, these ten things will not be of great fruit and benefit. Outside the Discipline of the Sublime Master, these ten things will not end in the elimination of greed, hatred and delusion. Outside the Discipline of the Sublime Master, these ten things will not conduce to complete disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, peace, direct knowledge, enlightenment and Nibbana." ...... * BB's footnote: "These are the eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path, augmented by their fruits, right knowledge and right liberation. The 'Sublime Master' (sugata) is the Buddha. This series of suttas should dispense with the notion that traditional Buddhist tolerance means that Buddhism regards all religions as being equally viable means to deliverance. According to the Buddha, other spiritual systems might teach wholesome practices conducive to a good rebirth, but the path to final liberation - Nibbana, release from the whole round of rebirths - is available only through his Teaching." ***** S: I know you agree with this note, Dan. Is there anything in the sutta you disagree with? Metta, Sarah p.s. I've been following the 'happiness' threads. Do you think that the development of wisdom leads to more or less happiness as we think of it conventionally, i.e pleasant feeling? ======== 58928 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 4:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana egberdina Hi Scott, Thank you for your kind note. > > ... It puts me in a bit of dilemma, I'm afraid. > While I don't wish at all to be rude, nor to possibly sour our > burgeoning connection here, I'm afraid that, while interesting, I've > rather had it "to here" with Freud and his successors. I understand. Me asking you about Freud is probably like you asking me about how to fix your computer :-) I would like to respectfully pass on this invitation. I'd prefer to > learn and discuss Dhamma and I'm sorry if I sound like some sort of > curmudgeon. I've read many of your posts and see that you can more > than hold your own. What I'd prefer is to meet you again, and when I > can, and join with you in discussing some Dhamma point or other. No worries. Is this alright with you? Please accept my apologies for declining > your more than kind invitation. I will try to jump in when I can with > you and the others. No need to apologise for your sincere reply, as I am sure you wouldn't expect me to apologise for sincerely asking the question in the first place :-) Be well, and kind regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58929 From: "icarofranca" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 4:50am Subject: Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... What lies dormant? Itching badly .. icarofranca Hi Tep! O Tepissimus Sastriusissimus! The bulwark of right concentration! The stronghold of Right Samadhi! My opinions are the humblest of all! -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tep: You must be at least a Stream-winner to do that. Please prove >me > wrong. --------------------------------------------------------------------- I will stay at the letter of the text, Tep. You must find a void on root trees or an empty hut, sitting with your legs folded and PUT YOUR MINDFULNESS BEFORE YOU - I didn´t read the Satipatthana Sutta directly in Pali, but the usual english translation is really good. In any moment the Satipatthana Sutta states that you must be Sotapanna to perform this - it doesn´t even use this word! Satipatthana Sutta is FOR ALL! --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Tep: Where does the Arahantship start, bypassing satipatthana practices? --------------------------------------------------------------------- How do you prefer? From down to upwards or from up downwards ? Could you like some special fragant oil ? Some Shantala ? Tepissimus Sastruisissimus, under my skilled hands your itching will surely disappear! Mettaya, Ícaro 58930 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 6, 2006 1:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.1 difficulty of understanding visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Paul (and Phil) - In a message dated 5/6/06 12:21:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, paulgrabianowski@... writes: > Hi Phil, > > You Wrote: I find again and again how little understanding there is of > visible > >object. I read in ADL that visible object (or sound, or smell etc) is > >never separate from the 4 great rupas, as well as 3 other rupas. That > >is quite unfathomable to my undeveloped understanding. > > > > What I take to be visible object is just a conceptual construct, > >thinking in a flash about colour. There is no direct understanding of > >visible object yet. That's ok, can't be had by wanting to have it. > > P: My understanding is that the four great rupas are necessary conditions > for both the sensitivity of the eye (what we call the physical eye) and for > the visible object. The rupas that you mention are supports for the eye > base. Citta cannot know visible object without the condition of rupa. This > > does not mean, however, that what citta experiences is those four rupas > (earth, wind, fire, water) simultaneously as rupas. The citta that is > seeing does not directly experience the hardness of an object, for example. > There may later be a concept that the object (a book for instance) is hard, > but seeing consciousness does not accomplish this. What is experienced > through the eye-door is a visible datum (conceptually we surmise this to be > a real irreducible occurrence the 4 great rupas), which, as far as seeing is > > concerned is color. Color is what is experienced, and this is not a > concept; it is an irreducible mental phenomena that can be known as it is. > > Try shining a light directly upon an object that you are looking at; what > is experienced when we look at different gradations of light upon the object > > is merely changes in the quality and intensity of color. The mind is > conditioned to quickly resolve all kinds of intensities and color > differences into concepts that represent conventional objects. By doing > this, however, we quickly forget that all there is is consciousness of this > color or that intensity of color. Even depth perception (the separation of > one object from another in the spatial field), if investigated closely, > appears as only a succession of citta and is distinct from seeing > consciousness. Thus, after eye consciousness (seeing) takes place there is > a succession of cittas that set up the visible object (its color) to be > taken up and surmised. Keep in mind that the visible datum that comes into > the eyes focus is without cognitive distinction, so the succeeding mind > states that complete the function of seeing are mind-elements of which we > have no control. This sense door process ends with impulsion when the mind > fully takes up the object. It is here where the mind is fully set to > resolve the visible datum (or datum from the other senses) into a concept. > It is also here where our understanding of the Dhamma can help us see the > process through which concepts are formed and keep us from seeing things as > they are. > > Take the objects in a single visible field (what you are looking at right at > > this moment). The mind is unaware of the separateness of objects (their > distinctness) until the mind attends to them. However, this entails a > succession of cittas which resolve those objects conceptually in their > particular relations. Look slightly to the right, to the left. The mind is > constantly distinguishing things. The first part of this process is beyond > our control. Look even more closely at the wrinkles on your knuckles, the > mind is constantly distinguishing their intricate contours, resolving them > into concepts. Note also: Though we "see" only color, this is not to say > that the gradations of color does not bring to the mind interesting clues to > > the spatial locations of objects from which the mind resolves its > distinctions. > > Upon closer investigation, we will realize that even the consciousness of > the intensity of light is really just a variation in color. So that no > matter how much light is reflected upon an object, the only thing that the > mind is directly conscious of with each successive citta is the experience > of color. Picture an apple under a tree which we experience as a particular > > shade of red because the sun casts its beam directly or upon it, or picture > that consciousness experiences that same apple as a slightly different shade > > of red because the sun is above the tree and does not directly cast its beam > > upon the apple. It is, by way of dependent arising, conventionally the same > > apple in each successive moment that is experienced (it is composed of the > same 4 great rupas which touch could verify), but seeing consciousness > experiences only gradations of color that arise and fall away with each > succeeding citta conscious of visible object. In the end, one should also > be careful attributing qualities to color beyond its immediate function of > bringing visible datum before the eye consciousness. There are many other > mind processes happening right now that determine the everyday distinctions > we attribute to rupa. And none of this would be possible without the 4 > great rupas and their secondary factors as support for the eye; that is mind > > boggling, yet remarkably sane in its own way. > > I'm sorry this turned out to be so long. > > Paul > > ========================== Paul, I find all that you said to be very good and very clear with one important exception. The main question of the relationship of the 4 great elements to, say, visible object (or field of color) remains unclear to me, and perhaps at variance with certain statements of the Buddha. All else that you speak of is in terms of direct experience (and the difference between what is directly sensed and what is mind-composed). But, in this context, the 4 great elements are not spoken of experientially. They are spoken of as unexperienced entities lying "out there" and somehow underlying, say, visual object. This is concept-only, as I see it. Recall how, in the Kalaka (or Kalakarama) Sutta, the Buddha said "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." As I read this, it is a statement in support of pure (non-dualistic) experientialism, ruling out not only a seer, a dismissal unsurprising to all Buddhists, but also an object (the "partner" to a seer), and, most relevant to the point discussed here, an unseen reality underlying what is seen as its basis or substance. [Note: I'm not dismissing solidity, liquidity, temperature, and motion as experiential realities. I recognize these as body-sense rupas, with liquidity possibly mind-sense.] 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) 58931 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 7:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bodhisattva Ideal jonoabb Hi Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Christine Forsyth" wrote: > ... > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Hello Fabrizio, Sarah, all, > > Fabrizio, > I understand that you are not referring to the standard of Sila or > the Practice of our Mahayana friends, which, over the last year I > have come to admire. But I wonder if you, or anyone else, would say > a little more ~ with Sutta references for support either way? What I haven't yet worked out is this: If there is an aspiration to be made (which I presume there is), what form would that aspiration take? ('May I not attain enlightenment!' ??) If you have any thoughts on this I'd be glad to hear them. Jon > Sarah, > :-) Thought I'd come out of lurking ~ can't let the Buddhist Blokes > up at Cooran be lulled into the false belief that I won't be on my > mettle this weekend.:-) > > I think there may be a problem with the definition of the term > Bodhisatta/Bodhisattva and how it is viewed by both traditions. > (Both esteem the Suttanta and view it with respect). This academic > article may be helpful: > > The Bodhisattva Ideal In Theravada Buddhist Theory And Practice: A > Re-evaluation Of The Bodhisattva-`Sraavaka Opposition By Jeffrey > Samuels; Philosophy East and West, Volume 47, Number 3, July 1997, > P.399-415 > > It's conclusion: > "... while the bodhisattva-yaana and the goal of buddhahood > continues to be accepted as one of three possible goals by followers > of Theravaada Buddhism, this same goal becomes viewed as the only > acceptable goal by followers of Mahaayaana Buddhism. Hence, it > should be stressed that the change introduced by the Mahaayaana > traditions is not so much an invention of a new type of saint or a > new ideology, but rather a taking of an exceptional ideal and > bringing it into prominence." > http://www.buddhistinformation.com/bodhisa...n_theravada.htm > > metta > Chris > ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- > 58932 From: connie Date: Sat May 6, 2006 7:54am Subject: Re:siila and satipa.t.thaana. .. to be directly known nichiconn Dear Tep, Sarah: p.s Tep, thx as usual for your patience with other threads. ======= connie: o my, she must mean mine! thx for the great 4nt quotes from Psm, too. Tep: The Patisambhidamagga is always one of my favorites (even though it is the toughest to chew). Here is a favorite passage from Treatise I. On Knowledge : 201. a-d. The meaning of penetration as the full understanding of ageing-and-death is to be directly known. The meaning of penetration as the abandoning of the origin of ageing-and-death is to be directly known. The meaning of penetration as the realizing of the cessation of ageing-and-death is to be directly known. The meaning of penetration as the developing of way leading to the cessation of ageing-and-death is to be directly known. [...] Psm I, 34: Suffering as a meaning to be directly known. ... Origin as a meaning to be directly known. ... Cessation as a meaning to be directly known. ... Path as a meaning to be directly known. ... .......................... Tep: Certainly, Dhamma discussion has great benefits. Practicing according to the Noble Eightfold Path has even much greater benefits than discussions(as mountains to rocks). ........................... connie: not just dhamma discussion, the good companions altogether practicing with utmost propriety 'giving' 'mental dvlpmnt' 'virtuosity', else it is 'wrongness'. not so much what it looks like but what is feeding it. The so-called folds /constituents /factors /limbs are cetasikas and there's great benefit anytime the practice of even 5 arises. peace, c. 58933 From: "Joop" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 9:23am Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition jwromeijn Hallo Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Sukin & Joop, > S:...... People think that they can extend metta to all > beings, including devas, but this is not so. > There is only one problem: devas don't exist, they are the product of the mind of some human beings (in the past) Metta Joop 58934 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 9:35am Subject: Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... What lies dormant? Itching badly .. indriyabala Hi Ícaro, Reggio Emilia Versione Italiana ! (please don't ask me what these words mean..) >Ícaro: In any moment the Satipatthana Sutta states that you must be > Sotapanna to perform this - it doesn´t even use this word! > Satipatthana Sutta is FOR ALL! > You're right: the Sutta doesn't state that; it doesn't state many other things either. However, to be able to meet "that requirement" [i.e. ".. face the Satipatthana without any clinging to the world out there."] it take the Right View of an ariyan. Can you dwell "without any clinging to the world" right now? ...................... >Ícaro: > How do you prefer? > From down to upwards or from up downwards ? Could you like >some special fragant oil ? Some Shantala ? > > Tepissimus Sastruisissimus, under my skilled hands your itching > will surely disappear! I have no idea you are an Italian masseur! Peace, Tep ======== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "icarofranca" wrote: > > Hi Tep! > > O Tepissimus Sastriusissimus! > The bulwark of right concentration! > The stronghold of Right Samadhi! > My opinions are the humblest of all! > (snipped) 58935 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 10:01am Subject: Re: a "happy" proposition scottduncan2 Dear Joop, What might you say to a human being (in the present)who thinks otherwise, with all due respect of course? J: "There is only one problem: devas don't exist, they are the product of the mind of some human beings (in the past)" That may be more or less a rhetorical question. I think, in matters of belief (in general), discussion does not avail. Would it be interesting to discuss the more general concern related to what one takes literally versus otherwise within Theravada Buddhist teachings and the reasons for and against? Just a thought . . . Sincerely, Scott. 58936 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 6, 2006 6:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Joop) - In a message dated 5/6/06 1:02:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: > Dear Joop, > > What might you say to a human being (in the present)who thinks > otherwise, with all due respect of course? > > J: "There is only one problem: devas don't exist, they are the > product of the mind of some human beings (in the past)" > > That may be more or less a rhetorical question. I think, in matters > of belief (in general), discussion does not avail. Would it be > interesting to discuss the more general concern related to what one > takes literally versus otherwise within Theravada Buddhist teachings > and the reasons for and against? > > Just a thought . . . > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > ========================== I'm not aware of *any* world religion or culture that does not presume the existence of angels, or devas, or gods (as in the Greek & Roman pantheons). There are differences in the details from tradition to tradition, but there seems to be a common core that characterizes these alleged beings as dwelling in a heaven realm, of being radiant in appearance, of being "good", and of interacting at times in a variety of ways with humans. So if deva and brahma realms, and their inhabitants, are mere imagination, then there seems to be an "angel gene" in the human genome generating the impressive commonality of view! ;-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 58937 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 10:26am Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas indriyabala Hi Joop (and Sarah) - The following comments clearly are not supported by experiences. Please do not hesitate to tell me that you disagree! > S:...... People think that they can extend metta to all > > beings, including devas, but this is not so. > > > Joop: > There is only one problem: devas don't exist, they are the product of the mind of some human beings (in the past) > Question: Was our Lord Buddha just daydreaming about extending metta and imagining devas in the following suttas? "Here, bhikkhus, a certain person abides with his heart imbued with loving-kindness extending over one quarter, likewise the second quarter, likewise the third quarter, likewise the fourth quarter, and so above, below, around, and everywhere, and to all as to himself; he abides with his heart abundant, exalted, measureless in loving-kindness, without hostility or ill-will, extending over the all-encompassing world. "He finds gratification in that, finds it desirable and looks to it for his well-being; steady and resolute thereon, he abides much in it, and if he dies without losing it, he reappears among the gods of a High Divinity's retinue. [AN IV.125 Metta Sutta] "At any time when a disciple of the noble ones is recollecting the conviction, virtue, learning, generosity, and discernment found both in himself and the devas, his mind is not overcome with passion, not overcome with aversion, not overcome with delusion. His mind heads straight, based on the [qualities of the] devas. And when the mind is headed straight, the disciple of the noble ones gains a sense of the goal, gains a sense of the Dhamma, gains joy connected with the Dhamma. In one who is joyful, rapture arises. In one who is rapturous, the body grows calm. One whose body is calmed experiences ease. In one at ease, the mind becomes concentrated. [AN XI.13] Yours truly, Tep ==== (snipped) 58938 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 10:32am Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition scottduncan2 Dear Howard, I'm glad to hear from you. H: "I'm not aware of *any* world religion or culture that does not presume the existence of angels, or devas, or gods (as in the Greek & Roman pantheons). There are differences in the details from tradition to tradition, but there seems to be a common core that characterizes these alleged beings as dwelling in a heaven realm, of being radiant in appearance, of being "good", and of interacting at times in a variety of ways with humans. So if deva and brahma realms, and their inhabitants, are mere imagination, then there seems to be an 'angel gene' in the human genome generating the impressive commonality of view!" Yes, an apt point. In my opinion, if one can argue for the presence of dhammas which are arising and falling away so swiftly as to totally defy the perceptual capacity of us worldlings, one needn't balk at the presence of beings in Deva realms. Experience displaces belief. Sincerely, Scott. 58939 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 10:59am Subject: Re:siila and satipa.t.thaana. .. Cunnie's Riddle indriyabala Dear Connie, It is always a pleasure to read your comments (both jokingly and not). > Sarah: p.s Tep, thx as usual for your patience with other threads. > ======= > connie: o my, she must mean mine! thx for the great 4nt quotes from Psm, too. Tep: Oh, I don't think so. Only Sarah can tell. ............ > connie: not just dhamma discussion, the good companions altogether > practicing with utmost propriety 'giving' 'mental dvlpmnt' 'virtuosity', else it is 'wrongness'. not so much what it looks like but what is feeding it. The so-called folds /constituents /factors /limbs are cetasikas and there's great benefit anytime the practice of even 5 arises. Tep: What is feeding it? Which 5 cetasikas? Let me guess: phassa, vedana, sanna, cetana, vinnana [Miln. 87]? Yours truly, Tep ====== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connie wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > (snipped) > [...] > Psm I, 34: Suffering as a meaning to be directly known. ... Origin as a meaning to be directly known. ... Cessation as a meaning to be directly known. ... Path as a meaning to be directly known. ... > > .......................... > Tep: Certainly, Dhamma discussion has great benefits. Practicing > according to the Noble Eightfold Path has even much greater benefits than discussions(as mountains to rocks). > ........................... (snipped) 58940 From: "Joop" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 0:05pm Subject: Re: a "happy" proposition jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > Hallo Scott, all Yes, that's the topic. I have tried to make this a discussion topic several times on DSG, without success. To me many parts of the Suttas had not to be taken literal but metaphorical: without doing that, Theravada has no future. And for the rest: I was not planning to make myself popular without saying so honest what i really think: God does not exist, devas do not exist, etcetera. Metta Joop > Dear Joop, > > What might you say to a human being (in the present)who thinks > otherwise, with all due respect of course? > > J: "There is only one problem: devas don't exist, they are the > product of the mind of some human beings (in the past)" > > That may be more or less a rhetorical question. I think, in matters > of belief (in general), discussion does not avail. Would it be > interesting to discuss the more general concern related to what one > takes literally versus otherwise within Theravada Buddhist teachings > and the reasons for and against? > > Just a thought . . . > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > 58941 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 0:32pm Subject: Re: a "happy" proposition scottduncan2 Dear Joop, J: "Yes, that's the topic. I have tried to make this a discussion topic several times on DSG, without success. To me many parts of the Suttas had not to be taken literal but metaphorical: without doing that, Theravada has no future. And for the rest: I was not planning to make myself popular without saying so honest what i really think: God does not exist, devas do not exist, etcetera." I certainly don't mind that you see things the way you do. Do you think we should formally post this as a new topic? I at least would like to discuss it since I have been thinking about it lately. Out of interest, how do you tie the future of Theravada to making a shift from the literal to the metaphorical? If something exists it exists. If its existence is no longer popular, then this, to me, would reflect decline in the Buddha's sasana. Sincerely, Scott. 58942 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 0:46pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... What lies dormant? indriyabala Hi Sarah (and James )- You mentioned in another post about patience. Indeed, I cannot say anyone of us is impatient despite our differences (that have helped make the discussion not boring). > S (replying to James): I'm very happy to use 'inherent' and usually do. Like you, I'm not keen on 'dormant', but I think it's important to stress that at moments of kusala, the defilements are not eradicated, but not arising either. In this sense, they are 'sleeping', but sleeping or dormant shouldn't be taken literally. > > I think any of the terms are commonly misunderstood because the anusayas are not so simple to understand. > .... Tep: I cannot imagine any real-life situation in which all defilements arise in the same moment! .................. > S: I would say, one moment evil and ignorant and the next moment wise. Like two different people. And this is the meaning of carita or character as I understand it - different characters changing all the time. Tep: I am sure that you, Nina, and Jon and several other people here behave a whole lot less erratic than that dangerous being whose behaviors are randomly reversing all the time from one extreme to another. Well, even Tep does not behave like that! [:>|) .......................... >S: >BUT, the tendency to each is always there and it will depend on many >factors as to which character shows up at anytime. > Tep: That is an interesting "Theory of Totally Random Behaviors", Sarah. Do you really believe there are real people with that kind of behavior? It doesn't sound realistic because it is not stable. Life processes tend to become stable after a shock (an external influence); even the oceans do not become turbulent one day and completely calm the next day. Sincerely, Tep, your friend. ============ --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi James (& Tep), > > --- buddhatrue wrote: > > > Hi Sarah (and Tep), > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott > > wrote: > > > S: It is a good question. I was trying to avoid using the Pali term > > > 'anusaya' (latent tendency/proclivity/dormant disposition) which is > > > derived from the word 'anusayati' which means 'to lie dormant'. > > > > Okay, this is turning into something of a semantic argument, which > > is unfortunate because that will draw attention away from the > > original discussion. > .... > S: I agree. I was just explaining that I had 'anusaya' in mind, but gave a > standard translation in order to avoid using the Pali with you:-). I agree > 'lie dormant' can well be misleading. Reminds me of Dan's pointing out how > misleading 'skilful' for kusala can be. > ... > >To get back to that, let's recap: You stated > > that satipatthana which arises "naturally" is better than > > satipatthana which is planned because the former doesn't involve > > the `idea of self'. I disagreed and said that the `idea of self' is > > not eradicated until arahanthood so it doesn't matter if > > satipatthana is natural or planned (actually, I believe that first > > satipatthana must be planned and then it will become natural). You > > replied that when satipatthana is natural the defilement of `idea of > > self' is dormant or anusaya. > .... > S: Ok!! > .... > > First, Sarah, you don't give any support that this is the case. Am > > I just supposed to take your word for it? > .... > S: I thought you were going to respond and say I gave too much textual > support:-))I even tried to include a sutta passage for Tep's benefit as he > prefers this. And in case, those references were not enough, I directed > you both to a couple of dozen posts on the anusayas in U.P.:-)) > > Seriously, tell me exactly what kind of further support you want and I'll > give it to you. > ... > >Secondly, I don't think > > you have the correct idea of the Pali word anusaya (oh yes, I have > > the balls to say that! lol). As you quoted from the Vism.: > > > > The Visuddhimagga (XXII, 60) > > ... For it is owing to their inveteracy that they are called > > inherent tendencies (anusaya) since they inhere (anusenti) as cause > > for the arising of greed for sense desires, etc., again and again." > > > > This description points to the fact that anusaya should be > > translated as `inherent'-- not dormant or latent. > .... > S: I'm very happy to use 'inherent' and usually do. Like you, I'm not > keen on 'dormant', but I think it's important to stress that at moments of > kusala, the defilements are not eradicated, but not arising either. In > this sense, they are 'sleeping', but sleeping or dormant shouldn't be > taken literally. > > I think any of the terms are commonly misunderstood because the anusayas > are not so simple to understand. > .... > >Inherent means > > that they will arise with every single citta until they are > > eradicated. > .... > S: To be a little more precise, they 'inhere' to every citta, but they > only arise or are only apparent with particular cittas. At a moment of > seeing consciousness, there is no arising of lobha, dosa or moha, but > these defilements 'inhere' to the cittas, ready to condition the arising > of further defilements when the time is right. > > I know this will sound like another semantic argument, but it's not > intended that way. As I said initially, there's a difference between > saying the idea of self arises at every moment, even with awareness, and > saying that the latent tendency is there, even at moment of awareness. > ... > >We should never fool ourselves into thinking that the > > defilements are dormant or latent at anytime, they are INHERENT. As > > worldlings, we are evil and ignorant and, short of nibbana, there is > > absolutely nothing we can do about that! It doesn't matter if > > satipatthana is done naturally or is a planned activity; we are > > still evil and ignorant when it occurs. > .... > S: I would say, one moment evil and ignorant and the next moment wise. > Like two different people. And this is the meaning of carita or character > as I understand it - different characters changing all the time. BUT, the > tendency to each is always there and it will depend on many factors as to > which character shows up at anytime. > > Thanks to both you and Tep for your good feedback. I don't think we are so > far apart, but it may be a little more than a question of semantics. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= > 58943 From: "icarofranca" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 1:11pm Subject: Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... What lies dormant? Itching badly .. icarofranca Hi Tepissimus! --------------------------------------------------------------------- > You're right: the Sutta doesn't state that; it doesn't state many > other things either. However, to be able to meet "that requirement" > [i.e. ".. face the Satipatthana without any clinging to the world >out > there."] it take the Right View of an ariyan. Can you >dwell "without > any clinging to the world" right now? > ...................... -------------------------------------------------------------------- You see...at the first moment you take the five precepts and the Saffron robe and bowl, becoming a bhikkhu, you are leaving away the world by a natural way. That´s the Theravada´s viewpoint, shared many times with the Mahayana´s schools. I won´t stress the point that, by Theravada´s teachings, only the bhikkhu that took all the precepts and rules is apt and authorized to be called a buddhist and to perform all mindfulness practices. In Mindfulness, mainly the Satipatthana, there are some "technical" remarks that can be put out in action by anyone interested: if you seat in Pallanka, without any stress on mind, diligently put aside thoughts and feelings that can make attrition, with some time your breathing will become slow, calm, and your body will become stronger. A rate of six or eight inspire/expire breaths for minute will be a good goal. The world out there can wait! -------------------------------------------------------------------- > I have no idea you are an Italian masseur! -------------------------------------------------------------------- Man, time elapses, the years go out one by one and you will awake someday with an elbow aching, with pains at your ankles and so on. Since from my teens I learned to do it for myself: Shiatsu and Shantala are a bless in cold days! And, taking the Vinaya by the teeth, I didn´t use medicines! Mettaya! Ícaro > > > Peace, > > > Tep > ======== > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "icarofranca" > wrote: > > > > Hi Tep! > > > > O Tepissimus Sastriusisimus! > > The bulwark of right concentration! > > The stronghold of Right Samadhi! > > My opinions are the humblest of all! > > > (snipped) > 58944 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 6, 2006 9:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition upasaka_howard Hi again, Scott (and Joop) - In a message dated 5/6/06 3:32:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: > Dear Joop, > > J: "Yes, that's the topic. I have tried to make this a discussion topic > several times on DSG, without success. To me many parts of the Suttas > had not to be taken literal but metaphorical: without doing that, > Theravada has no future. And for the rest: I was not planning to make > myself popular without saying so honest what i really think: God does > not exist, devas do not exist, etcetera." > > I certainly don't mind that you see things the way you do. Do you > think we should formally post this as a new topic? I at least would > like to discuss it since I have been thinking about it lately. > > Out of interest, how do you tie the future of Theravada to making a > shift from the literal to the metaphorical? If something exists it > exists. If its existence is no longer popular, then this, to me, > would reflect decline in the Buddha's sasana. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > ======================== Were there not, though I do truly believe there are (from the perspective of conventional truth, of course), heaven realms and beings sojourning there, rebirth, and even buddhas (!), there would still be the facts called "the four noble truths", the "tilakkhana", and "paticcasamupada". There is dukkha and the means to ending dukkha. By immersing ourselves in the core of Dhamma and mulling it over and comparing it with our life experience, we can come to be persuaded that these facts *are* facts, and I believe with all my heart that as we pursue the practice laid out by the being we call "the Buddha", we can come to know these facts face to face, and that this deep knowing will transform "the world". With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 58945 From: "Dan D." Date: Sat May 6, 2006 1:43pm Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition onco111 Hi Herman, Let's see... Where do we go from here? I feel like we may be drifting philosophical... > There is a moral obligation to be not-self. Buddhism is not about setting up > the conditions for a happy existence. It is about dispensing with an unhappy > existence. An unhappy existence is a necessary consequence of being out of > sync with the way things are. > Thinking in terms of self is a recipe for disaster. There is no way that a > self can organise the deckchairs on the Titanic to prevent it from sinking. > But thinking in terms of self is not imposed from outside. It is learnt, and > can be unlearnt. To that extent, it is voluntary. I am not suggesting that > suffering ends with not thinking in terms of self. (It is only the beginning > of the way out). But acceptance of the way things are does of course > liberate the non-existent self from all the consequences of their > non-existent deeds. And that's got to be good! (Unless the particular self > thought they were pretty good :-)) I think you are right that understanding not-self has "got to be good", but isn't there a distinction between thinking in terms of self and understanding not-self? Either is "good," I would say. > Thanks for the reports about the TKD grading. Much as I have an aversion to > notions of luck, your son is fortunate to have you as his Dad, and probably > vice-versa as well. I'm very fortunate to have a son like him, but he thinks he's VERY unfortunate. We don't have a TV, music is a required course (piano lessons right now), screen time (video games and internet) is strictly limited to 30 minutes per day, etc. [But strange as it may be for a 10 year old, he appreciates the absense of a TV. He's bought into his dad's mantra of "Watching TV rots your brain."] > (my older son did a few belts of karate, but promptly withdrew upon > realising that the rubber hits the road at times, and there was real-life > contact sparring in the higher belts :-)) Things certainly change with live sparring....My younger son (7 years old now) went to his first sparring class today. He's TRIED to go twice before but lost his nerve at the last minute. Today, though, he held together and made it through the whole class---and had a great time. Nice to hear from you again, Herman. Dan 58946 From: "Joop" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 1:40pm Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas jwromeijn Hallo Tep Your questions are always honest so I try to answer without irony: I don't know what the Buddha thought. I think He used skilful means (skt. upaya), a metaphore to convert the people who (like most Indians in those days) believed that "the gods of a High Divinity's retinue" really exist. Thye same with your quote in which "devas" occur. If He had met me, He should not have talked in this way. More general skilful means today is perceiving a big part of the teachings as metaphorical, not taken literal. I know you are not a hundred percent Abhidhammika Tep, otherwise I could have given a more easy answer: devas are no ultimate realities, they are concepts, conventional realities. Metta Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" wrote: > > > Hi Joop (and Sarah) - > > The following comments clearly are not supported by experiences. > Please do not hesitate to tell me that you disagree! > > > S:...... People think that they can extend metta to all > > > beings, including devas, but this is not so. > > > > > Joop: > > There is only one problem: devas don't exist, they are the product > of the mind of some human beings (in the past) > > > > Question: Was our Lord Buddha just daydreaming about extending metta > and imagining devas in the following suttas? > > "Here, bhikkhus, a certain person abides with his heart imbued with > loving-kindness extending over one quarter, likewise the second > quarter, likewise the third quarter, likewise the fourth quarter, and > so above, below, around, and everywhere, and to all as to himself; he > abides with his heart abundant, exalted, measureless in > loving-kindness, without hostility or ill-will, extending over the > all-encompassing world. > > "He finds gratification in that, finds it desirable and looks to it > for his well-being; steady and resolute thereon, he abides much in it, > and if he dies without losing it, he reappears among the gods of a > High Divinity's retinue. [AN IV.125 Metta Sutta] > > "At any time when a disciple of the noble ones is recollecting the > conviction, virtue, learning, generosity, and discernment found both > in himself and the devas, his mind is not overcome with passion, not > overcome with aversion, not overcome with delusion. His mind heads > straight, based on the [qualities of the] devas. And when the mind is > headed straight, the disciple of the noble ones gains a sense of the > goal, gains a sense of the Dhamma, gains joy connected with the > Dhamma. In one who is joyful, rapture arises. In one who is rapturous, > the body grows calm. One whose body is calmed experiences ease. In one > at ease, the mind becomes concentrated. [AN XI.13] > > > Yours truly, > > > Tep > ==== > (snipped) > 58947 From: "Dan D." Date: Sat May 6, 2006 1:44pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Please don't run away yet, DAN 1.ii onco111 Hi Sarah, > S: Anyway, it's true that wrong effort and the rest can arise during any > activity. I just address (directly or indirectly)what I see or sniff out, > rightly or wrongly....:-). What you see? Or what you suspect, or imagine, or question? > > > S: Firstly, there are worldlings and worldlings. For those who > > have/had > > > developed higher insights, the sacca nana is/was so firm, there was > > no > > > doubt or misapprehension about the 4NT, even though nibbana has not > > yet > > > been realised. > > > > Eradication of doubt and wrong view BEFORE stream entry?! This is one > > I haven't heard yet. Where are you pulling this from? > .... > S: Not eradicated, but fewer and fewer conditions for them to arise. When > there's any awareness at all, of course no doubt and this becomes more and > more established. I'm sorry. I thought that by "no doubt" you meant "no doubt". If you mean "less doubt", you get no argument from me! > S: If you reflect on nibbana as the unconditioned element with kusala > cittas, it's not incorrect, even though it's only thinking about a concept > of nibbana. If I reflect on "nibbana" as the "unconditioned" element, I am not reflecting on nibbana as the unconditioned element because my conception of these are uninformed by experience. > > I was not telling you anything about kusala/akusala cittas; I was > > telling you about correct/incorrect (right/wrong, > > accurate/inaccurate) concepts. My concepts about nibbana are wrong > > and will always be until that day when I experience it. > .... > S: What about the concept you have now about visible object or sound or > any other dhamma? If it's right reflection, it's not incorrect just > because there's no direct awareness of the reality right now. There is a difference between "reflecting" on awareness of a past reality than speculating about an awareness that has never arisen. Don't you agree? >What about > wise reflection about sanna or phassa or other mental factors? As Connie's > quote shows, hearing about dhammas and wisely reflection are conditions > for understanding to develop. Recently in the 'Cetasikas' thread, we read > about how the proximate cause of satipatthana is a) sanna marking and > remembering correctly and b) the objects of satipatthana - the four > foundations. Right. Sanya marks and remembers a past awareness and discussion of that awareness is distinctly different from speculation about a non- arisen awareness that has not been marked by sanya. > > Sarah, you seem pretty adamant that it is wrong to think of cetasikas > > as characteristics of cittas, but, really, I don't see it. If you > > want me to give up on trying to understand, that's fine. I will > > continue to think of them thusly. > .... > S: hey Dan, of course I don't want you to 'give up trying to understand' > anything. I'm just running out of different ways to express how I see it. > Cittas and cetasikas are different kinds of dhammas with different > characteristics. Seeing consciousness does not have the characteristic of > feeling or contact or perception or concentration or life faculty or > volition! Seeing consciousness inevitably arises with feeling, contact, perception, and other cetasikas. Can it arise without these? But that's more abstract than I what I was thinking. Instead, what about, say, the unwholesome cittas? One is rooted in greed (lobha, a cetasika) with joy (a cetasika), associated with wrong view (a cetasika). What's wrong with saying that the arising of lobha, somanassa, and ditthi is characteristic of that citta? Or even that that moment is charaterized by the arising of those cetasikas? Or those cetasikas are characteristics of that moment? Or those cetasikas are characteristics of that citta? > Dan, you make many references to an understanding of the Dhamma through > other teachings and also to developing insight without hearing the > teachings first. We've discussed this at length. Of course, if one has > heard and considered even a little of the teachings wisely, one can read > and consider anything with an appreciation of the Dhamma, but this is > different. I see what you are saying, i.e., that when there is even a little understanding of Dhamma, it is possible to take any experience as a lesson in Dhamma. But this is not what I am talking about (usually). I see people who know nothing of suttas and abhidhamma and Buddha's words but have a deeper understanding of rupas, cittas, cetasikas, tilakkhana, etc. than I or virtually any Buddhist on the planet. If we approach life with an open mind, we find that we can learn much from others. > Do you have any difficulty with this sutta? > > AN, 10s, 123-7, Not Outside the Buddha's Discipline (Bodhi transl): > > "Ten things, monks, do not have purity and clarity outside the Discipline > of the Sublime Master. What are the ten? > > Right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, > right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration, right knowledge and > right liberation.* > > And if these ten things have not arisen, they will not arise outside the > Discipline of the Sublime Master. > > Outside the Discipline of the Sublime Master, these ten things will not be > of great fruit and benefit. > > Outside the Discipline of the Sublime Master, these ten things will not > end in the elimination of greed, hatred and delusion. > > Outside the Discipline of the Sublime Master, these ten things will not > conduce to complete disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, peace, direct > knowledge, enlightenment and Nibbana." I have no problem with these, Sarah. Only within the dispensation are these ten things developed with sufficient clarity and purity to lead to enlightenment and nibbana. As I have said over and over, I agree. > * BB's footnote: "These are the eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path, > augmented by their fruits, right knowledge and right liberation. The > 'Sublime Master' (sugata) is the Buddha. This series of suttas should > dispense with the notion that traditional Buddhist tolerance means that > Buddhism regards all religions as being equally viable means to > deliverance. According to the Buddha, other spiritual systems might teach > wholesome practices conducive to a good rebirth, but the path to final > liberation - Nibbana, release from the whole round of rebirths - is > available only through his Teaching." > ***** > S: I know you agree with this note, Dan. Is there anything in the sutta > you disagree with? Nothing. > p.s. I've been following the 'happiness' threads. Do you think that the > development of wisdom leads to more or less happiness as we think of it > conventionally, i.e pleasant feeling? More, assuming you mean kusala-vipaka with somanassa or sukka. More, assuming you mean kusala citta accompanied by somanassa. But I'd also throw in kusala and kusala-vipaka with upekkha as 'happiness' (more along the lines of happy as 'content' as opposed to happy as 'joyful'). Dan 58948 From: "Dan D." Date: Sat May 6, 2006 1:44pm Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition onco111 Hi Ken, > -------------- > D: > Nowhere else was the nature of conditionality > so fully understood or explained. But partially understood elsewhere? > Certainly. I don't see how that statement is such a problem. > --------------- > > I hope I am not arguing just for the sake of arguing, but that > statement does seem to be a problem. As I was saying before, the > views of other thinkers can seem to occupy a middle ground between > eternity belief and annihilation belief, but, in the final analysis > they fall into one or the other. I think the precise words and conceptualizations that people come up with are of much less importance than the understanding they are trying to reflect via their conceptual models. To me, there is a sharp distinction between a "view" and a "belief". The "view" is how the world is seen or understood at a particular moment and the "belief" is how the "view" is conceptualized. Or another way to think of it is that "view" is a cetasika and "belief" is a concept. In development of understanding and discussion of Dhamma, I put much more stock in understanding different "views" than in analyzing "beliefs". > Isn't that what is constantly happening here at DSG? We are all > Buddhists - we all reject the two extremes - and yet we are forever > disagreeing and saying, "That is not the Middle Way!" We all profess "belief" in the Middle Way but really have only an inkling of what the middle way is. We confuse belief for view, concept for cetasika, and contention forever arises. > If our understanding is not the understanding of Middle Way, and yet > it is our view of ultimate reality, then it has to be wrong view, > doesn't it? I couldn't call it partial right view - I don't think > there can be partial right view, (or, as you suggested, "partially > understood conditionality"). I would say that any understanding short of full penetration of the 4NT at the level of arahatta magga is "partial". No discipline or tradition aside from Buddhism includes full understanding of conditionality. > Speaking of disagreements, I saw you (on another thread) dragging out > the old favourite: "How is study different from formal meditation?" > Shame on you Dan, I thought you were toeing the party line these > days!" :-) LOL!! I've been rightly accused of many sins, but an accusation of me being a party man is laughable. > The present moment is all there is - the all. When we don't understand > that, we tend to study or meditate with the idea of creating something > other than the all. Agreed. > Even so, it is perfectly possible to study Dhamma for reasons other > than wanting to create something other than the all. However, I > couldn't say the same for formal practice. When conditions are ripe, a bhikkhu or lay following may find himself or herself at the foot of a tree, eyes closed, sharp focus, etc. Or one may find himself or herself seeking out refuge in a monastery or meditation center, with samma intention and effort driving the action. No need to doubt it. Metta, Dan 58949 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 6, 2006 9:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas upasaka_howard Hi, Joop - In a message dated 5/6/06 4:49:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jwromeijn@... writes: > know you are not a hundred percent Abhidhammika Tep, otherwise I > could have given a more easy answer: devas are no ultimate realities, > they are concepts, conventional realities. > ======================== You and I also are merely conventional realities, Joop! But you mean more when you say there are no devas, do you not? ;-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 58950 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 2:01pm Subject: Re: The place of "meditation" ... Kamma as Taught by the Buddha [re-sent] indriyabala Hi Jon (Attn. Nina and everyone) - > >Tep: The order that I see in AN V.25 is : virtue comes first, and > >tranquillity comes before insight. > >Jon: Like Andrew, I feel we are a lot closer than you recognise, but I find it difficult to explain how that is so. Tep: As friends who enjoy discussing the dhammas together we are very close, Jon. ................... >Jon: >In singling out the factor of 'discussion' I was not in any way meaning to downplay the significance of the preceding factors in the list. I was just drawing attention to something that seemed to relate to what I had just said about the usefulness of exchanging views on the list. (And my comment about the usefulness of exchanging views was prompted by something you had said about being 'corrected', which I felt was not the way things happen here at all.) Tep: I did not think of you as playing a trick at all ! Yes. I was wrong about the thinking (assuming) that I was "being corrected". Forgive me for that, would you? .................... >Jon: >Of course, the question of the significance of the order in which the factors appear, and their relationship with each other, is something something well worth discussing, if that is what you are meaning to raise here (but worth a thread of its own, I would suggest ;-)). Tep: Of course! Now I have a perception that we both are becoming less attached to ego-related views (than we used to be). ..................... > > Tep: > >Bhikkhu Bodhi also seems to disagree with your idea above. >Jon: >Yes, the division into sila, samadhi and panna is the one used in the Visuddhimagga, as you know. The real question is the significance of that classification, in particular the extent to which it is intended to be a strictly sequential prescription. Another whole thread ;-)) Tep: Let's discuss "that" in another thread. Would you like to go ahead setting it up for us? ...................... > >Tep: I don't think you have yet responded to my question above > > ( isn't it the other way around ...) > >Jon: >Well I thought that by saying what I did I had directly responded to your question ;-)) My apologies if my thinking was not clear. Let me explain in more detail how I see it. Tep: No apologies are necessary, Jon. Thanks for patiently explaining (below). ................ >Jon: >What is being described in the passage from M 117 is the development of insight and the attainment of enlightenment up to the stage of arahantship, including the moments of consciousness that follow the attainment of arahantship. >As I see it, the picture looks like this: ... ... Tep: Please allow me to make a conclusion of your 3-step explanation as follows. (Do you know that I also have read Bhikkhu Bodhi's MEP article as well as the whole Visuddhimagga book?) Step 1 is the development of "mundane path moments". Step 2 is when all the eight Path factors arise with the sekha's magga citta that is followed by the phala citta. Step 3 is the Arahant's Enlightenment (factors 9 and 10 in MN 117). >Jon: > Now it is of course true to say that right concentration (which features in steps 1 and 2 above) comes before the right knowledge of the arahant (which features only in step 3), but then *all 8* of the NEP factors come before right knowledge of the arahant. Tep: Agreed. ....................... >Jon: >More important for us, I would say, is the question of the development of the 8 path factors (step 1). In this regard I read M 117 as saying that right view (panna) comes first. In the context of step 1, the right knowledge of the arahant has no role, as I see it. >Hoping this is a clearer answer to your question (not that I'm necessarily expecting you to agree with it ;-)). Tep: Good job! It is an A-grade answer. That has been my point for a long time. I always kept asking for a clearer explanation whenever someone loosely (or muddily)used the following terms : right view, understanding, right understanding, clear understanding, seeing things the way they really are, yatha-bhutam pajanatii, right wisdom (sammappaññaya), experiencing the five aggregates in the present moment, direct knowledge, full understanding, right discernment, right knowledge, release. ................ > >Tep: True, MN 117 says that right view comes first (as mundane > >right view). But my question was not about right view; > > it was about right knowledge. > >The sutta makes it very clear that right knowledge (vijja, >it is opposite to avijja) comes after right concentration. > >I have no problem with Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation, by the way. {:>) >Jon: > I think what I have said just above applies to this part of your post also. Please let me know if you feel I have not addressed your point (again, I'm not saying we need to agree on everything! ;-)) Tep: No problem at all ! You did a great job. And everybody knows that it takes much longer time to do a good job (than a so-so job that always begs for questions). {:->)) Thank you very much for your time and effort, Jon. Sincerely yours, Tep ===== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Tep > > indriyabala wrote: > > >Hi, Jon - > > > >Lately you did not write as much as you used to. It is good that we > >keep our Dhamma discussion going (like the energized bunny). > > > > > (snipped) > > >>>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 knowledge, right release comes into being. > >>>Thus the learner is endowed with eight factors, and the arahant > >>>with ten." - see MN 117. > >>> > >>Jon: It seems that the 2 additional factors mentioned here in MN 117 are > >>factors that arise after the magga citta of the arahant (only). A > >>footnote in the Bh Bodhi translation of this sutta at p. 1324 MLDB reads: > >>"The additional two factors possessed by the arahant are right > >>knowledge, which can be identified with his reviewing knowledge that > >>he has destroyed all the defilements, and right deliverance, which can > >>be identified with his experience of liberation from all defilements." > >> > > > >Tep: I don't think you have yet responded to my question above ( isn't > >it the other way around ...) > > > > Well I thought that by saying what I did I had directly responded to > your question ;-)) My apologies if my thinking was not clear. Let me > explain in more detail how I see it. > > What is being described in the passage from M 117 is the development of > insight and the attainment of enlightenment up to the stage of > arahantship, including the moments of consciousness that follow the > attainment of arahantship. > > As I see it, the picture looks like this: > > ************** > 1. Pre-enlightenment - The development of insight (vipassana bhavana). > Consciousness is accompanied by the mundane path factors of right view, > right thinking, right effort, fight awareness and right concentration). > Also referred to in the commentaries as mundane path moments. > > 2. Enlightenment - The moments of path and fruition consciousness, > which are: > (a) Path consciousness/magga citta (lokuttara path moment), with all 8 > NEP factors arising, > (b) Fruition consciousness/phala citta. Follows immediately after the > moment of path consciousness, and is the vipaka of the immediately > preceding magga citta. > There are 4 sets of these 2 cittas, one for each of the stages of > enlightenment. > > 3. Post enlightenment for the arahant - Arahantship having been > attained, there then occurs (immediately following) moments of > consciousness accompanied by the 2 additional factors mentioned in M > 117, namely: > (a) right knowledge ( the arahant's knowledge that he has destroyed all > the defilements) and > (b) right deliverance (the arahant's experience of liberation from all > defilements). > These factors do not occur following the earlier stages of enlightenment > (those of the 'learner'). > ************** > > Now it is of course true to say that right concentration (which features > in steps 1 and 2 above) comes before the right knowledge of the arahant > (which features only in step 3), but then *all 8* of the NEP factors > come before right knowledge of the arahant. > > More important for us, I would say, is the question of the development > of the 8 path factors (step 1). In this regard I read M 117 as saying > that right view (panna) comes first. In the context of step 1, the > right knowledge of the arahant has no role, as I see it. > > Hoping this is a clearer answer to your question (not that I'm > necessarily expecting you to agree with it ;-)). > > >>Jon: > >>In the sutta, the section which your passage is taken and the > >>preceding 5 sections all begin with the words (Bh Bodhi transl): > >>"Therein, bhikkhus, right view comes first. And how does right view > >>come first?" > >> > > (snipped) 58951 From: "Charles & Linda DaCosta" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 11:20am Subject: RE: [dsg] "Labelling" in satipatthaana dacostacharles Hi Scott, Yes, satipatthaana can be a way of extending practice throughout the entire day. And yes, you should. Regards, Charles DaCosta -----Original Message----- Dear Charles, ... "This path leads to, or embraces, the 8-Fold path because it develops concentration leading to wisdom leading to morality (i.e., being basically a good person). When I was on the same road, I uncovered that the practice can help you see (visualize) how the mind works; ... From this, I begin to realize that all are just labels (i.e., no real inherent value, not a real justification for immoral acts). From this space, we can control/dictate the nature of your attachments. This is a practice in itself." These sorts of experiential reports are very helpful. I appreciate the point of view. I'm learning that, in my amateur way, satipatthaana can be a way of extending practise throughout the entire day. This is exciting. Scott. 58952 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 3:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition egberdina Hi Scott, > Yes, an apt point. In my opinion, if one can argue for the presence > of dhammas which are arising and falling away so swiftly as to totally > defy the perceptual capacity of us worldlings, one needn't balk at the > presence of beings in Deva realms. Experience displaces belief. I would just like to point out that it is this flux of dhammas which are thoughts about worldlings and devas with their various perceptions, beliefs and qualities. There are no worldlings who have greater or lesser capacity to catch falling dhammas, it is these falling dhammas that form the idea of worldlings etc. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58953 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 4:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition egberdina Hi Dan, On 07/05/06, Dan D. wrote: > > Hi Herman, > Let's see... Where do we go from here? I feel like we may be drifting > philosophical... If there is no rubber hitting the road, then we are indeed drifitng. Let's bring it back to reality. > > > I think you are right that understanding not-self has "got to be > good", but isn't there a distinction between thinking in terms of > self and understanding not-self? Either is "good," I would say. I am probably misunderstanding you here. Are you meaning to say that it is good to think in terms of self? > I'm very fortunate to have a son like him, but he thinks he's VERY > unfortunate. We don't have a TV, music is a required course (piano > lessons right now), screen time (video games and internet) is > strictly limited to 30 minutes per day, etc. [But strange as it may > be for a 10 year old, he appreciates the absense of a TV. He's bought > into his dad's mantra of "Watching TV rots your brain."] I'm with the both of you. We had no TV till I was 13. Nice to hear from you again, Herman. > > Dan All the best to you Dan Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58954 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 4:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] a "happy" proposition egberdina Hi Ken, As I was saying before, the > views of other thinkers can seem to occupy a middle ground between > eternity belief and annihilation belief, but, in the final analysis > they fall into one or the other. Is nibbana eternity or annihilation? Or is the Middle Way not about time? -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58955 From: "Dan D." Date: Sat May 6, 2006 4:30pm Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition onco111 Herman, > > I think you are right that understanding not-self has "got to be > > good", but isn't there a distinction between thinking in terms of > > self and understanding not-self? Either is "good," I would say. > > > I am probably misunderstanding you here. Are you meaning to say that it is good to think in terms of self? No. I'm saying there are three things: 1. Understanding no-Self; 2. Wrong view of Self; 3. No wrong view of Self, yet no understanding of no-Self. #1 is good; #2 is not good; #3 may be either good or bad, depending on other factors. Metta, Dan 58956 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 5:12pm Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Yes, interesting point. H: "I would just like to point out that it is this flux of dhammas which are thoughts about worldlings and devas with their various perceptions, beliefs and qualities. There are no worldlings who have greater or lesser capacity to catch falling dhammas, it is these falling dhammas that form the idea of worldlings etc." Lost in metaphor, I'm not sure totally what you are saying. "Worldlings" and "devas" are concepts; thoughts about them a "flux of dhammas?" As to differences in capacity, I'll need to know more of what you intended to say here. You and I no doubt differ in our capacities, and this based on that whole thing about accumulation, for example. What do you think? Sincerely, Scott. 58957 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 5:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Channa's parinibbana egberdina Hi Sarah, > ... > > Channa, deadly ill, had no misconceptions about self. > .... > S: When he fell ill, lay ill, took the knife or just before he died? Many > thought processes involved. The sutta reads to me like Channa's mind was long made up, and he was closely questioned about self-view by his friends, and there wasn't any. There was the correct view that the death of the body would be the end of pain. The Buddha says the following to Sariputta, in reply to a question about Channa's movements after death "Shariputra, wasn't the faultlessness of the Bhikkhu Channa declared in your presence?". The introduction of extraneous material into a sutta is not so much a slippery slope, but a sheer drop into an intention-laden abyss. > .... > >And there was the > > knowledge that what remains is the body reacting to life itself, > > unbearably > > so in his case. And there was the knowledge that taking a knife to > > himself > > would be the end of that pain and that life. Channa took his life, > > without > > wanting it replaced with another. He did so faultlessly. > .... > S: Again, different thought processes. When he stabbed himself, it was not > faultless, but afterwards before he died it was. (See posts under > 'Suicide' where the commentary details are given or BB's note to the > sutta). I did read those notes. None of it is evident from the sutta. .... > > It seems from this that knowledge of undesirability, wanting things to > > be > > different, has no necessary connection with self-view, and that > > intentional > > action in accordance with what is known in an effort to reach a goal can > > be > > faultless. > .... > S: Knowledge of undesirability and aversion to suffering are quite > different. One is with calm and wisdom, the other with aversion. Channa said that he could not bear up to the pain. He took action that he knew would remedy the pain. The Buddha declared the taking of his own life as faultless. That's what the sutta says. There is no condoning suicide in the sutta, there is room for a good death (euthanasia), when your work is done. Wanting things to be different is with attachment which conditions more > aversion in turn. It may or may not be connected with self-view. If there > is the illusion that ending this life will relieve suffering for good, > then there's wrong view. > > Taking one's life can never be faultless as I see it. I am glad that you acknowledge it as your own view. It seems that no detrimental consequence followed what you see as being faulty. It seems clear that Channa was not wrong about his death being the end of suffering. In Channa's case, there was the 'faulty' deed, but whilst dying, he > attained to the various degrees of insight and became an arahant before > passing away. it's a very good example of how anything can happen if there > are the right causes and the tendencies for such knowledge are there. I read this as a rationalisation to accomodate a view. I say that in a nice way :-). -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58958 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 5:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition egberdina Hi Scott, On 07/05/06, Scott Duncan wrote: > > Dear Herman, > > Yes, interesting point. > > H: "I would just like to point out that it is this flux of dhammas > which are thoughts about worldlings and devas with their various > perceptions, beliefs and qualities. There are no worldlings who have > greater or lesser capacity to catch falling dhammas, it is these > falling dhammas that form the idea of worldlings etc." > > Lost in metaphor, I'm not sure totally what you are saying. > "Worldlings" and "devas" are concepts; thoughts about them a "flux of > dhammas?" I was trying to say that it is not people that have thoughts, it is thoughts that have people (worldlings, devas, explanations of thought processes etc.) > As to differences in capacity, I'll need to know more of what you > intended to say here. You and I no doubt differ in our capacities, > and this based on that whole thing about accumulation, for example. See above. And what is left when the whole thinking thing is rightly seen as it is and discarded? Nothing more than the body, reacting only to life itself. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58959 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 6:32pm Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Okay, I think I'm with you now. H: "I was trying to say that it is not people that have thoughts, it is thoughts that have people (worldlings, devas, explanations of thought processes etc.). . . And what is left when the whole thinking thing is rightly seen as it is and discarded? Nothing more than the body, reacting only to life itself." Does a deva (or devi) think of humans? In other words, are those particular thoughts for that particular being thinking the deva/devi? Or do you mean to come down in favour of the view that devas and deva realms, for example, are merely objects of thinking? Scott. 58960 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 11:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition egberdina Hi Scott, On 07/05/06, Scott Duncan wrote: > > Dear Herman, > > Okay, I think I'm with you now. > > H: "I was trying to say that it is not people that have thoughts, it > is thoughts that have people (worldlings, devas, explanations of > thought processes etc.). . . And what is left when the whole thinking > thing is rightly seen as it is and discarded? Nothing more than the > body, reacting only to life itself." > > Does a deva (or devi) think of humans? In other words, are those > particular thoughts for that particular being thinking the deva/devi? > Or do you mean to come down in favour of the view that devas and deva > realms, for example, are merely objects of thinking? In the strong sense of the word "to know", anything about the thoughts of devas, or devas, is unknowable. What is known in the strong sense is what is experienced at a sense level. Beyond that, there is inference (knowing in a weak sense), or imagination, or fabrication. IMHO. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58961 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat May 6, 2006 11:45pm Subject: The Other Side ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: Running up and down the beach does not take you Across! The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, these 8 things, when cultivated and refined, lead to going beyond from this near shore, right here, to the far shore beyond all. What eight? Right View (samma-ditthi) Right Motivation (samma-sankappa) Right Speech (samma-vaca) Right Action (samma-kammanta) Right Livelihood (samma-ajiva) Right Effort (samma-vayama) Right Awareness (samma-sati) Right Concentration (samma-samadhi) These 8 things, when cultivated and refined, lead to going beyond from this near shore, right here, to the far shore beyond. This is what the Blessed Buddha said. The Well-Gone-One, this supreme Teacher, then added this: Few humans cross to that sublime far shore beyond. Mostly, people just run up & down along this barren bank! Those whose praxis is like this even & exact Dhamma, Will pass beyond the State of Death in quiet harmony! Having left all the dark and evil doing, any intelligence Seeks the luminous bright light by leaving this buzz and by going forth into solitary silent homelessness. Secluded from lust he experiences unworldly bliss Owing nothing, the wise & clever man thereby cleans himself of all these mental taints and defilements. Mentally well evolved by the links to enlightenment, Delighting in non-clinging and relinquishment of all, Such luminous ones with the taints all eliminated, Are fully quenched even right here in this world. Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V:24] section 45: The Way. 34: Gone to the other side ... 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 !!! <....> 58962 From: "Sukinder" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 0:56am Subject: Re: a "happy" proposition sukinderpal Hi Fabrizio, I argue against what I perceive to be your position, but I must say that I appreciate discussing this matter of sila with you. It is certainly more fruitful for me to be discussing such basic matters than say, about whether Jhana is necessary for vipassana. Those discussions could do well to consider what in fact Jhana is and what are the conditions leading to it. Only then perhaps, will Samatha and Vipassana be seen as being distinct and requiring different causes leading to correspondingly different results. Perhaps also then will the so-called Jhana practitioner realize the need to go back to the basics and not be deluded about his/her present practice? My comments are between yours. Unlike you though, I can't seem to give only short statements, hope you don't mind my style. =========================== > > The concept of 'no self' taken out of context can seem dangerous I > agree. Fab: > Yes: and I would stress to be so for the majority of us... Suk: We are talking about momentary conditioned realities. There can be panna of the most basic level arising from time to time and we should not assume wrong view to arise just because it hasn't yet been eradicated. ============================ > > However, in context of the Teachings as a whole, this is quite > > unlikely to > > happen. In fact it may be the very understanding needed to better > > come to > > appreciate the rest of Dhamma, including the fact of Sila ;-). Fab: > The Teachings are not meant to be assumed as a single bulk. Suk: No, however conditionality, kamma/vipaka, and the fact that all our experiences are anicca, dukkha and anatta are some of the things we come to face with constantly, right from the beginning. ============================ Fab: > The Buddhasasana is a gradual teaching, you might remember. Suk: What is your understanding of the "gradual teaching"? Is it pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha? Or is it Sila, Samadhi and Panna (Vinaya, Sutta and Abhidhamma?)? If it is the latter, please explain more, because as of now, I have a problem with such a formulation. ============================= Fab: > As a matter of fact, strictly speaking, the Dhamma is contraddictory > and so no consistent logic may be elicited from it. Suk: I don't understand how the Dhamma is contradictory. ============================= > > You know that Sila is a conditioned reality and also that this can > be with > > or without panna. Moreover, there is also what is called 'akusala sila'. Fab: > Sure. Micchasila, actually. In fact every path factor has an > unwholesome counterpart. Suk: Good to hear about this from you. ;-) ============================ > > Personally, I wish that I had better accumulations in this department of > > self-restraint, i.e. have more of the kusala and less of the akusala > > variety, but I don't and that's it. Do I then go about trying to develop > > more sila? Fab: > As soon as possible. The good thing about sila is that it is very easy > to develop: at the most basic stage it is enough to "stop" doing some > acts. > > As you know whatever the citta in the moment, restraint or breaking > of the precepts, it is due to complex set of conditions, beyond control. Fab: > Sila is a committment: it is a matter for Arhat to be able to keep > one's commitments... so you should not bother too much about it :-) Suk: Yes you are right about Sila being quite basic and not requiring a great level of understanding. However, like anything else, it can also become the object of wrong understanding, don't you think? In which case, only the development of panna can keep check. One might for example, proliferate into ideas about vegetarianism or celibacy, completely unaware of the influence of wrong view at those times. Or someone may think about following the vinaya as monks do and end up overreaching and later fall prey to kukucha........ ============================ > > Also, > > restraint of the senses is in fact a moment of satipatthana, and > this is the highest good, for at such a moment, there is sila, right > concentration and right understanding all being developed. Fab: > Yes, but that is again put, as it were, in the ontology of reality. > Sila, I repeat, is a committment to do no harm; not an insurance for > not doing it! Suk: OK. ============================ > > Sure, if one has lots and lots of sila even without panna, this is > > excellent. However there would be no "understanding" developed at those > > moments, would there? Fab: > In our world I think it is impossible to practice Sila without at the > same time developing wisdom - short of neither giving up the practice > or one's own life. Suk: You mean as students of Dhamma? But what if even Dhamma is wrongly understood? =========================== > > The development of panna takes its own course starting > > with intellectual right understanding, pariyatti. This can go > > together with > > the development of sila, but sila by itself can't lead to the > > development of panna. Fab: > It just takes some time: but Sila surely leads to Panna. This is > expecially true for lay people conducting a relatively normal life. I > suggest you to try. Suk: No, without ditthujukamma, Sila is more likely to become the object of wrong view, even as Dhamma students. ============================ > > You talk about the danger of falling into wrong view; in fact I > think that > > the idea of developing sila first as a basis for Samadhi and Panna > is one > > with such a danger. Because we do not see the importance of developing > > 'right understanding' from the very beginning, invariably one aims at > > developing 'sila' regardless or not there is 'self view', hence the > danger > > of 'sila'battaparamasa. Fab: > The lower fetter hampering entrance into the stream is the attachment > to rituals: not sila itself. Suk: Only if and when Sila is understood correctly. If not, then as objects of wrong view, it does become silabattaparamasa. ========================== > > the development of right understanding, including intellectual understanding > > of the fact of 'no self', can only help to condition more sila and other > > kusala, don't you think? Fab: > It may or it may be not. It tends just to increase the stakes. I would > expect from someone free of a self either enlightnement or serial > killing...! Suk: Serial killing!? Then I wonder what you understand by Right View of the intellectual level? =========================== > > I think that as student of the Dhamma, at anytime from the very > first step > > on to the last, the focus should be on the development of Right > > Understanding. Other levels of kusala including Dana, Sila and Samatha > > Bhavana are to be encouraged, however Dana and Sila can be > *developed* only > > when there is Right Understanding of them, otherwise they at best only > > condition what might be called a 'habitual' response. Fab: > Ok, this is what you did up to now. Of course you are a judge of your > life: if you think your path is going smoothly you had better to keep > on doing what you do, in the opposite case you might want to consider > this new opportunity. Suk: I wouldn't want to trust any assessment based on comparison, the vipallasas are sure to take effect. It takes courage, truthfulness and a degree of wisdom to question oneself with regard to how much understanding of the present moment there is. And I must admit to having too little of all. Anyway, I think that you are implying that Sila makes the development of the Path easier. I think that it does. However, this actually goes together with the development of panna, one supporting the other. I do question though, the idea that sila leads to wisdom and hence the stress on this end, at the expense of ditthujukamma. Obviously this latter aspect of the Teachings does not ignore the importance of the former. I understand that because of the stress on this aspect of `wisdom' training, it might appear that not enough importance is given to Dana, Sila and other forms of kusala. But in fact this being an aspect of the Middle Way, is easily seen as falling on one side of the extreme by those who hold so fast their own one sided view of practice.;-) So no, even though I don't think that my own practice is smooth, I am still not convinced enough about other practices to be persuaded to change. ;-) ============================ > > Besides without Satipatthana, one might only recognize the gross and > some > > medium akusala. On the other hand, even with right understanding of the > > intellectual level, one may begin slowly to recognize some forms of > akusala otherwise mistaken for kusala. In other words, akusala sila is > distinguished from kusala sila. Fab: > At the basic level Sila means keeping the precepts: and I do not doubt > even a 5 years old child would say if an act is done according to the > precepts or not. Suk: I don't think we can assume that of a 5 yr, old, nor for the matter, a 70 yr. old. We are not talking about answers got from a moment of reflection and that which can easily become an object of `idealism'. Even the "commitment" that you speak about, even this must be with panna. The precepts are training rules not meant to condition unwholesome regret and other akusala dhammas, just because the Dhamma student misses the significance of the Middle Way. ============================ > > Indeed the Buddha taught according to the audience's level of > understanding, > > but I don't think he ever overlooked the importance of developing right > > view, even though it may appear to us upon reading some Suttas, that > he did. Fab: > That is your opinion. Of course I have another, and other people have > still others... who really knows what the Buddha really meant? Suk: Allow me to put this, another way. Would you not give importance to the development of Right View over everything else? ============================== > > To my understanding, the > > way the teachings are laid out in the Abhidhamma and explained in > light of > > the present moment, is the best teachings for us "dummies". The > Suttas on > > the other hand, where one is required to understand context and look > out for > > 'self view' is harder for us. Fab: > I think the Vinaya is the best teaching for us. Suk: Yes, none of the baskets should be ignored. But one question, should a lay person attempt to follow the Vinaya as the monk does? Thanks again Fab, for the opportunity to be discussing this with you. Metta, Sukinder 58963 From: "Joop" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 1:05am Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas jwromeijn Hallo Howard, Scott, Tep, Sarah, all As I said in my remarks on Stephen Batchelors article, I doubt that the 'two truth theory' is the only or most useful theory on the nature of realitiy or realities. "You and I also are merely conventional realities", you asked me. Well: I have a theory that I exist (at conventional level) and till now that theory is not really falsified; there are moments that I think I hardly exist but my theory was never incorrect. My theory is also that there exists somebody 'Howard', and remembering the messages I read of you the last two years and using a kind of Turing-test on them, I think that a good, a useful, theory. There was a theory that the planet earth had the form of a pancake; another theory was that it had the form of a sphere; we can state that the latter is not really falsified and the former is. Said otherwise: the statement (on conventional level) the planet earth is a pancake, is incorrect, in false. There are theories that devas exist, and petas and other beings on 29 of the 31 realms used in Theravada-Abhidhamma. Only of two of the realms I think there is empirical evidence that they are correct: that of animals and that of human beings. The other 29 (or whatever number is used in different religions) are products of the human mind, are in a reality-testing incorrect. So in a way I'm a atheistic buddhist. But atheism is not important to me as it has been some decades ago. All I know is that I don't belief in a God or gods; but it's no problem. I have other myths that I use (people cannot live without myths), for example that there are 'laws of nature' like the law of gravity that do not change in eternity. Of course one can question: is it a big difference to state that a deva exist as such OR to state that a deva only is a product of a mind of a human being? Not so big but still a difference? But far more important is the question: is the belief in the objective existence of devas etcetera really important: has the liberating path that the Buddha has teached us really be another path in a universe with devas or in a universe without devas? I think the answer is: NO Onely the language, the similes, the metaphores do change but not the inner core of the Teachings. Metta Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Joop - > > In a message dated 5/6/06 4:49:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > jwromeijn@... writes: > > > know you are not a hundred percent Abhidhammika Tep, otherwise I > > could have given a more easy answer: devas are no ultimate realities, > > they are concepts, conventional realities. > > > ======================== > You and I also are merely conventional realities, Joop! But you mean > more when you say there are no devas, do you not? ;-) > > With metta, > Howard 58964 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 7, 2006 1:42am Subject: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 438- mindfulness/sati (t) 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) Questions i What is the object of mindfulness with dåna? ii What is the object of mindfulness with síla? iii What is the object of mindfulness in samatha? iv Why can the body as a whole not be the object of mindfulness in the development of insight? v How does one know when there is mindfulness of the level of samatha and when mindfulness of the level of insight? vi In what way can the “study” of realities such as visible object, seeing, sound or hearing have a wholesome effect on our daily life? vii Does the word “mindfulness” as we use it in daily life represent the reality of sati of vipassanå? ***** (Ch26 - mindfulness/sati finished!) Metta, Sarah ====== 58965 From: "Phil" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 3:24am Subject: Re: ‘Cetasikas' study corner 435- mindfulness/sati (q) philofillet Hi Howard > Phil, what is "natural" for worldlings is following our inclinations > and desires in actions and beliefs. These may be good, bad, or somewhere in > between. (Most often not so good! ;-) Yes, you're right. It's silly of me to talk about stories about meditation retreats and what not - it is the cittas that are of important, and only the cittas. (well, the dhammas) I am very strongly influenced by the "burning" sutta as I mention so often - seems clear to me that the inclinations of worldling are most definitely unwholesome, "burning with greed, hatred and delusion." So it seems to have influenced me to be disinclined to add fuel to that by doing intentionally to try to put out this fire - just stirring it up. But the suttas you refer to below certainly encourage us not to be idle. Thanks! Phil I would like to mention to you that the > Buddha spoke of his Dhamma as going *against the flow*. For example, in SN VI.1, > the Ayacana Sutta, and also in MN 26, the Ariyapariyesana Sutta, the Buddha > taught the following: > _________________ > Just then these verses, unspoken in the past, unheard before, occurred to the > Blessed One: > > Enough now with teaching > what > only with difficulty > I reached. > > This Dhamma is not easily realized > by those overcome > with aversion & passion. > > What is abstruse, subtle, > deep, > hard to see, > going against the flow â€?E > those delighting in passion, > cloaked in the mass of darkness, > won't see. Ph: Well, > ----------------------------------------- > There also is a sutta, which one I don't recall, that describes the > Buddha placing an empty urn or pot on the surface of a flowing stream, the urn > representing Dhammavinaya and the stream representing the usual way we live and > think, and it moved upstream, opposite the direction of the flow! Relatedly, > you might look at the ATI link for the Anusota Sutta: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an04-005.html. > 58966 From: "Phil" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 3:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.1 difficulty of understanding visible object philofillet Hi Paul Thanks for your feedback > P: My understanding is that the four great rupas are necessary conditions > for both the sensitivity of the eye (what we call the physical eye) and for > the visible object. The rupas that you mention are supports for the eye > base. Citta cannot know visible object without the condition of rupa. This > does not mean, however, that what citta experiences is those four rupas > (earth, wind, fire, water) simultaneously as rupas. The citta that is > seeing does not directly experience the hardness of an object, for example. Ph: I see. (In the "naruhodo!" sense of the word - you speak Japanese, I think.) So seeing does not experience the hardness, but it is there as a necessary support for the ...eye base? But no, that isn't quite right, is it? The eye base and visual object are completely different rupas, both necessary conditions for seeing to arise, but ... listen, never mind. This is one of the many topics that I don't like to try to think too hard about. When there is understanding, it will be there without trying to wrack (rack?) my brain. That's my approach. > There may later be a concept that the object (a book for instance) is hard, > but seeing consciousness does not accomplish this. What is experienced > through the eye-door is a visible datum (conceptually we surmise this to be > a real irreducible occurrence the 4 great rupas), which, as far as seeing is > concerned is color. Color is what is experienced, and this is not a > concept; it is an irreducible mental phenomena that can be known as it is. Ph: That's quite clear, thanks. > > Try shining a light directly upon an object that you are looking at; what > is experienced when we look at different gradations of light upon the object > is merely changes in the quality and intensity of color. No, I think I won't do this. For some reason I have a prejudice against intentionally examining experience in what seems to be a scientific way. Of course Dhamma and understanding dhammas *has to be* about studying experience, but...I don't know. I don't want to do it in a conventional, intentional way - not at this time anyways. You know, it's funny, but when I posted about not being able to understand visible object as being comprised of a groups of different kinds of rupas, I wasn't seeking an explanation, though I appreciate the lengths you went to. (And don't feel guilty about not responding in more detail becaues I know writing it out was helpful for you.) I was kind of happy just to state that I didn't understand. It seems I get some kind of pleasure out of knowing just how little I understand. What the heck is that all about! :) (James would say a lack of self-esteem...who knows, maybe he's right! :) Mana (conceit) about one's ignorance.... Phil 58967 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 7, 2006 3:39am Subject: Meditation, Alone & Thinking.... sarahprocter... Dear Neil, [Like Jonothan, I hope you don't mind if I reply on DSG to your further reflections so others can read or join in if they like.] You wrote (off-list): "Thank you for your forwardings in the realm of Buddhism. Among other things one reads about it is the seemingly overwhelming association with meditation. I am alone, and so I think a lot. Is such thinking thought of in Buddhism as meditation?. Or is meditation conceived of as something on a different plane? Alone? With others? How does it relate to "prayer" in the western faiths? All best wishes, as always, to you and Jonathan, and let's see if this goes through. Regards, Neil." ***** S: Others may respond with different ideas. There is a common Pali word we often us, bhavana, which is sometimes translated as mental development and sometimes as meditation. I consider that whenever there is a growth of wisdom, a growth of mental development, that this is bhavana or meditation. It doesn't matter whether one is alone or standing on the M.T.R (the crowded subway in Hong Kong) - there can be a growth of wisdom, a growth of understanding at any time. I think it helps to reflect again and again that life only exists at this moment. So whether we are alone or in a crowd, there's no use thinking the other situation would be better. In this sense, meditation is purely a mental state, dependent of wise reflection, awareness of present realities and not dependent on a particular time and place. In a deeper sense we're all alone all the time. We're alone with the experiences through the five senses now and alone in our world of thinking.....usually quite lost in the latter! Being alone with these present realities, we're encouraged in Buddhism to be like an island, like refuges to ourselves. Praying for assistance in this task is not the way because only a growth in wisdom of the present mental and physical phenomena can assist. How does this sound to you? Thank you for you reflections. I've been appreciating your correspondence with Jonothan too. Fondest regards, Sarah ======== 58968 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 7, 2006 3:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Do mind objects have an intrinsic nature? sarahprocter... Hi Fabrizio (& Larry), --- Fabrizio Bartolomucci wrote: L:> > What do you > > think? Is tadaaramma.na responsible for accumulation (aayuuhana), or > is > > that one of the functions of javana? > Fab:> The latter. No citta may be both the result and cause of kamma. .... S: Very true. ... >This > view would lead to fatalism. ... S: That's a good/interesting comment. Could you elaborate? I think it might be helpful as people often mutter about conditioned dhammas leading to fatalistic ideas. Thanks! I'm appreciating your other discussions and keen interest in Abhidhamma too. Ciao, Sarah ====== 58969 From: "Phil" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 4:11am Subject: Re: 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. Listening to the new batch of groovy talks I heard myself quoted as saying "nama is that which experiences, rupa is that which is experienced." That as wrong. Nama can also be experienced. Nama can have nama as object, obviously. Rupa does not experience anything. Acharn Sujin teaches that, generally speaking, nama is more subtle than rupa. I forget why. Rupa appears more clearly, through more doors, and lasts longer? Something like that. On the other hand, there is nothing subtle, seemingly, about namas such as anger, or lust of the "aaarh maties, it's the pirate's life for me" variety. Phil 58970 From: "Phil" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 4:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 1 knowing vipaka from akusala citta philofillet Hi Sarah and all > > There is still enjoyment of > > pleasant days - it would be unnatural for that to be resisted - > ... > S: Very true... > .... > > but > > there is more understanding of the jatis involved, a little bit more. > > And there is therefore a bit of a sobering or something. Still > > finding delight, but not seeking it as much? > .... > S: Good reflections. It does help a lot to appreciate (at any level) what > vipaka is and how kusala vipaka (good results of kamma) cannot be made to > arise. Ph: Also we remember that having kusala vipaka is not the point. It's not as though kusala vipaka were a reward for good behavious. Pleasant objects are equally likely to condition akusala. I posted about this some months ago, calling it a "vipaka paradox" that kusala vipaka, good results of kamma, should in return condition so much more moha and lobha, whereas milder forms of akusala vipala actually seem to help us out quite often because, as we know, lobha doesn't appear as the enemy, so is harder to see, whereas dosa, for example, stands out more and is more likely to be the object of awareness, thereby helping us out in the long run. Some weeks after posting that I found a couple of suttas in SN 3 5 that get at this. In one the Buddha talks about both unpleasant *and* pleasant objects being "village raiding dacoits (whatever a dacoit) is that run amok and cause harm, something like that. Kusala vipaka is nothing to celebrate. But we are not life-hating and pleasant times can be enjoyed with wisdom. Phil One could sit in the pedal boat and experience akusala vipaka or > sit at home by the computer and experience kusala vipaka. We never know > what kamma has in store for the next moment of seeing, hearing and so on. > > I really enjoy following the extracts you select from ADL and your > reflections. I'm glad you're going slowly through the book this time, > relating it all to your daily life. > > Hi to Naomi too! > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= > 58971 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 4:31am Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 2 jonoabb Hi Eric --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ericlonline" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > This is a pretty amusing post of yours. > The lengths you will go to not see anothers > point of view!! Oh well, lets have another > go around. Glad to have been a source of amusement for you, Eric. Let's see if I can provide some more entertainment ;-)) (OK, you've made it clear that you're not interested in hearing anything more from the commentaries, so I'll restrict my comments to the text of the sutta itself.) Your summary of the significance of the sutta is: "When samadhi is, insight is. When samadhi is not, insight is not, etc. This/that conditionality is the basis of Dependent Origination and the Buddhist path!" and you take samadhi here to mean jhana (only). As I said before, I don't disagree about the central part that DO plays in the teachings. But what I question is that it can be represented in the terms you suggest, namely, 'Whenever A is, B must be also. Whenever A is not, B also is not.' So lets have a look at the other factors mentioned in the sutta. If you are right about the relationship between samadhi/jhana and insight, the same relationship should hold for the other links, since the same conditioning factor of 'upanisa' applies throughout, would this be right? The factors are: 1 Suffering (dukkha) 2 Faith (saddha) 3 Gladness (pamojja) 4 Rapture (piti) 5 Tranquillity (passaddhi) 6 Happiness (sukha) 7 Concentration (samadhi) 8 Knowledge and vision of things as they really are (yathabhutañanadassana) 9 Revulsion (nibbida) 10 Dispassion (viraga) 11 Liberation (vimutti) 12 Knowledge of destruction in regard to destruction (asavakkhaye ñana) (Upanisa Sutta SN 12:23. Bh Bodhi translation in his CDB at p. 553. Also in Wheel 277 at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel277.html) Applying your formulation to the first sets of factors we would get: 1-2: 'When Suffering (dukkha) is, Faith (saddha) is. When Suffering (dukkha) is not, Faith (saddha) is not' 2-3: 'When Faith (saddha) is, Gladness (pamojja) is. When Faith (saddha) is not, Gladness (pamojja) is not' I think it's obvious that this doesn't 'work'. Now let's take the factor immediately preceding samadhi, which is pleasant feeling (sukha). 6-7: 'When pleasant feeling is, samadhi/jhana is. When pleasant feeling is not, samadhi/jhana is not'. Surely not! The formulation you have adopted will only be appropriate where A is a necessary prerequisite for B and also A cannot exist without B. In other words it is a far tighter relationship even than where A is a necessary prerequisite for B (this would be represented by the second part of your formulation, Where A is not, B is not). Hence my suggestion that 'supporting condition/proximate cause' may mean something other than you take it to mean. Any comments? (I have 1 or 2 other thoughts, but may raise them in a separate post.) Jon > J> Well I am not disputing the proposition that everything > is 'this/that conditionality'. But what is the meaning > of 'supporting condition/proximate cause' in the sutta you have > quoted? > > What difference does it make? Either > as "supporting condition" or "proximate > cause", samadhi comes before insight. > It is plain as day! Why cant you see > this? Are you dislexic and reading > the sutta backwards? Or do you have > such an aversion to samadhi that your > mind jumps thru hoops in order to > convince yourself it is no necessary? > It is hard Jon, I know, but you can > do it! It takes time and energy but > you can do it Jon! > ... > Jon> As you will know, the standard formulation of DO does not go > into the kind of conditionality applying in each link, it merely > singles out specific the factors that are the conditioning and the > conditioned dhamma. But according to the commentary material, > multiple conditions apply in some if not all of the > links; 'supporting condition/proximate cause' is only one of these. > > Jon, please! Just stick in this/that > conditionality and you dont have to > go round the world and back thru the > ages searching thru your library. > When samadhi is, insight is. When samadhi > is not, insight is not, etc. This/that > conditionality is the basis of Dependent > Originaion and the Buddhist path! > > > > J> Yes, but as I explained above, 'this/that conditionality' > encompasses a wide range of possible relationships. You seem to > take it to mean 'necessary prerequisite', but do you have a basis > for that assumption? > > Stick in any relationship > and it all boils down to > no samadhi, no insight. > A more prudent use of our > time would be the investigation > of WHY. > ... > metta > > E > > ***PS No commentaries or sub-commentaries > or sub-sub-commentaries were consulted > to make this post. All erroneous views > are that of the poster alone. 58972 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 7, 2006 4:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ŒCetasikas' study corner 433- mindfulness/sati (o) sarahprocter... Dear Nina & Lodewijk, [You're away now, but if I leave it, I may forget.] --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Sarah, we talked about sincerity which is a favorite topic of Lodewijk. > It > strikes him how often kusala is interspersed with other motives, finding > oneself good, making a good impression on others. He said that there are > so > many cittas and we are far removed from knowing the truth. When he used > to > help my late father he thought of himself as the perfect son in law. One > moment he is sincere, and the next moment insincere. .... S: Yes, it's always like this, but it shouldn't bother us. If it does (bother us), it's an indication of more clinging to being a certain kind of person. .... > He said that there are many aspects to each of the perfections and they > can > be developed only together with satipa.t.thaana. .... S: I agree. Perhaps Lodewijk would like to add more. I think there's a subtle distinction between appreciating the value of the wholesome qualities that have to be developed with satipatthana and trying/wishing to have them arise more for ourselves. .... > He said that he would like to emphasize the humane aspect, the sorrow > and > troubles in daily life and that these are dealt with in the suttas. When > we > hear about ultimate realities it makes a harsh impression. .... S: I know what he means, but slowly we learn to see that even these 'humane aspects', the 'sorrow and troubles in daily life' are just namas and rupas. The short reminders about this can sound harsh and we may think they're not helpful to those in trouble or somehow are lacking in compassion at the time, but I think the opposite is true. The greatest help of all are the reminders that what we're so concerned or upset about are these fleeting dhammas. These truths do go against our usual ways of thinking about kindness and compassion and it may seem that there's some conflict, but there isn't. If we are inclined to be helpful and generous or caring (like Lodewijk was with his father-in-law), we will continue to be so, but in addition, will be more honest about the different motivations and so on. ..... > It sounds so harsh: there are only nama and rupa. .... S: I think this is partly Joop's point too - that we should be more concerned about the social dimension. I used to be very concerned about this too. The reminders about namas and rupas might seem harsh or unsympathetic, but really they are the core of the Buddha's compassionate teaching. .... > I said, that when there is understanding there is also calm. > Lodewijk said that this link is not clear for everyone. He said that it > is > understandable that people have a need to be calm, like Vince and his > wife > who are spending each year some time in a Burmese temple. .... S: So much of what we take for being calm is really a more refined kind of attachment. We feel calmer when we go hiking in the countryside, play music, visit a temple and so on, but so often this kind of calm just means less agitation, less aversion. Is it really the development of calm with understanding? .... >He thinks that > we > should have more understanding of people's different needs and not say > immediately that this is wrong practice, or that here the idea of self > appears. > I agree, because we can consider our own cittas: so often we cling to > self. .... S: Yes, I think we can all learn more skilful ways of helping each other. But instead of being concerned about others' ways and whether they could be better, I think we can just do our best at any time. Sometimes a direct method may seem harsh or inappropriate, but the person listening may go away with a real impression which may be the condition for understanding to develop later. We don't know. I personally have always appreciated K.Sujin's short, direct comments, the bitter medicine, which is why I've always gone back for more. They never sound harsh to me, but everyone has different impressions. One reminder I like a lot is to not try and be the 'world manager'. In other words, we're so used to trying to arrange circumstances and other people, used to thinking of better ways people could behave or be helped and so on, but all the time we forget about the understanding of what is appearing now - seeing, visible object, thinking, attachment and so on. So when we think such reminders are too direct or not pleasant for other people, it comes back again to 'minding our own cittas' at such times. If we're feeling frustrated or there's mana because we think another way would be better, these are the present realities to be known. I'll look forward to hearing about your discussions in France. I think it's very good (and helpful for us all) that Lodewijk expresses these ideas. It's not only on DSG that people get frustrated or dislike certain discussions - - we can see it happens in live discussions in Bangkok too. Chris expressed similar feelings as I recall! What is also helpful to remember is that 'it's gone'! We dwell on past experiences in our work, our travels or on the list -- but they're all completely gone. It's only the citta now that counts. This is very uplifting - the past can be completely left behind. Please share any further feedback Lodewijk gives. No need for agreements! Metta, Sarah ====== 58973 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 5:03am Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Well, now, I think, you are making a fairly clear statement which sets out your position. H: "In the strong sense of the word "to know", anything about the thoughts of devas, or devas, is unknowable. What is known in the strong sense is what is experienced at a sense level. Beyond that, there is inference (knowing in a weak sense), or imagination, or fabrication. IMHO." What is meant when it is stated that, for example, jhaana proficiency can lead to rebirth in a deva realm? Or, for that matter, that rebirth in the human realm is a "good rebirth?" Are these statements to be taken somehow as metaphorical? And then what? I think that one can go too far here. In other words, is "rebirth" one of those inferred or imaginary fabrications as well? What about nibbaana? Or the literal origins of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka? (I'm not suggesting that this is what you are stating, you realise, I'm just making the argument.) On the other hand, one can go too far the other way. I have family members who, based on the set of fundamentalist christian beliefs they hold, suggest that the fossil record used to demonstrate the past existence of dinosaurs to have been an elaborate hoax. And why? Because the time-frame posited along with this fossil record does not accord with a literal acceptance of the creationist time-frame. This, in my opinion, takes literal belief to an extreme since it amounts to an almost psychotic (or at least very stubborn) denial of evidence. It seems to me that one who, on the basis of this above noted distinction between strong and weak "knowing," denies the existence of devas and a deva realm simply on the basis of that superficial dichotomy fails to allow for the possibility of experience. To say that "anything about the thoughts of devas, or devas is unknowable," says too much and discards the possibility that one can go from not knowing to knowing about anything. It seems to me that an aspect of practise, and a central one at that, is a progression from a lack of knowing to a realisation that eradicates all known. What do you think? Sincerely, Scott. 58974 From: "Phil" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 5:14am Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 2 philofillet Hi Jon A nosy little chip in. > (OK, you've made it clear that you're not interested in hearing > anything more from the commentaries, so I'll restrict my comments to > the text of the sutta itself.) I'd keep at it with the commentaries, whether Eric is interested or not. DSG should be about the promotion of right understanding, in my opinion, whether it is received or not. (Well, the friendliness you show here is also important, of course...) The commentaries are deeper in understanding than anything you, Eric or I or anyone else here can say about the text of a sutta, surely. Phil 58975 From: "Phil" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 5:40am Subject: Commentaries online? philofillet Hi all I just made a rather snide comment about the importance of getting guidance from commentaries, than realized that I don't do it myself! I think I've asked this before, but forget - is there a commentary available in English to Samyutta Nikaya, especially SN 35? I guess not, because Nina has said she has them in Pali and Thai, but... Thanks for any tips... Phil 58976 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 5:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Commentaries online? egberdina Hi Phil, > Hi all > > I just made a rather snide comment about the importance of getting > guidance from commentaries, than realized that I don't do it myself! > > I think I've asked this before, but forget - is there a commentary > available in English to Samyutta Nikaya, especially SN 35? I guess not, > because Nina has said she has them in Pali and Thai, but... > > Thanks for any tips... Do you have a preference as to whose commentaries you want to be guided by? -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58977 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 5:49am Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ... Metta and Devas indriyabala Hi Joop, Your answers are honest too. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > > Hallo Tep > > Your questions are always honest so I try to answer without irony: > I don't know what the Buddha thought. I think He used skilful means > (skt. upaya), a metaphore to convert the people who (like most > Indians in those days) believed that "the gods of a High Divinity's > retinue" really exist. Thye same with your quote in which "devas" > occur. Tep: The system of devas and the planes of existence are an integral part of the Buddha-sassana; my estimate of the number of suttas that talk about the system is about 20% at least. It is very significant because the belief in the planes of existence is very fundamental for support of conviction (saddha) in the Teachings. If you believed in the laws of kamma and Dependent Origination then you would believe in rebirth. You would be scared of rebirths in the lower realms. And you would avoid all kinds of akusala dhammas. On the other hand, if you believed in the upper realms of the devas you would be motivated to develop kusala dhammas (e.g. through adhering to sila of at least the five precepts). But for the exceptional people who aim at Nibbana and are strongly motivated by Nibbana, then it doesn't matter whether devas and the planes exist or not. That is my thought anyway. .................. > Joop: > If He had met me, He should not have talked in this way. More >general skilful means today is perceiving a big part of >the teachings as metaphorical, not taken literal. > Tep: So you are saying that you would give him an advice? Boy! That doesn't show much saddha in the Buddha, does it? ................... >Joop: > I know you are not a hundred percent Abhidhammika Tep, otherwise I > could have given a more easy answer: devas are no ultimate realities, they are concepts, conventional realities. > Tep: Thank you for offering an answer. But don't you know that I already have been overdosed with too much concepts of the realities? Even the talks about the Paramattha-dhamma are concepts at best. Yours truly, Tep ======= > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "indriyabala" > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Joop (and Sarah) - > > > > The following comments clearly are not supported by experiences. > > Please do not hesitate to tell me that you disagree! > > > > > S:...... People think that they can extend metta to all > > > > beings, including devas, but this is not so. > > > > > > > Joop: > > > There is only one problem: devas don't exist, they are the product > > of the mind of some human beings (in the past) > > > > > > > Question: Was our Lord Buddha just daydreaming about extending metta and imagining devas in the following suttas? > > (snipped) 58978 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 7, 2006 6:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Commentaries online? sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- Phil wrote: > I just made a rather snide comment about the importance of getting > guidance from commentaries, than realized that I don't do it myself! > I think I've asked this before, but forget - is there a commentary > available in English to Samyutta Nikaya, especially SN 35? I guess not, > because Nina has said she has them in Pali and Thai, but... .... S: Until very recently, there was really nothing at all except for some notes with some Wheel translations. Now there are at least some comy notes with BB's translations. Sometimes also, suttas appear in other places, like the Vinaya with a little more information. ... > Thanks for any tips... .... S: I don't know if you saw my note to you on the 'Burning Sutta'? In case you didn't, I recommended you look in U.P. under 'Fire, Burning...' OK, here's an extract from an old post which gives a little more commentarial detail: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/30850 ..... Sarah:>Recently Christine and Victor posted the well-known ‘Fire Sermon’. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/recognizing.html#dispassion Christine wrote: ..... >Bhikkhu Bodhi calls it 'Burning' and has a note about its origination, which is below: BB: "This sutta, often called "The Fire Sermon", is the third discourse of the Buddha as recorded in the narrative of his ministry at Vin I 34-35. According to this source, the thousand bhikkus were former jatila (matted-hair) ascetics under the leadership of the three Kassapa brothers. The Buddha had converted them by a series of miracles, after which he preached the present sermon. The sermon gains special meaning from the fact that before their conversion these ascetics had been devoted to the fire sacrifice. The full account is at Vin I 24-34; see Naanamoli, 'Life of the Buddha', pp. 54-60, 64-69. .... I followed the reference, Chris. The leader and guide of the brothers was Kassapa of Uruvela, highly regarded for his special powers and enlightened status no doubt. He watched the miracles performed by the Buddha including one in a fire chamber. After each one, Kassapa was very impressed but still considered the Buddha was not an arahant like himself. Eventually, we read: “Then the Blessed One thought: ‘This misguided man will go on forever thinking ‘But he is not an Arahant like me.’ Suppose I give him a shock?’ He told Uruvela Kassapa: ‘Kassapa, you are neither an Arahant nor are you on the way to becoming one. There is nothing that you do by which you might become an Arahant or enter into the way to becoming one.’ Kassapa and all the other matted-hair ascetics then took refuge in the Triple Gem and were ordained. .... Chris wrote: Spk: Having led the thousand bhikkhus to Gayaa's Head, the Blessed One reflected, "What kind of Dhamma talk would be suitable for them?" He then realized, "In the past they worshipped the fire morning and evening. I will teach them that the twelve sense bases are burning and blazing. In this way they will be able to attain arahantship." In this sutta the characteristic of suffering is discussed." ... And as we read at the end of the sutta, they all became arahants after fully penetrating the meaning there and then.< ***** S: Actually, there are several pages given at Vin 1. What I gave here was a very brief summary only. Nanamoli's "Life of the Buddha" is an old 'classic', fully of excellent textual quotes. Some of the other suttas from SN35 have been discussed in some detail before and I know Nina will also be happy to add any further details from the commentary too which haven't been quoted before. For many, commentary details from other texts, such as Abhidhamma texts are also very helpful. Perhaps either now or when Nina returns, we can look at some as she suggested. Metta, Sarah ======= 58979 From: "Phil" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 6:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Commentaries? philofillet Hi Herman > Do you have a preference as to whose commentaries you want to be guided by? People who have been dead for at least a thousand years. Seriously, a good question. I don't even know exactly what "commentaries" refers to. In Bhikkhu Bodhi's anthology, there is a thorough list of them, and which one he refers to. There are commentaries, and commentaries on commentaries and even commentaries on commentaries on commentaries, I think. Any of the ones that Bhikkhu Bodhi references would be great, of course, but I assume very few are available in English. the commentarial notes that BB provides are very helpful, but are brief and leave too much room for lobha to manouevre its way to self-seriving interpretations, I feel. (Of course, lobha will still do that with commentaries, but to a lesser degree, surely.) Phil p.s I removed the "online" from the title. I am willing to shell out some moolah if an SN commentary is available in English. (to individual suttas, I suppose.) 58980 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 6:16am Subject: Re: Commentaries online? scottduncan2 Dear Phil, Check out the Pali Text Society's web site. I believe they sell some english transtations of some of the main commentaries. Sincerely, Scott. 58981 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 6:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch. 1 knowing vipaka from akusala citta egberdina Hi Phil, Kusala vipaka is nothing to celebrate. But we are not life-hating > and pleasant times can be enjoyed with wisdom. > > Perhaps you would know which sutta the following poorly memorised statement of the Buddha's came from; I would not recommend becoming even for as long as it takes to click your fingers. Whether that is life hating or not I will leave to you to decide, but if you are on a train driven by the Buddha, that statement will give you some idea as to where the train is going. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58982 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 7:03am Subject: Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... What lies dormant? Itching badly .. indriyabala Hi Ícarofranca-italiano, Thanks a whole lot for your easy-does-it attitude that, I feel, has less attachment than many. So, 'seeing' is believing -- and I am beginning to believe what you said below. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "icarofranca" wrote: > > Hi Tepissimus! > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > You're right: the Sutta doesn't state that; it doesn't state many > > other things either. However, to be able to meet "that requirement" > > [i.e. ".. face the Satipatthana without any clinging to the world > >out > > there."] it take the Right View of an ariyan. Can you > >dwell "without > > any clinging to the world" right now? > > ...................... > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > You see...at the first moment you take the five precepts and the > Saffron robe and bowl, becoming a bhikkhu, you are leaving away the > world by a natural way. That´s the Theravada´s viewpoint, shared > many times with the Mahayana´s schools. > I won´t stress the point that, by Theravada´s teachings, only the > bhikkhu that took all the precepts and rules is apt and authorized > to be called a buddhist and to perform all mindfulness practices. In > Mindfulness, mainly the Satipatthana, there are some "technical" > remarks that can be put out in action by anyone interested: if you > seat in Pallanka, without any stress on mind, diligently put aside > thoughts and feelings that can make attrition, with some time your > breathing will become slow, calm, and your body will become stronger. > A rate of six or eight inspire/expire breaths for minute will be > a good goal. The world out there can wait! > Tep: Let's discuss more anapanasati in future posts. ...................... > And, taking the Vinaya by the teeth, I didn´t use medicines! > Tep: How much of the Vinaya are you "taking by the teeth"? :>) Warm regards, Tepissimus ImhoTep ======= ========== 58983 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 7:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition egberdina Hi Scott, On 07/05/06, Scott Duncan wrote: > > Dear Herman, > > Well, now, I think, you are making a fairly clear statement which sets > out your position. Sorry if the following seems pedantic, but I have always understood clearly what I was intending to say. We have communicated very clearly and effectively so that we have reached a point where we both are clear about what I was saying.:-) H: "In the strong sense of the word "to know", anything about the > thoughts of devas, or devas, is unknowable. What is known in the > strong sense is what is experienced at a sense level. Beyond that, > there is inference (knowing in a weak sense), or imagination, or > fabrication. IMHO." > > What is meant when it is stated that, for example, jhaana proficiency > can lead to rebirth in a deva realm? Or, for that matter, that > rebirth in the human realm is a "good rebirth?" Are these statements > to be taken somehow as metaphorical? And then what? I think that one > can go too far here. In other words, is "rebirth" one of those > inferred or imaginary fabrications as well? What about nibbaana? Or > the literal origins of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka? (I'm not suggesting > that this is what you are stating, you realise, I'm just making the > argument.) I must make clear up front that I would be the world's worst teacher. But I see nothing in the above which is not the product of thinking about what you have been told is real. Let's just imagine for a moment that you were dropped on a deserted island shortly after birth, latched to a nurturing device. Do you honestly believe that any of the above thoughts would have ever entered your head? On the other hand, one can go too far the other way. I have family > members who, based on the set of fundamentalist christian beliefs they > hold, suggest that the fossil record used to demonstrate the past > existence of dinosaurs to have been an elaborate hoax. And why? > Because the time-frame posited along with this fossil record does not > accord with a literal acceptance of the creationist time-frame. This, > in my opinion, takes literal belief to an extreme since it amounts to > an almost psychotic (or at least very stubborn) denial of evidence. I know (in a weak sense) heaps of fundies. I also know a number of folks with schizoid tendencies and fewer still schizophrenics. I don't doubt that they see what they see, and that they hink what they think. I don't doubt they are far removed from reality either. It seems to me that one who, on the basis of this above noted > distinction between strong and weak "knowing," denies the existence of > devas and a deva realm simply on the basis of that superficial > dichotomy fails to allow for the possibility of experience. There is a basic difference between what can be experienced and what can be imagined. And there is a lot of confusion about which is which. To say that "anything about the thoughts of devas, or devas is > unknowable," says too much and discards the possibility that one can > go from not knowing to knowing about anything. It seems to me that an > aspect of practise, and a central one at that, is a progression from a > lack of knowing to a realisation that eradicates all known. That last line has more than my my full agreement. It gets 15 out of 10. What do you think? A central aspect of practice is to come to know that knowing is (just) a state of mind. -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58984 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 8:32am Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition scottduncan2 Dear Herman, This is very enjoyable, our discourse! H: "Sorry if the following seems pedantic, but I have always understood clearly what I was intending to say. We have communicated very clearly and effectively so that we have reached a point where we both are clear about what I was saying." Not at all pedantic. I tremble when I communicate since I am without a doubt the world's most fuzzy thinker. H: ". . . I see nothing in the above which is not the product of thinking about what you have been told is real. Let's just imagine for a moment that you were dropped on a deserted island shortly after birth, latched to a nurturing device. Do you honestly believe that any of the above thoughts would have ever entered your head?" Okay, hardball, eh? Harlow's desert island? Well, this hypothetical situation has little bearing on the argument, in my opinion. Of course, within that scenario, no verbal mental formations would be possible. This is the problem with using this as support for your argument. The analogy bears little on the reality of human existence. Since, for all but feral children and those with significant impairments from birth (a broad class I realise but I think you'll get my drift), such an existence is not the norm, you are attempting to support the lack of literal reality of, say, devas, on the basis of an (equally, for you) unreal situation. The fact that the unfortunate being in your scenario would be little more than an animal, and insane at that, does not yet refute (fancy, eh?) the argument that there are deva realms inhabited by devas/devis. For the sake of argument a human truly can be said to have rushed to be "latched to a nurturing device." This is rebirth in the human realm. For most, the proliferation of mental fabrications is a solid reality. In my opinion, some are right and some are wrong. The Buddha is seen to be the Teacher since he cleared up these things. (You can no doubt see that you can take the boy out of fundamenalism but that you might not be able to take the fundamentalism out of the boy - please assist if this is what is happening to me). Now, in this case, I am asserting that a deva exists as something more than just an object of the mind. And I'm not needing to have the argument brought in that humans and devas are conceptual. It does make a difference to me at this point in my life whether I learned of devas by a study of the Buddha's Dhamma or in a Spiderman comic. Are there or are there not beings within samsara which reside on different planes of existence? H: "A central aspect of practice is to come to know that knowing is (just) a state of mind." How do you define "knowing?" Is it pa~n~na? This is cetasika. It arises when conditioned and can "know" an object, as I understand it. Is this pa~n~na a "state of mind?" It is nama. It arises and it falls away. "Deva" is concept. Let's say one appears to you. I mean standing there like the guy at the convenience store where you buy a coffee. (Now who's introducing ridiculous analogies, you say.) I read where this sort of appearance happened frequently at points when the Buddha was teaching or deciding whether to teach or not. Anyway, there's this deva standing in front of you. Can you work with this analogy and show the various sorts of "knowing" you wish to posit? I'm arguing that a deva has an existence beyond the level of object of the mind, although that it can be of course. I'm arguing that one can indeed conceptualise, imagine, fantasise, or whatever about "devas" but that the fact that this sort of behaviour is possible does not negate the "literal" existence of devas. A deva sitting in his deva realm deciding that humans are only the mental fabrications of devas with too much time on their hands does not negate "my" existence as experienced now. What do you think? (Please see above in relation to the claim I make about my fuzzy thinking.) Sincerely, Scott. 58985 From: "Larry" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 9:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.1 difficulty of understanding visible object lbidd2 Hi Howard, I've been pondering this interpretation of the Kalakarama Sutta and have come up with an alternate view below: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Paul (and Phil) - > > In a message dated 5/6/06 12:21:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > paulgrabianowski@... writes: > > > Hi Phil, > > > > You Wrote: I find again and again how little understanding there is of > > visible > > >object. I read in ADL that visible object (or sound, or smell etc) is > > >never separate from the 4 great rupas, as well as 3 other rupas. That > > >is quite unfathomable to my undeveloped understanding. > > > > > > What I take to be visible object is just a conceptual construct, > > >thinking in a flash about colour. There is no direct understanding of > > >visible object yet. That's ok, can't be had by wanting to have it. > > > > P: My understanding is that the four great rupas are necessary conditions > > for both the sensitivity of the eye (what we call the physical eye) and for > > the visible object. The rupas that you mention are supports for the eye > > base. Citta cannot know visible object without the condition of rupa. This > > > > does not mean, however, that what citta experiences is those four rupas > > (earth, wind, fire, water) simultaneously as rupas. The citta that is > > seeing does not directly experience the hardness of an object, for example. > > There may later be a concept that the object (a book for instance) is hard, > > but seeing consciousness does not accomplish this. What is experienced > > through the eye-door is a visible datum (conceptually we surmise this to be > > a real irreducible occurrence the 4 great rupas), which, as far as seeing is > > > > concerned is color. Color is what is experienced, and this is not a > > concept; it is an irreducible mental phenomena that can be known as it is. > > > > Try shining a light directly upon an object that you are looking at; what > > is experienced when we look at different gradations of light upon the object > > > > is merely changes in the quality and intensity of color. The mind is > > conditioned to quickly resolve all kinds of intensities and color > > differences into concepts that represent conventional objects. By doing > > this, however, we quickly forget that all there is is consciousness of this > > color or that intensity of color. Even depth perception (the separation of > > one object from another in the spatial field), if investigated closely, > > appears as only a succession of citta and is distinct from seeing > > consciousness. Thus, after eye consciousness (seeing) takes place there is > > a succession of cittas that set up the visible object (its color) to be > > taken up and surmised. Keep in mind that the visible datum that comes into > > the eyes focus is without cognitive distinction, so the succeeding mind > > states that complete the function of seeing are mind-elements of which we > > have no control. This sense door process ends with impulsion when the mind > > fully takes up the object. It is here where the mind is fully set to > > resolve the visible datum (or datum from the other senses) into a concept. > > It is also here where our understanding of the Dhamma can help us see the > > process through which concepts are formed and keep us from seeing things as > > they are. > > > > Take the objects in a single visible field (what you are looking at right at > > > > this moment). The mind is unaware of the separateness of objects (their > > distinctness) until the mind attends to them. However, this entails a > > succession of cittas which resolve those objects conceptually in their > > particular relations. Look slightly to the right, to the left. The mind is > > constantly distinguishing things. The first part of this process is beyond > > our control. Look even more closely at the wrinkles on your knuckles, the > > mind is constantly distinguishing their intricate contours, resolving them > > into concepts. Note also: Though we "see" only color, this is not to say > > that the gradations of color does not bring to the mind interesting clues to > > > > the spatial locations of objects from which the mind resolves its > > distinctions. > > > > Upon closer investigation, we will realize that even the consciousness of > > the intensity of light is really just a variation in color. So that no > > matter how much light is reflected upon an object, the only thing that the > > mind is directly conscious of with each successive citta is the experience > > of color. Picture an apple under a tree which we experience as a particular > > > > shade of red because the sun casts its beam directly or upon it, or picture > > that consciousness experiences that same apple as a slightly different shade > > > > of red because the sun is above the tree and does not directly cast its beam > > > > upon the apple. It is, by way of dependent arising, conventionally the same > > > > apple in each successive moment that is experienced (it is composed of the > > same 4 great rupas which touch could verify), but seeing consciousness > > experiences only gradations of color that arise and fall away with each > > succeeding citta conscious of visible object. In the end, one should also > > be careful attributing qualities to color beyond its immediate function of > > bringing visible datum before the eye consciousness. There are many other > > mind processes happening right now that determine the everyday distinctions > > we attribute to rupa. And none of this would be possible without the 4 > > great rupas and their secondary factors as support for the eye; that is mind > > > > boggling, yet remarkably sane in its own way. > > > > I'm sorry this turned out to be so long. > > > > Paul > > > > > ========================== > Paul, I find all that you said to be very good and very clear with one > important exception. The main question of the relationship of the 4 great > elements to, say, visible object (or field of color) remains unclear to me, and > perhaps at variance with certain statements of the Buddha. All else that you > speak of is in terms of direct experience (and the difference between what is > directly sensed and what is mind-composed). But, in this context, the 4 great > elements are not spoken of experientially. They are spoken of as unexperienced > entities lying "out there" and somehow underlying, say, visual object. This is > concept-only, as I see it. > Recall how, in the Kalaka (or Kalakarama) Sutta, the Buddha said > "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." As I read this, it is a statement in > support of pure (non-dualistic) experientialism, ruling out not only a seer, > a dismissal unsurprising to all Buddhists, but also an object (the "partner" > to a seer), and, most relevant to the point discussed here, an unseen reality > underlying what is seen as its basis or substance. [Note: I'm not dismissing > solidity, liquidity, temperature, and motion as experiential realities. I > recognize these as body-sense rupas, with liquidity possibly mind-sense.] > > With metta, > Howard L: I disagree with this, but I disagree with the commentary as well. It seems very uncharacteristic of the Buddha to be claiming a 'mind only' or phenominalist view. He tends to be more of a philosophical realist. I think the correct interpretation is much simpler. When he says, "a Tathaagata does not conceive of a visible object as apart from the seen" this is because he has already said "whatever is seen by the mind that I have fully understood". A visible object apart from the seen would be something he hasn't seen, which there isn't any. This is a way of saying he has seen it all. In other words, he is all knowing, omniscient. [There is a peculiarity here with the word 'seen' which, in this case, is derived from 'ditthi'. Perhaps 'seen' 'heard' 'sensed' and 'cognized' should be considered as ways of understanding.] With regard to visible object being a derivative of the four great elements, I think there is an experiential basis for this. We can feel light touching the sensitive part of the eye, especially very bright light, or when our eyes become particularly sensitive. If anything, I would say abhidhamma and commentaries tend to be more phenominalistic than the Buddha's discourse. There isn't even an internal and external in abhidhamma. Larry 58986 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 9:18am Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition scottduncan2 Dear Herman, I thought I'd add this quote from Narada: "It should be remarked that the Buddha did not attempt ot expound any cosmological theory. The essence of the Buddha's teaching is not effected by the existence or non-existence of these planes. No one is bound to believe anything if it does not appeal to his reason. Nor is it right to reject anything just because it cannot be conceived by one's limited knowledge," (Abhidhammattha Sangaha, p. 273) I totally agree with the sentiment. Just so you know I'm not trying to be dogmatic. Sincerely, Scott. 58987 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 7, 2006 5:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.1 difficulty of understanding visible object upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 5/7/06 12:11:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: > L: I disagree with this, but I disagree with the commentary as well. It > seems very > uncharacteristic of the Buddha to be claiming a 'mind only' or phenominalist > view. He > tends to be more of a philosophical realist. ------------------------------------ Howard: Actually, there are many folks he see the matter as I do. But, then, so what? LOL! ---------------------------------- I think the correct interpretation is much > > simpler. When he says, "a Tathaagata does not conceive of a visible object > as apart from > the seen" this is because he has already said "whatever is seen by the mind > that I have fully > understood". A visible object apart from the seen would be something he > hasn't seen, > which there isn't any. This is a way of saying he has seen it all. In other > words, he is all > knowing, omniscient. [There is a peculiarity here with the word 'seen' > which, in this case, > is derived from 'ditthi'. Perhaps 'seen' 'heard' 'sensed' and 'cognized' > should be considered > as ways of understanding.] ----------------------------------------- Howard: That doesn't ring a bell with me. C'est la vie! :-) ----------------------------------------- > > With regard to visible object being a derivative of the four great elements, > I think there is > an experiential basis for this. We can feel light touching the sensitive > part of the eye, > especially very bright light, or when our eyes become particularly > sensitive. > --------------------------------------- Howard: Actually, the pressure and even pain that you speak of doesn't strike me as "air" or "earth" underlying the visual object or serving as a condition for it, but as a consequence of the visual contact. Speaking in conventional terms, there is a sudden contraction of the pupil in response to the bright light. --------------------------------------- If anything, I > > would say abhidhamma and commentaries tend to be more phenominalistic than > the > Buddha's discourse. There isn't even an internal and external in abhidhamma. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: I think that there is indeed much phenomenalism in the Abhidhamma. ---------------------------------------- > > Larry > > ==================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 58988 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 7, 2006 5:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] ADL ch.1 difficulty of understanding visible object upasaka_howard Hi again, Larry - In a message dated 5/7/06 12:54:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: > Howard: > Actually, there are many folks he see the matter as I do. But, then, > so what? LOL! > ==================== In the preceding gibberish, 'he' was supposed to be 'who'. :-) 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) 58989 From: Daniel Date: Sun May 7, 2006 11:09am Subject: Re: First Noble Truth daniell@... Hi, thank you for the replies. I will try to expiriment more with the "clinging" \ "grasping" - it seems something that one should pinpoint in one's own experience... :) 58990 From: "ericlonline" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 2:13pm Subject: Re: Samatha and vipassana 1 ericlonline Hi Jon, > Jon > I thought it was about time this thread had its own subject > heading ;-)) > ericlonline wrote: > > >E: Actually different objects. I forget the words, > >samathanakanna (sp?) and I cant remember the other. > >But it seems the commentaries expounded on this > >difference in object and then postulated 2 different > >types of meditation when in fact there was not. > >Then the Burmese ran with Vipassana. So, this was > >why I was asking to do a search in the Nikayas and > >Vinaya. To see if Vipassana and Samadhi was more > >closely linked than in later traditions. I really > >am not sure and was asking for your help. Again, > >no big deal if you dont have the time. > > > Jon > Are you by any chance thinking of samatha-yaanika and sukkha- > vipassaka? E> Let me get back to you on this one. From a friend... Visuddhimagga distinguished b/w samatha-kammathana and vipassana- kammathana. Kammathana = basis of kamma or workplace, and originally refereed to the object on which one meditates & trains, e.g., breathing in & out. Later, kammathana was dropped. So, samatha came to mean kinds of meditation w/ a samatha orientation, objective, or focus; and vipassana came to mean kinds of meditation w/ a vipassana orientation, objective, or focus. All along samatha and vipassana have continued to mean tranquility/serenity and insight, but the application of these literal meanings shifted. So, it seems in the early Buddhist teachings, bhavana was serenity/insight and later commentary separated the two. You can see this in the 3rd & 4th and 7th & 8th steps in Anapanasati. Serenity is developed and insight in the later steps also. > metta E 58991 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 2:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition egberdina Hi Scott, On 08/05/06, Scott Duncan wrote: > > Dear Herman, > > This is very enjoyable, our discourse! Excellent! > > Okay, hardball, eh? Harlow's desert island? Well, this hypothetical > situation has little bearing on the argument, in my opinion. Of > course, within that scenario, no verbal mental formations would be > possible. This is the problem with using this as support for your > argument. > > The analogy bears little on the reality of human existence. Yes, agreed. It is the complete antithesis of human existence as we know it. Because an individual human does not , and cannot exist independently. Why, it even takes two just to make one. It is the social nature of human existence that is a condition for language and verbal formations. Since, > for all but feral children and those with significant impairments from > birth (a broad class I realise but I think you'll get my drift), such > an existence is not the norm, you are attempting to support the lack > of literal reality of, say, devas, on the basis of an (equally, for > you) unreal situation. The fact that the unfortunate being in your > scenario would be little more than an animal, and insane at that, does > not yet refute (fancy, eh?) the argument that there are deva realms > inhabited by devas/devis. Certainly my argument does not refute the possibility of deva realms. But then, can anything refute the possibility of the existence of what is not observed? > Now, in this case, I am asserting that a deva exists as something more > than just an object of the mind. And I'm not needing to have the > argument brought in that humans and devas are conceptual. It does > make a difference to me at this point in my life whether I learned of > devas by a study of the Buddha's Dhamma or in a Spiderman comic. Are > there or are there not beings within samsara which reside on different > planes of existence? My somewhere near initial point was that in a strong sense one cannot go beyond knowing what is experienced at a sense level. The world "out there" is not experienced, it is inferred. Beings in the world out there are likewise an inference. All that is known in the strong sense is colours, sounds, smells, tastes, feelings and mentations of various sorts. So I just want to reiterate that whether or not there are beings of different types in different planes is not knowable in a strong sense. But it is certainly possible to conceive of them. H: "A central aspect of practice is to come to know that knowing is > (just) a state of mind." > > How do you define "knowing?" Is it pa~n~na? This is cetasika. It > arises when conditioned and can "know" an object, as I understand it. > Is this pa~n~na a "state of mind?" It is nama. It arises and it > falls away. Seeing is knowing, hearing is knowing etc etc. Thinking is knowing too, with the object of that knowing being a mental object, certainly not an object "out there". The meanings attributed to objects beyond their known characteristic do not inhere in that object, they inhere in the thoughs about those objects. I have just been called out to a job, so I will reply to the rest later on today. Thanks for your time and consideration. "Deva" is concept. Let's say one appears to you. I mean standing > there like the guy at the convenience store where you buy a coffee. > (Now who's introducing ridiculous analogies, you say.) I read where > this sort of appearance happened frequently at points when the Buddha > was teaching or deciding whether to teach or not. Anyway, there's > this deva standing in front of you. Can you work with this analogy > and show the various sorts of "knowing" you wish to posit? > > I'm arguing that a deva has an existence beyond the level of object of > the mind, although that it can be of course. I'm arguing that one can > indeed conceptualise, imagine, fantasise, or whatever about "devas" > but that the fact that this sort of behaviour is possible does not > negate the "literal" existence of devas. A deva sitting in his deva > realm deciding that humans are only the mental fabrications of devas > with too much time on their hands does not negate "my" existence as > experienced now. > > What do you think? (Please see above in relation to the claim I make > about my fuzzy thinking.) > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > > > > > -- Kind Regards Herman There is ego, but not a self who has it. (Hofman H. 2005) 58992 From: "ericlonline" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 2:49pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 2 ericlonline Hi Jon, Jon> (OK, you've made it clear that you're not interested in hearing > anything more from the commentaries, so I'll restrict my comments to the text of the sutta itself.) Nice to see you getting closer to standing on your own two feet! :-) J> Your summary of the significance of the sutta is: > "When samadhi is, insight is. When samadhi is not, insight is not, > etc. This/that conditionality is the basis of Dependent Origination and the Buddhist path!" > and you take samadhi here to mean jhana (only). J> As I said before, I don't disagree about the central part that DO > plays in the teachings. But what I question is that it can be > represented in the terms you suggest, namely, 'Whenever A is, B must be also. Whenever A is not, B also is not.' > > So lets have a look at the other factors mentioned in the sutta. If > you are right about the relationship between samadhi/jhana and > insight, the same relationship should hold for the other links, > since the same conditioning factor of 'upanisa' applies throughout, would this be right? Yes > > The factors are: > 1 Suffering (dukkha) > 2 Faith (saddha) > 3 Gladness (pamojja) > 4 Rapture (piti) > 5 Tranquillity (passaddhi) > 6 Happiness (sukha) > 7 Concentration (samadhi) > 8 Knowledge and vision of things as they really are > (yathabhutañanadassana) > 9 Revulsion (nibbida) > 10 Dispassion (viraga) > 11 Liberation (vimutti) > 12 Knowledge of destruction in regard to destruction (asavakkhaye ñana) J> Applying your formulation to the first sets of factors we would get: It is not my formulation it is the Buddha's, I am just applying it to each step. J> 1-2: 'When Suffering (dukkha) is, Faith (saddha) is. When Suffering > (dukkha) is not, Faith (saddha) is not' > 2-3: 'When Faith (saddha) is, Gladness (pamojja) is. When Faith > (saddha) is not, Gladness (pamojja) is not' > > I think it's obvious that this doesn't 'work'. Really?! When the woman who was suffering and the Buddha told her to find a mustard seed from a house who did not experience death, she would have gained faith in the Buddha without her suffering? Clearly you have to experience some sort of suffering for faith in the path to arise. Seems pretty straight forward to me. And once on the path with faith, naturally gladness will arise as you begin to see that there is a possibility that you can one day go beyond suffering. I am sure you have experienced this gladness stemming directly from your faith in the Dhamma, yes? And since the Buddhist path is a meditative one then surely you have applied yourself to bhavana and quite naturally internal states of rapture, tranquillity, happiness and concentration arose thru your right efforts. This has all been experienced, yes? And gaining control of your mind in concentration dropping all discursive thought with the cesssation of viccara and vitaka and with your mind unhindered, knowledge and vision has naturaly arisen, yes? Jon> Now let's take the factor immediately preceding samadhi, which is > pleasant feeling (sukha). > 6-7: 'When pleasant feeling is, samadhi/jhana is. When pleasant > feeling is not, samadhi/jhana is not'. > > Surely not! Without sukha there is no jhana. Yes Jon. Look at the factors accompanying the first jhana. You cannot enter if you are not happy. When the hindrances are gone and you are on the verge, trust me, it is a very happy moment! Years and years of practice and finally!! A sad and grumpy meditator does not enter jhana!! > The formulation you have adopted will only be appropriate where A is a necessary prerequisite for B and also A cannot exist without B. I think I addressed that fairly well above. J> In other words it is a far tighter relationship even than where A is a necessary prerequisite for B (this would be represented by the > second part of your formulation, Where A is not, B is not). > > Hence my suggestion that 'supporting condition/proximate cause' may mean something other than you take it to mean. > > Any comments? (I have 1 or 2 other thoughts, but may raise them in a separate post.) I gave you a bunch to mull over. My feeling is you will just gloss over them though. metta E 58993 From: "ericlonline" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 2:56pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 2 ericlonline Hi Phil, P> A nosy little chip in. J > (OK, you've made it clear that you're not interested in hearing > > anything more from the commentaries, so I'll restrict my comments to the text of the sutta itself.) P> I'd keep at it with the commentaries, whether Eric is interested > or not. DSG should be about the promotion of right understanding, in > my opinion, whether it is received or not. (Well, the friendliness > you show here is also important, of course...) The commentaries are > deeper in understanding than anything you, Eric or I or anyone else > here can say about the text of a sutta, surely. Sooner or later you are going to have to leave the nest and with all those books under your wings I am afraid you are not going to clear the first branch! :-) But seriously, I am sure you are getting good doses of commentaries elsewhere so please dont be too disheartened by Jon and I talking from our own (mis)understandings. metta E 58994 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 4:13pm Subject: Re: "Labelling" in satipatthaana ... Meditation Practices indriyabala Hi Charles D. (& Scott), I have a few comments for your post #58753 that was a reply to Scott's question. .............................. > > Scott: In the practise of satipatthaana, as I understand, one is to label that which one becomes aware of when it arises. I find this to be "heavy-handed" in practise. It gets in the way and feels totally contrived and unnatural. I do notice, though, that there is a quieter or more subtle "labelling" that I can experience if I don't speak loudly in my mind. I find that the "label" seems to arise more smoothly and sort of "hears itself" or "thinks itself" or something. I'd prefer to pay attention to this. It does seem to take some cultivation, that is, it seems to come when I don't try to label what arises in the way I think one is instructed to. . .............................. >Charles D. : >When I was on the same road, I uncovered that the practice can help you see(visualize) how the mind works; i.e., there is an object in the mind and/or a chain of events. One is usually triggered by the other, and it is the very process of labeling that is the driver. Understanding this is beginning of wisdom, and to get to this point you must already have a high level of concentration. Tep: Based on my meditation experience (mindfulness in the body postures, and mindfulness in breathing) I agree with Charles about the "high level of concentration" that supports understanding (but in the sense of sampajañña = 'clarity of consciousness' or clear comprehension). I found that "mental noting" (or labeling) just falls away when clear comprehension (of the object of sati) begins to work well. ................................. >Charles D. : >I learned that labels are also part of the value system we use to justify every thing from "existence" to why "the worm should be allowed to die, since it is a bird that is trying to eat it." Tep: Labeling reminds me of "perception"; for example, anicca-saññaa is also a meditation scheme that replaces the habit of seeing thing as permanent (an unconscious labelling due to ignorance) by the new perception that they are not. "There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — reflects thus: 'Form is inconstant, feeling is inconstant, perception is inconstant, fabrications are inconstant, consciousness is inconstant.' Thus he remains focused on inconstancy with regard to the five aggregates. This, Ananda, is called the perception of inconstancy." [AN X.60] ............................... >Charles D. : >Next, you begin to understand "things" and how your mind deals with them. From this, I begin to realize that all are just labels (i.e., no real inherent value, not a real justification for immoral acts). From this space, we can control/dictate the nature of your attachments. This is a practice in itself. Tep: That reminds me of another meditation practice to change "perception", e.g. through anatta-saññaa the meditator sees not-self. "There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — reflects thus: 'The eye is not-self, forms are not-self; the ear is not-self, sounds are not-self; the nose is not-self, aromas are not-self; the tongue is not-self, flavors are not-self; the body is not-self, tactile sensations are not-self; the intellect is not-self, ideas are not-self.' Thus he remains focused on not-selfness with regard to the six inner & outer sense media. This is called the perception of not-self." [AN X.60] Have I invited troubles for myself, or caused joys in you? Sincerely, Tep {:>) ========== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Linda DaCosta" wrote: > > Hi Scott, > > I remember going through the same stages (i.e., from conscious willful > labeling to observing the normal process of labeling). To me, what you are > doing is a good practice, but just remember that there are even more stages > after this. > (snipped) > > Charles > 58995 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 7, 2006 0:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 2 upasaka_howard Hi, Eric (and Jon) - In a message dated 5/7/06 5:50:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ericlonline@... writes: > > Hi Jon, > > Jon> (OK, you've made it clear that you're not interested in hearing > >anything more from the commentaries, so I'll restrict my comments > to the text of the sutta itself.) > > Nice to see you getting closer to > standing on your own two feet! :-) > > > J> Your summary of the significance of the sutta is: > >"When samadhi is, insight is. When samadhi is not, insight is not, > >etc. This/that conditionality is the basis of Dependent > Origination and the Buddhist path!" > >and you take samadhi here to mean jhana (only). > > > J> As I said before, I don't disagree about the central part that DO > >plays in the teachings. But what I question is that it can be > >represented in the terms you suggest, namely, 'Whenever A is, B > must be also. Whenever A is not, B also is not.' > > > >So lets have a look at the other factors mentioned in the sutta. > If > >you are right about the relationship between samadhi/jhana and > >insight, the same relationship should hold for the other links, > >since the same conditioning factor of 'upanisa' applies > throughout, would this be right? > > Yes > > > > >The factors are: > >1 Suffering (dukkha) > >2 Faith (saddha) > >3 Gladness (pamojja) > >4 Rapture (piti) > >5 Tranquillity (passaddhi) > >6 Happiness (sukha) > >7 Concentration (samadhi) > >8 Knowledge and vision of things as they really are > >(yathabhutañanadassana) > >9 Revulsion (nibbida) > >10 Dispassion (viraga) > >11 Liberation (vimutti) > >12 Knowledge of destruction in regard to destruction > (asavakkhaye ñana) > > > J> Applying your formulation to the first sets of factors we would > get: > > It is not my formulation it is the Buddha's, > I am just applying it to each step. > > J> 1-2: 'When Suffering (dukkha) is, Faith (saddha) is. When > Suffering > >(dukkha) is not, Faith (saddha) is not' > >2-3: 'When Faith (saddha) is, Gladness (pamojja) is. When Faith > >(saddha) is not, Gladness (pamojja) is not' > > > >I think it's obvious that this doesn't 'work'. > > Really?! When the woman who was suffering and > the Buddha told her to find a mustard seed from > a house who did not experience death, she would > have gained faith in the Buddha without her > suffering? Clearly you have to experience some > sort of suffering for faith in the path to > arise. Seems pretty straight forward to me. > > And once on the path with faith, naturally > gladness will arise as you begin to see that > there is a possibility that you can one day > go beyond suffering. I am sure you have > experienced this gladness stemming directly > from your faith in the Dhamma, yes? > > And since the Buddhist path is a meditative > one then surely you have applied yourself > to bhavana and quite naturally internal > states of rapture, tranquillity, happiness > and concentration arose thru your right > efforts. This has all been experienced, yes? > > And gaining control of your mind in concentration > dropping all discursive thought with the cesssation > of viccara and vitaka and with your mind unhindered, > knowledge and vision has naturaly arisen, yes? > > > Jon> Now let's take the factor immediately preceding samadhi, which > is > >pleasant feeling (sukha). > >6-7: 'When pleasant feeling is, samadhi/jhana is. When pleasant > >feeling is not, samadhi/jhana is not'. > > > >Surely not! > > Without sukha there is no jhana. Yes Jon. > Look at the factors accompanying the first > jhana. You cannot enter if you are not happy. > When the hindrances are gone and you are on > the verge, trust me, it is a very happy moment! > Years and years of practice and finally!! A sad > and grumpy meditator does not enter jhana!! > > >The formulation you have adopted will only be appropriate where A > is a necessary prerequisite for B and also A cannot exist without > B. > > I think I addressed that fairly well above. > > > J> In other words it is a far tighter relationship even than where A > is a necessary prerequisite for B (this would be represented by the > >second part of your formulation, Where A is not, B is not). > > > >Hence my suggestion that 'supporting condition/proximate cause' > may mean something other than you take it to mean. > > > >Any comments? (I have 1 or 2 other thoughts, but may raise them > in a separate post.) > > I gave you a bunch to mull over. My feeling > is you will just gloss over them though. > > metta > > E > =========================== I'd like to add my two cents on this. As I see it, all of these D.O. formulations involve pointing out that some A is a requisite condition for some B. As I understand that, it means that A is one of several (if not many) conditions the occurrence of *all* of which guarantees the occurrence of B, and, moreover, A is requisite/necessary/indispensable for B. So, for example, samadhi is one of several conditions which, together, will result in the arising of insight. The concentration is indispensable, but it is insufficient, being but one condition out of several required. BTW, a proof that conditioning is not single-factor conditioning can be obtained by looking at a variety of suttas. In one place we will see with condition C there is B, without C not B. In another place we'll see with C2 there is B, without C2 not B. In yet another place a third condition, C3 would be given as requisite for B. 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) 58996 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 4:49pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Samatha and vipassana 2 indriyabala Hi Eric and Jon - Your dialogue is very interesting! Jon, isn't it true that Eric is sounding more and more like me? > Jon> (OK, you've made it clear that you're not interested in hearing > > anything more from the commentaries, so I'll restrict my comments > to the text of the sutta itself.) > E: > Nice to see you getting closer to > standing on your own two feet! :-) But while Jon is still adjusting to the new situation, even with his own two feet he might still slip. Warm regards, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ericlonline" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > (snipped) > 58997 From: "indriyabala" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 5:05pm Subject: Re: Samatha and vipassana 2 indriyabala Hi Phil & Eric, Phil, your strong insistence on the use of the commentaries, no matter what, is quite understandable. So it seems that you need more time to become independent. > >Ph: The commentaries are deeper in understanding than anything > >you, Eric or I or anyone else > > here can say about the text of a sutta, surely. > >Eric: > Sooner or later you are going to have to > leave the nest and with all those books > under your wings I am afraid you are not > going to clear the first branch! :-) Tep: You are reminding me of those old warplanes that carry lots of amunition under their wings. But they fly so slowly. Warm regards, Tep ======= --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ericlonline" wrote: > > Hi Phil, > > P> A nosy little chip in. > > J > (OK, you've made it clear that you're not interested in hearing > > > anything more from the commentaries, so I'll restrict my comments > to the text of the sutta itself.) > > P> I'd keep at it with the commentaries, whether Eric is interested > > or not. DSG should be about the promotion of right understanding, in > > my opinion, whether it is received or not. (Well, the friendliness > > you show here is also important, of course...) (snipped) > > But seriously, I am sure you are getting > good doses of commentaries elsewhere so please > dont be too disheartened by Jon and I talking > from our own (mis)understandings. > > metta > > E > 58998 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun May 7, 2006 5:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Commentaries online? lbidd2 Hi Phil, The only complete word commentary online that I know of is the commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, translated by Soma Thera, on ATI. My impression is there is a good reason these commentaries are not translated. Many (not all) commentaries probably make for very poor reading and offer questionable interpretations. B. Bodhi takes exception to commentarial interpretations in quite a few instances. I think we can learn from commentaries just as we can learn from anything, separating the wheat from the chaff. Bottom line, it comes down to our own judgement. We are the ultimate commentators even if we decide to accept every ancient commentary. Larry 58999 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sun May 7, 2006 6:02pm Subject: [dsg] Re: a "happy" proposition ken_aitch Hi Dan, If I understand correctly, you have been saying that some of the great non-Buddhist teachers had a degree of direct right understanding (of conditionality). You explain the apparent inconsistencies in their beliefs (creator gods, eternal rewards and so on) as being mere conceptualisations of their right understanding. I think you say that the apparent wrongness of their beliefs is inconsequential - relying on the fact that concepts are neither inherently right nor inherently wrong. What are the ramifications of your theory? I don't know whether to argue against it or to let it go. :-) I should have another look at your conversations with Sarah (which I couldn't follow at the time) because I might be asking you to repeat explanations you have already given at length. Instead, however, I will press on: ------------------ . . . KH: > > I don't think there can be partial right view, (or, as you suggested, "partially understood conditionality"). > > D: > I would say that any understanding short of full penetration of the 4NT at the level of arahatta magga is "partial". ------------------ True, there are many levels of samma-ditthi, but that is not what I meant. I meant there was no cetasika that was part samma-ditthi and part miccha-ditthi. I also meant that there can be no direct understanding of conditionality at any level whatsoever unless there is right intellectual understanding of conditionality in depth. You, of course, would agree with the former, but aparently not with the latter. I don't know where you go from there. Do you say that Jesus (for example) had right view at some moments alternating with wrong view at other moments? Or do you say he had right view at some moments and mere conceptualisations at others? I would have no argument with either opinion, except that I find it hard to imagine how a person could have blatantly wrong view alternating with any degree of right view. This might explain why you have been talking to Sarah about right and wrong understanding of concepts. I think you have been claiming there are no such realities (that a view cannot take a concept as its object) and therefore that any attitude we might have towards the concept of an almighty creator (shock, horror!) is of no ultimate consequence. Moving on: -------------- <. . .> D: > LOL!! I've been rightly accused of many sins, but an accusation of me being a party man is laughable. -------------- There are worse sins! :-) ---------------------- KH: > > The present moment is all there is - the all. When we don't understand that, we tend to study or meditate with the idea of creating something other than the all. > > D: > Agreed. KH: > > Even so, it is perfectly possible to study Dhamma for reasons other than wanting to create something other than the all. However, I couldn't say the same for formal practice. > > D: > When conditions are ripe, a bhikkhu or lay following may find himself or herself at the foot of a tree, eyes closed, sharp focus, etc. Or one may find himself or herself seeking out refuge in a monastery or meditation center, with samma intention and effort driving the action. No need to doubt it. > --------------- Agreed. But at such moments sitting meditation cannot be called formal practice. I assume you agree, but we should be clear on this. Many long-term DSG members continue to equate jhana development with formal practice, WHICH IT MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT! :-) Ken H